8688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and appeals, revisions or other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto for a period of three years form the

date of appointment or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/26/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

Lkapkj ea=ky;

¼Mkd foHkkx

Mkd foHkkx

Mkd foHkkx½

¼ihchvkbZ izHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vDrwcj] 2017

dk-vk

vkvk

vk- 2565

2565

2565-—eaf=e.My dh fu;qfDr laca/kh lfefr] dkfeZd ,oa izf'k{k.k foHkkx ds i= la- 24@8@2016@& bZvks

(,lhlh) fnukad 09-10-2017 vkSj vkjchvkbZ ds i= la- Mhchvkj ,ihihVh la- 4092@29-92-006@2017&18 fnukad

27-10-2017 ds vuqlj.k eas rFkk cSfdax fofu;ked vf/kfu;e] 1949 dh /kkjk 35[k ds vuqlkj] dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk Jh lqjs'k

lsBh (tUe frfFk 30-03-1965) iwoZ iazca/k funs’kd] oksMkQksu ,e&iSlk fyfeVsM dks osrueku 2]05]400&2]24]400@& #- (Lrj

16) esa bafM;k iksLV isesaV~l caSd (vkbZihihch) ds izaca/k funs’kd ,oa eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh ds :i esa] in dk dk;ZHkkj

xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 3 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns’k gksus rd] tks Hkh igys gks] ds fy, fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 1&8@2016 & ihchvkbZ ([k.M&II) ]

e/kqferk nkl] mi&egkfuns’kd (ihchvkbZ)

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Posts)

(PBI DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 23rd October, 2017

S.O. 2565.—In pursuance to Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC), DoPT letter number 24/8/ 2016-EO

(ACC) dated 09.10.2017 and RBI’s letter No. DBR.Appt No. 4092/29.92.006/2017-18 dated 27.10.2017and in

accordance with Section 35B of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri

Suresh Sethi (DoB 30.03.1965), former Managing Director, Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. as Managing Director and Chief

Executive Officer (MD&CEO) of India Post Payments Bank (IPPB) in the scale of pay of Rs. 2,05,400 – Rs. 2,24,400/-

(Level 16), for a period of 3 years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 1-8/2016-PBI (Vol-II)]

MADHUMITA DAS, Dy. Director General (PBI)

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;

नई दली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2566

2566

2566.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr mDr vfèkfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkkjk 3 dh mièkkjk ¼1½ ds vèkhu

tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vfèklwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1225 ¼v½ rkjh[k 18 viSzy]

2017 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= rkjh[k 21 tqykbZ] 2017 esa izdkf’kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml vfèklwpuk esa layXu vuqlwph esa

fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª jkT; esa mj.k&pkd.k&f’kØkiwj rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, fganqLrku isVªksfy;e

dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh

Fkh(

vkSj mDr jkti= dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 30@05@2017 dks miyCèk djk nh xbZ Fkh(

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8689

vkSj l{ke izkfèkdkjh us] mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 6 dh mièkkjk ¼1½ ds vèkhu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh

gS(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i’pkr~ vkSj ;g lekèkku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe

ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofuf’p; fd;k gS(

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 6 dh mièkkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g

?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V mDr Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 6 dh mièkkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g funs’k

nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vfèkdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk’ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh ctk,]

lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

uqlwph

ftYkk & jk;xM

jkT; & egkjk"VÈ

rglhy dk

uke

xzke dk uke

l-ua@x-ua-

fgLlk-ua-

{ks=Qy

gsDVj

vkj

oxZ ehVj

iuosy

djkMs [kqnZ

lkjlbZ

dkyhoyh

[फा. सं. आर-31015/2/2011-ओआर-II]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2566.—Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas vide S.O. No. 1225 (E) dated the 18^th April, 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 Gazette of India dated the 21^st April, 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 for the transportation of petroleum products from Uran to Chakan –Shikrapur LPG Pipeline Project in the State

of Maharashtra by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 30/05/2017.

And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted his

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 the 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 said lands specified in the Schedule 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 the publication of this declaration, in M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited, free from all encumbrances.

8690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

District - Raigad

State - Maharashtra

Name of

Tehsil

Name of Village

Survey /Gat No.

Sub-

Division No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

Panvel

Karade Khurd

Sarsai

Kalivali

[F. No. R-31015/2/2011-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 25 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2567

2567

2567.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i’pkr~ mDr vfèkfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkkjk 3 dh mièkkjk ¼1½ ds vèkhu

tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vfèklwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 2360 ¼v½ rkjh[k 24

tqykbZ] 2017 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= rkjh[k 27 tqykbZ] 2017 esa izdkf’kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml vfèklwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa

fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª jkT; esa mj.k&pkd.k&f’kØkiwj rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, fganqLrku isVªksfy;e

dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh

Fkh(

vkSj mDr jkti= dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 12@08@2017 dks miyCèk djk nh xbZ Fkh(

vkSj l{ke izkfèkdkjh us] mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 6 dh mièkkjk ¼1½ ds vèkhu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh

gS(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i’pkr~ vkSj ;g lekèkku gks tkus ij fd mDr Hkwfe

ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofuf’p; fd;k gS(

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 6 dh mièkkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g

?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V mDr Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vfèkdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 6 dh mièkkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznRr ’kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g funs’k

nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vfèkdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk’ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh ctk,]

lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

qlwph

ftYkk & jk;xM

jkT; & egkjk"VÈ

rglhy dk

uke

xzke dk uke

l-ua@x-ua-

fgLlk-ua-

{ks=QG

gsDVj

vkj

oxZ ehVj

dtZr

xkSGokMh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8691

100

[फा. सं. आर-31015/2/2011-ओआर-II]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2017

S.O. 2567.—Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas vide S.O. No. 2360 (E) dated the 24^th July, 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 Gazette of India dated the 27^th July, 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 for the transportation of petroleum products from Uran to Chakan –Shikrapur LPG Pipeline Project in the State

of Maharashtra by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 12/08/2017.

And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted his

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 the 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 said lands specified in the Schedule 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 the publication of this declaration, in M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District - Raigad

State - Maharashtra

Name of

Tehsil

Name of Village

Survey /Gat

No.

Sub-Division

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

Karjat

Gaulwadi

100

8692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

100

[F. No. R-31015/2/2011-OR-II]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 30 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2568

2568

2568.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd if’pe caxky jkT; esa

ikjknhi¼mM+hlk½ ls nqxkZiqj ¼if’pe caxky½ rd ok;k gfYn;k ,yihth ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM ds

}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 vkSj 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(

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

vlk/kkj.k 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 ,- ds- ljdkj] MCY;w- ch- lh- ,l- ¼iz’kklfud½

lsokfuo`Ùk l{ke izkf/kdkjh] ikjknhi & gfYn;k & nqxkZiqj ,yihth ikbiykbu ,oe~ ikjknhi & gfYn;k & cjkSuh ikbiykbu

vkWxesaVs’ku ;kstuk] Mkd?kj nqbZY;k] vkUnqy&ekSjh] ekSjhxzke gkoM+k&711 302 ¼if’pe caxky½ dks fyf[kr #i esa vk{ksi Hkst

ldsxk A

vuqlwph

[फा. सं. आर-25011/51/2017-ओआर-I]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2017

S.O. 2568.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline

should be laid in State of West Bengal 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;

iqfyl LVs'ku % mywcsfM+;k&I ftyk % gkoM+k jkT; % if'pe caxky

Øe

la-

ekStk dk uke

[kljk la-

¼vkj-,l½

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

dkyhuxj &111

817

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8693

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on

which copies of the Extraordinary 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 A.

K. Sarkar, W.B.C.S (Exe.)Retd.Competent Authority Paradip – Haldia – Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of

Paradip – Haldia – Barauni Pipeline Project, P.O,Duillya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah, 711-302 (West

Bengal).

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-25011/51/2017-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 30 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2569

2569

2569.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd if’pe caxky jkT; esa

ikjknhi¼mM+hlk½ ls nqxkZiqj ¼if’pe caxky½ rd ok;k gfYn;k ,yihth ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM ds

}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 eas tks

bl ls mikc} vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj 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(

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

vlk/kkj.k 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 fo’oukFk lek>nkj] MCY;w- ch- lh- ,l-

¼iz’kklfud½ lsokfuo`Ùk l{ke izkf/kdkjh] ikjknhi & gfYn;k & nqxkZiqj ,yihth ikbiykbu ,oe~ ikjknhi & gfYn;k & cjkSuh

ikbiykbu vkWxesaVs’ku ;kstuk] Mkd?kj nqbZY;k] vkUnqy&ekSjh] ekSjhxzke gkoM+k&711 302 ¼if’pe caxky½ dks fyf[kr #i esa

vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

P S: Uluberia - I District : Howrah State : West Bengal

Sl.

No.

Name of the Mouza

Khasra No.

(R.S)

Area

Hectare

Are

Square meter

Kalinagar-111

817

iqfyl LVs'ku % iksyck ftyk % gwxyh jkT; % if'pe caxky

Øe

la-

ekStk dk uke

[kljk la-

¼vkj-,l½

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

lkjkaiqj & 111

985

988

990

992

991@1054

8694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. आर-25011/50/2017-ओआर-I]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2017

S.O. 2569.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline

should be laid in State of West Bengal 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 Extraordinary 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

Biswanath Samajder, W.B.C.S (Exe.)Retd.Competent Authority Paradip – Haldia –Durgapur LPG Pipeline &

Augmentation of Paradip – Haldia – Barauni Pipeline Project, P.O,Duillya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram,Howrah, 711-

302 (West Bengal).

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-25011/50/2017-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

feTtkZiqj & 104

P S: Polba District : Hooghly State : West Bengal

Sl. No.

Name of the Mouza

Khasra No.

(R.S)

Area

Hectare

Are

Square meter

Saranpur - 111

985

988

990

992

991/1054

Mirzapur - 104

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8695

नई दली, 30 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2570

2570

2570.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd if’pe caxky jkT; esa ikjknhi

¼mM+hlk½ ls nqxkZiqj ¼if’pe caxky½ rd ok;k gfYn;k ,yihth ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM ds }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 eas

tks bl ls mikc} vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj 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(

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

vlk/kkj.k 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 fo’oukFk lek>nkj] MCY;w- ch- lh- ,l-

¼iz’kklfud½ lsokfuo`Ùk l{ke izkf/kdkjh] ikjknhi & gfYn;k & nqxkZiqj ,yihth ikbiykbu ,oe~ ikjknhi & gfYn;k & cjkSuh

ikbiykbu vkWxesaVs’ku ;kstuk] Mkd?kj nqbZY;k] vkUnqy&ekSjh] ekSjhxzke gkoM+k&711 302 ¼if’pe caxky½ dks fyf[kr #i esa

vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

[फा. सं. आर-25011/50/2017-ओआर-I]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2017

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;

iqfyl LVs'ku % nkniqj ftyk % gwxyh jkT; % if'pe caxky

Øe

la-

ekStk dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

lkelkjk & 35

246

248

249

307

245

fejf[kyk & 20

1211

1212

1213

S.O. 2570.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline

should be laid in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

8696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on

which copies of the Extraordinary 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

Biswanath Samajder, W.B.C.S (Exe.)Retd.Competent Authority Paradip – Haldia –Durgapur LPG Pipeline &

Augmentation of Paradip – Haldia –Barauni Pipeline Project, P.O, Duillya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram,Howrah, 711-

302 (West Bengal).

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-25011/50/2017-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 30 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2571

2571

2571.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd if’pe caxky jkT; esa ikjknhi

¼mM+hlk½ ls nqxkZiqj ¼if’pe caxky½ rd ok;k gfYn;k ,yihth ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM ds }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 eas

tks bl ls mikc} vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj 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(

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

vlk/kkj.k 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 ,- ds- ljdkj] MCY;w- ch- lh- ,l- ¼iz’kklfud½

lsokfuo`Ùk l{ke izkf/kdkjh] ikjknhi & gfYn;k & nqxkZiqj ,yihth ikbiykbu ,oe~ ikjknhi & gfYn;k & cjkSuh ikbiykbu

vkWxesaVs’ku ;kstuk] Mkd?kj nqbZY;k] vkUnqy&ekSjh] ekSjhxzke gkoM+k&711 302 ¼if’pe caxky½ dks fyf[kr #i esa vk{ksi Hkst

ldsxk A

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;

P S: Dadpur District : Hooghly State : West Bengal

Sl. No.

Name of the Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square meter

Samsara - 35

246

248

249

307

245

Mirkhila - 20

1211

1212

1213

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8697

vuqlwph

[फा. सं. आर-25011/49/2017-ओआर-I]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2017

S.O. 2571.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline

should be laid in State of West Bengal 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 Extraordinary 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 A.

K. Sarkar, W.B.C.S (Exe.) Retd.Competent Authority Paradip – Haldia – Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of

Paradip – Haldia – Barauni Pipeline Project, P.O,Duillya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah, 711-302 (West

Bengal).

SCHEDULE

[F. No. R-25011/49/2017-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 30 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2572

2572

2572.—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- 916 ¼v½ rkjh[k 15 ekpZ

2017] tks Hkkjr ds vlk/kkj.k jkti= rkjh[k 21 ekpZ 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 inkFkZ 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 (

iqfyl LVs'ku % ikW'kdqM+k ftyk % iwoZ esfnuhiqj jkT; % if'pe caxky

Øe

la-

ekStk dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

uUnkgxktu &310

P S:Panskura-II District : Purba Medinipur State : West Bengal

Sl.

No.

Name of the Mouza

Khasra No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square meter

Nandaigajan-310

8698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkSj mDr vlk/kkj.k jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 13 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

rkyqdk %ek.klk ftyk %xka

rkyqdk %ek.klk ftyk %xka/k/k/k/khuxj jkT; % xqtjkr

huxj jkT; % xqtjkr

dazdazdazdaz-

lalalala-

xkWo dk uke

losZ @ Cyksd ua

losZ @ Cyksd ua-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ eh

oxZ eh-

pMkl.kk

166

0000

0202

90909090

iqa/kjk

855@2@1

0000

2828

42424242

855@2@2

859@3

0000

3232

39393939

833@c

0000

0404

72727272

832@iSdh1@iSdh1

0000

1717

26262626

832@iSdh1@iSdh2

832@iSdh1@iSdh3

831@1

0000

0606

60606060

734@1

0000

1010

02020202

734@1@2@iSdh1

734@1@2@iSdh2

734@2

733@1iSdh

0000

0101

40404040

733@2

679@2

0000

2020

20202020

679@3

676@2

0000

1111

27272727

675@1

0000

0404

63636363

675@2

675@3iSdh

675@4

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8699

674@1

0000

2222

49494949

674@2

666@1@2

0000

1212

24242424

634@1@2

0000

2424

00000000

634@1@iSdh1

634@1@iSdh3

619@1

0000

0101

76767676

619@3

619

619@4

619@5

619@6

567@2

0000

1818

69696969

568@1

0000

2727

83838383

568@2@3

568@2@iSdh1

572@iSdh1

0000

1616

11111111

481@1

0000

0707

09090909

481@2

481@3@iSdh1

481@3@iSdh2

478@1

0000

1313

71717171

476@1@iSdh1

0000

0404

59595959

476@2@iSdh2

475@1

0000

2525

63636363

jaxiqj

502@2

0000

57575757

497@2iSdh1

0000

1212

77777777

445@3

0000

2020

22222222

498@1

0000

0707

48484848

498@2iSdh

498@3

ojl¨Mk

615@1

0000

2020

35353535

615@2

659@1

0000

40404040

650@3

0000

2626

45454545

693

0000

0505

48484848

693@iSdh1

8700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

733@1iSdh

0000

0303

56565656

733@1@iSdh1

rkyqdk % ngsxke ftyk % xkaËkhUkxj jkT; % xqtjkr

ËkkjhLk.kk

270@6

0000

3939

76767676

[kkuiqj

763

0000

0303

32323232

762

0000

40404040

yhg¨Mk

358@1

0000

1313

18181818

368@2

0000

1313

76767676

368@3

369@4

0000

2222

88888888

457@1

0000

0909

53535353

458@1

0000

0606

55555555

458@2

453@1

0000

0909

99999999

453@2

1162@1

0000

1313

75757575

1162@2

1147@2

0000

0606

52525252

f'k;kokMk

113@2

0000

1515

34343434

112@1c

0000

1313

89898989

108@1

0000

0101

46464646

98@3

0000

2222

68686868

151@1

0000

0202

11111111

282@1

0000

1818

46464646

283@1

0000

0505

62626262

563@2

0000

47474747

480@2

0000

1212

47474747

482@1$2$3$4

0000

3030

98989898

482@9

476@2

0000

1313

87878787

666@2

0000

0909

12121212

666@3

663@1$2

0000

40404040

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8701

630@3

0000

2020

13131313

629@1

0000

1414

60606060

629@2

629@3

629@4

ckjM¨yh ckjh;k

546

0000

0101

54545454

509

0000

70707070

511

0000

42424242

[फा. सं. आर-31015/10/2016-ओआर-II/43885]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2017

S.O. 2572.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S. O. No. 916 (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 , 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 Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 13 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 : MANASA DISTRICT : GANDHINAGAR STATE : GUJARAT

Sl.

No.

Name of the Village

Survey / Block No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

CHADASANA

166

8702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PUNDHARA

855/2/1

855/2/2

859/3

833/B

832/P1/P1

832/P1/P2

832/P1/P3

831/1

734/1

734/1/2/P1

734/1/2/P2

734/2

733/1P

733/2

679/2

679/3

676/2

675/1

675/2

675/3P

675/4

674/1

674/2

666/1/2

634/1/2

634/1/P1

634/1/P3

619/1

619/3

619/4

619/5

619/6

567/2

568/1

568/2/3

568/2/P1

572/P1

481/1

481/2

481/3/P1

481/3/P2

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8703

478/1

476/1/P1

476/2/P2

475/1

RANGPUR

502/2

497/2P1

445/3

498/1

498/2P

498/3

VARSODA

615/1

615/2

659/1

650/3

693

693/P1

733/1P

733/1/P1

TALUKA : DEHGAM DISTRICT : GANDHINAGR STATE : GUJARAT

DHARISANA

270/6

KHANPUR

763

762

LIHODA

358/1

368/2

368/3

369/4

457/1

458/1

458/2

453/1

453/2

1162/1

1162/2

1147/2

8704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SHIYAVADA

113/2

112/1C

108/1

98/3

151/1

282/1

283/1

563/2

480/2

482/1+2+3+4

482/9

476/2

666/2

666/3

663/1+2

630/3

629/1

629/2

629/3

629/4

BARDOLI (BARIYA)

546

509

511

[F. No. R-31015/10/2016-OR-II/43885]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 30 अ तूबर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2573

2573

2573.—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- 910 ¼v½ rkjh[k 15 ekpZ

2017] tks Hkkjr ds vlk/kkj.k jkti= rkjh[k 21 ekpZ 2017 vkSj l la'kks/ku la[;k dk- vk- 2684¼v½ rkjh[k 11 vxLr

2017] tks Hkkjr ds vlk/kkj.k jkti= rkjh[k 18 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 13 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, (

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8705

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

rkyqdk % izkafrt ftyk % lkcjdkaBk jkT; % xqtjkr

daz-

la-

xkWo dk uke

losZ @ Cyksd ua-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ eh-

lhrokMk

670@iSdh2

rktiqj¼v¨j.k ½

321

[फा. सं. आर-31015/07/2016-ओआर-II/43687]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2017

S.O. 2573.— Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S. O. No. 910 (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. 2684(E) dated

11 August 2017, published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 18 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

13 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.

8706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

TALUKA : PRANTIJ DISTRICT : SABARKANTHA STATE : GUJARAT

Sl.

No.

Name of the Village

Survey / Block No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

SITWADA

670/P2

TAJPUR (ORAN)

321

[F. No. R-31015/07/2016-OR-II/43687]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 6 नव बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2574

2574

2574.—तेल उोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) क धारा (3) क उपधारा (3)(ख) "ारा #द$ क गई

शि तय& का #योग करते 'ए, के) *ीय सरकार एत+ारा ,ी राजीव बंसल अपर सिचव और िव$ीय सलाहकार, पे2ोिलयम और #ाकृितक

गैस मं4ालय को दनांक 24.07.2017 से 23.07.2019 अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उोग िवकास बोड@ के

सदA य के Bप मC िनयु त करती है।

[फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िवE त-I]

पेFरन देवी, िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2017

S.O. 2574.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(b) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajiv Bansal, Additional

Secretary and Financial Adviser, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas as a member of the Oil Industry Development

Board w.e.f. 24-07-2017 to 23-07-2019 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.-I]

PERIN DEVI, Director

नई दली, 6 नव बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2575

2575

2575.— तेल उोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) क उप-धारा (3)(क) "ारा #द$ शि तय& का

#योग करते 'ए, के) *ीय सरकार एत+ारा ,ी राजीव कपूर, सिचव, रसायन और पे2ोरसायन िवभाग को दनांक 23.06.2017 से

31.12.2018 अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उोग िवकास बोड@ के सदA य के Bप मC िनयु त करती है।

[फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िवE त-I]

पेFरन देवी, िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2017

S.O. 2575.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(a) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Secretary,

Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 23-06-2017 to

31-12-2018 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.-I]

PERIN DEVI, Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8707

नई दली, 6 नव बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2576

2576

2576.—तेल उोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) क धारा (3) क उपधारा (3)(ग) "ारा #द$

शि तय& का #योग करते 'ए, के) *ीय सरकार एत+ारा ,ी संजीव Iसह, अJ यK, आईओसीएल को दनांक 01.06.2017 से

31.05.2019 अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उोग िवकास बोड@ के सदA य के Bप मC िनयु त करती है।

[फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िवE त-I]

पेFरन देवी, िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2017

S.O. 2576.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(c) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sanjiv Singh, Chairman, IOCL

as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 01-06-2017 to 31-05-2019 or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.-I]

PERIN DEVI, Director

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 30 vDrwcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2577-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

pkbuk ,;jykbu 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] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 113@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-

09-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@02@2017&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2017

S.O. 2577.—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,

New Delhi (Ref. No. 113 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. China Airline and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 26.09.2017.

[No. L-20013/02/2017-IR (C-I)]

M. K. 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

DID No. : 113/12

Smt. Sonica Gupta Tyagi,

Through Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh,

B-40, Bulwared Road, Tis Hazari,

Delhi – 110054

…Workman

Versus

8708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s. China Airlines,

Through its Chairman,

WE1, Hsing-Hsiung,

18, Kanchanjunga Building,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi H. O.

New Delhi -110 001

Also At:

(a) No. 1, Hangzhan S. RD.

Dayuan Township,

Taoyuan Country 33758,

Taiwan, R.O.C.

(b) No. 131, Sec.3, Nanjing e. RD.,

Taipei City 104, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

The Management of,

M/s Sass Atlantic Private Limited,

Through Its President and CEO, 51,

Changi Business Park Central-2,

# 09-05, The Signature Singapore 486066

…Management

AWARD

This is a claim petition filed directly under Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) by

the claimant Smt. Sonia Gupta Tyagi with the averment that she joined the post of Cabin Crew Manager on 18.08.2008

for a period of three months. Letter of appointment in this regard dated 29.05.2008 issued by M/s China Airlines –

Management No. 1. After completion of probation period of three months claimant continued in the employment of

Management No. 1 as regular employee and was drawing salary of Rs.66,000/- p.m. The claimant was performing the

duty of preparation of roster dealing with the various mails received in the office and she was also marking attendance

of employees working in Management No. 1. The claimant never gave a chance to the management for any kind of

complaint.

It is the case of the claimant that she proceeding on maternity leave on account of pregnancy and also gave an

application for maternity leave as she will remain on leave from 01.12.2009 to 28.02.2010. During the period of leave

the management, all of a sudden, on 31.12.2009 sent a letter of termination to the claimant, as a result of which

claimant became upset and she is also not keeping good health. After recovery from illness, claimant made a request to

the management to reinstate her, but of no use. Thereafter, claimant served a notice upon management on 05.05.2010

requesting for re-instatement as her termination is illegal under the law. The matter was also taken by the claimant to

Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) on 27.07.2010. The claimant has filed documents pertaining to her

employment. However, due to non-conciliatory attitude of the management, the matter could not be reconciled.

The claimant has also alleged that no show cause notice was served upon her before her termination nor

management has served any charge sheet upon the claimant. The management has, thus, violated all norms and even

the juniors to her have been retained by the management. The claimant has alleged her termination to be totally illegal

and against the provisions of the law. She has claimed re-instatement with that charges.

The managements were served with notice and it is clear from the record that none appeared on behalf of M/s

SAS Atlantic Pvt. Ltd., management No. 2, who was served with speed post, as his clear order dated Nov. 21, 2013

passed by my Ld. Predecessor. Resultantly, management No.2 M/s SAS Atlantic Pvt. Ltd. was proceeded ex-parte on

21/11/2013. Earlier, Management No. 1 was also not appearing, however, management No. 1 filed an application for

setting aside order dated 21.11.2013, which was allowed by this Tribunal on January 24, 2014.

The Record of the case also shows that no issues were framed in the present case by my Ld. Predecessor in as

much as both the managements were earlier proceeded ex-parte.

It is clear from the written statement filed by Management No. 1 that the management has taken preliminary

objection that claim petition is not legally maintainable against management No. 1 as claimant was not employee of the

management No. 1 and she was the employee of management No. 2. The management has denied most of the material

averments on merits.

It is also alleged that management No. 1 hired the services of management No. 2 on contractual basis, and

management No. 2 has engaged the services of claimant. Thus, the claimant was never an employee of Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8709

No. 1. The letter of employment was issued by management No. 2. It is also denied that the management No.2 is

partner with Management No. 1. .

The claimant in order to prove her cause against the management examined herself as WW1 and tendered in

evidence, her affidavit WW1/a and also tendered documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11. The Management in order to

rebut the case of claimant examined Shri Rentala Kishan, Accounts Manager as MW1 affidavit whose Ex.MW1/A. He

has not tendered any documents in evidence.

I have heard Shri Rajesh Khanna, A/R for the claimant and Shri Vishal Gohri, A/R for the Management No. 1.

10.

It is clear from the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record that the claimant was appointed as

Cabin Crew Manager in China Airlines vide letter Ex.WW1/1. In this letter, there is mention of working hours, salary,

leave and termination of employment, etc. This letter also bears signature of Claimant Smt. Sonica Gupta Tyagi who

has accepted the terms and conditions contained in the above said letter. There is another letter Ex.WW1/2 which is the

letter of termination of the claimant and the same has been issued by Management No.2 that M/s SAS Atlantic Pvt. Ltd.

The claimant has also filed notice Ex.WW1/3.

11.

The management No. 2 has sent mail Ex.WW1/4 which in fact to the employees of the management, the

management has to clarify there is also another letter/mail Ex.WW1/5 to the management No. 2 of the claimant. Letter

Ex.WW1/6 infact rejoinder to the reply filed by claimant through her Advocate Shri Amit Shukla to reconsider the case

of termination of the claimant so as to reinstate her service. The reply to the above notice WW1/7 shows that

management has expressed helplessness to reconsider the case of her termination. Ex.WW1/7 is copy of the statement

of claim filed before ALC which contain all the material facts regarding employment & termination of the claimant.

There is a letter Ex.WW1/9 which the claimant has filed at the time of seeking maternity leave. Letter Ex.WW1/10

shows that one Shri Rahul Sharma was appointed as Cabin Crew Manager when claimant was on maternity leave.

12.

The management has not tendered any documents in evidence, though management has examined Shri Rentala

Kishan, Accounts Manager as MW1. He has admitted in his cross-examination that claimant was working in the

Airline through Management No. 2. He has also admitted that all documents pertaining to this case are in Tapai and

have not been filed before this Tribunal. He has not produced any record pertaining to salary of claimant.

13.

It is clear from the evidence adduced by the claimant that she was appointed as Cabin Crew Manager for China

Airlines, New Delhi through Management No. 2 as evident from letter Ex.WW1/1. This letter contains various

stipulations regarding the service condition of the claimant clause No. 6 of the above letter deals with medical benefits

to which the claimant is entitled and clause No. 7 deals with termination of the claimant. It is further clear from the

affidavit Ex.WW1/A that claimant had applied for medical leave i.e. maternity leave as is clear from letter Ex.WW1/9.

She has given in writing to the management that she would be proceeding on maternity leave from 01.12.2009 to

28.02.2010. During this period the management has appointed one Shri Rahul Sharma as Acting Cabin Crew Manager

as is evidence from letter Ex.WW1/10.

14.

The claimant has also approached the ALC as is clear from statement of claimant Ex.WW1/8 filed by her before

ALC. She has also served a legal notice prior to this upon the management as is clear from notice Ex.WW1/6.

15.

Admittedly no show cause notice was served upon claimant before terminating her service nor any charge sheet

or memo was issued to the claimant before ordering her termination.

16.

There are several judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court that provisions of Section-25-F are mandatory and non-

compliance of this provisions will render the action of management to be illegal or void under the law.

17.

In Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. AIR 2014 S.C. 263 it was held as under :

“No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of

Section 25F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman

one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lie of the notice.

Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in

excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25F (a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and

non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity.

This Court has used different expressions for describing the consequence of terminating a workman’s

service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F

of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal

semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment

without complying with the requirement of giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation

8710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer as nullity and the

employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was terminated.’’

18.

Now the vital question which arises for determination is as to whether the action of the management in the light

of the legal position discussed above in terminating the services of the claimant vide letter Ex.WW1/2 is legal and

justified? As discussed above claimant was admittedly maternity leave on account of her pregnancy and her absence

from duty, by no any stretch of reasoning can be termed to be unauthorized. The management no. 1 has taken a stand

that she was in the employment of management no. 2 but the fact of the matter is that she was doing the services of

Cabin Crew Manager for China Airlines – Management No. 1 which is clear from letter of her appointment. Thus the

supervisory control over her duty was that of management No.1 and not management No. 2. Moreover, the

management No. 2 is one of the principal employer. In such case it was also the duty of the principal employer to

ensure that no legal action is taken against the claimant who was directly under the supervision and control of

management No. 1.

19.

In the present case both the management has not filed the contract agreement which was entered between

management No. 1 and management No. 2 so as to ascertain the terms and conditions regarding control and working of

the claimant. Under section 7 of the Contract Labour Act 1970 principal employer is required to make an application

to the appropriate Government for registration of establishment under the said Act and if the application for registration

is complete in all respects, the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of

the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed.

20.

Similarly, under Section 12 of the said Act no Contractor to whom this Act applies, shall undertake or execute

any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a license has been obtained in this regard from

the appropriate Government such a license must contain conditions of service i.e. working hours, fixation of wages of

the contract labour/employees working under such contractor. In the case on hand, contractor has not appeared before

this court nor has filed any written statement to the claimant. The management No. 1 has also not taken care to

examine the said contractor or file the contract document so as to ascertain the conditions of the agreement. In such

circumstance this Tribunal his left with no choice except to draw adverse inference against the management. The

evidence adduce by the claimant remained unrebutted. As such, the Tribunal has to accept the evidence of claimant.

Since, management No. 1 is one of the principal employer for whom claimant was working as such management no. 1

cannot escape from liability under the law and is held vicariously liable.

21.

As a sequel to my aforesaid decision, termination of the claimant on 31.12.2009 vide letter Ex.WW1/2 by

management no. 2 is held to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Resultantly, claimant is liable to be

reinstated in services with full back wages as her termination is totally illegal and void under the law. Let this award be

sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : 10.08.2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vDrwcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2578-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks,uthlh

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@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 245@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2017 dks

çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@170@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st October, 2017

S.O. 2578.—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,

Ahmedabad (Ref. No. 245/2004) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 09.10.2017.

[No. L-30012/170/1998-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8711

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 06^th September, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 245/2004

The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd.,

WRBC, Makarpura Road,

Baroda (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 Yogen Pandya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/170/98-

IR(C-I) dated 21.01.1999 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 ONGC Labour Union for regularise the workman Shri Rajpal Ajit Singh in ONGC

Ltd., because he is under Employees Act of ONGC Ltd., is legal and justified? If yes, then what relief the

workman is entitled for?”

The reference dates back to 21.01.1999. The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on

17.02.1999 along with the application for interim relief and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 24 on

30.03.2005 along with reply to the interim relief. Since then the second party has been absent and has not been leading

evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities to him.On 25.01.2017, advocate Shri Yogen Pandya submitted the

vakalatpatra Ex. 50 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.

Therefore, the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, is disposed of with the

observation as under: “the demand of ONGC Labour Union for regularise the workman Shri Rajpal Ajit Singh in

ONGC Ltd., because he is under Employees Act of ONGC Ltd., is illegal and unjustified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2579-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iQMjy

cSad fy- 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] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 204@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-11-

2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@86@2015&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

8712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st November, 2017

S.O. 2579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 204/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Federal

Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.11.2017.

[No. L-12012/86/2015-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, 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. 204/2015

Shri Rahul Kumar S/o Shri Krishan,,

RZ-D-1/28, Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Additional Deputy General Manager,

Federal Bank Ltd.,

1/7 East Patel Nagar, near Metro Pillar No.177,

New Delhi

…Management

AWARD

Ministry of Labour vide letter No.L-12012/86/2015-IR(B-I) dated 10.09.2015 referred a dispute to this Tribunal

under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the

Act) whereby this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the necessary reference, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of management of Federal Bank Ltd. in granting appointment to fresh workmen juniors to

Shri Rahul Kumar on regular post of Bankman while shunting out the workman Shri Rahul Kumar is illegal

and/or unjustified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled?

Shri Rahul Kumar, claimant herein filed statement of claim, averring therein that he has been in employment at

Dwarka branch of the bank from 01.01.2008 to 20.09.2008, i.e. 01.01.2008 to 07.01.2008, 15.01.2008 to 21.01.2008,

01.02.2008 to 07.02.2008, 15.02.2008 to 19.02.2008, 01.03.2008 to 05.03.2008, 17.03.2008 to 20.03.2008, 16.04.2008

to 23.04.2008, 01.05.2008 to 07.05.2008, 23.05.2008 to 31.05.2008, 16.06.2008 to 21.06.2008, 01.07.2008 to

08.07.2008, 25.07.2008 to 30.07.2008, 01.08.2008 to 08.08.2008, 26.08.2008 to 30.08.2008 and from 16.09.2008 to

20.09.2008. The claimant worked diligently, honestly and laboriously and gave no chance of complaint to the

management.

It is the case of the claimant that vide letter dated 14.11.2012 that he was called for interview and cycling test

on 29.11.2012 for regular appointment on the post of bankman. The said appointment was only meant for persons

who had worked earlier as temporary bankmen and persons who had worked for longer period were supposed to be

selected. However, later on it was observed that the persons who have never worked earlier and workmen junior to the

claimant was given regular appointment and the claimant was not regularized in service despite fulfilling all

conditions/requirements, not having committed any misconduct and having performed his duties with utmost sincerity.

This action of the management is totally illegal and unjustified. The claimant is unemployed since the date of his

termination. A legal notice dated 11.06.2014 was served on the management, to which false allegations were made by

the management in its reply. Finally, prayer has been made for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and

continuity of service.

Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of non-existence of

industrial dispute, claim being vague and being barred on the ground of delay & laches etc. On merits, management

has admitted the factum of engagement of the claimant as temporary hand at Dwarka branch for short stints due to

exigency of work, though the period of engagement stated in his statement of claim is incorrect. The management had

conducted regular recruitment process in which the claimant also participated. However, since the claimant was not

found fit, he was not selected. Further, the selection process was open to all persons who satisfied the eligibility

criteria as to age and educational qualification and not for those who worked earlier only. Finally, it has been prayed

that the claim be rejected.

Rejoinder to the statement of defence of the management was filed by the claimant, in which he has denied the

material averments contained therein.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8713

On pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.09.2016:

(i)

Whether there does not exist relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the

management bank, as alleged, and as such the reference is not legally tenable?

(ii)

In terms of reference

(iii)

Relief

Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the claimant. It was stated at the bar by Shri N.K. Mishra, learned

A/R for the claimant that Shri Rahul Kumar, the claimant herein, has withdrawn the case from him as he intends to

engage some other authorized representative in the case. has settled down in his native village and is no more

interested in pursuing the case. Thereafter as many as three opportunities were afforded to the claimant for his

evidence. However, neither the claimant nor any authorized representative put in appearance on his behalf. Thus, it is

apparent that the claimant is no more interested in pursuing his case.

In view of the above submissions made by the learned A/R for the claimant and the fact that neither the claimant

nor any authorized representative on his behalf has not put in his appearance, the Tribunal is left with no other

alternative but to pass a ‘No claim’ award. However, it is made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits,

as such, claimant is still at liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : 24^th October, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2580-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ lh

vkbZ lh vkbZ cSad fy- 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] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 139@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 01-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@07@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st November, 2017

S.O. 2580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 139/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank

Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.11.2017.

[No. L-12012/07/2017-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, 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. 139/2017

Shri Ashu Verma S/o Shri Rajendra Verma,

R/o House No.C-1, 245-A, Madhu Vihar,

Uttam Nagar,

Delhi 110 059

…Workman

Versus

M/s ICICI Bank Limited,

ICICI Bank Tower,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East,

Mumbai – 400 051

8714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s ICICI Bank Limited,

ICICI Tower, NBCC Place,

Bhism Pitamah Marg,

Pragati Vihar,

New Delhi – 110 003

…Managements

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-12012/07/2017-IR(B-1) dated 09.05.2017, referred an industrial dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of ICICI Bank Ltd., Dwarka, New Delhi in terminating the services of

the workman Shri Ashu Verma S/o Shri Rajendra Verma with effect from 29.08.2016 is justified and legal? If

not, then, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of

the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, the claimant union opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the claimant as well as the management. Neither the postal

article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in

the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served

upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, the claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim

statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the claimant is not interested in adjudication of the reference on

merits.

Since the claimant neither put in his appearance nor has he lead any evidence so as to prove his cause against the

management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no other alternative but to pass a ‘No dispute/claim’ award. An award is

accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : 9^th October, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2581-—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; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-11-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@93@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st November, 2017

S.O. 2581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.11.2017.

[No. L-41012/93/2004-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/10 of 2005

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

WESTERN RAILWAY

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8715

The Divisional Railway Manager (E)

Western Railway, Mumbai Division

Mumbai Central

Mumbai 400 008.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The President

Indian Railway Technical Staff Association

2, MahabirYadav Chawl

Nagardas Road

Andheri (E)

Mumbai 400 058.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER :

Ms. Jyoti U. Panwalkar, Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 21^stAugust, 2017

AWARD PART-II

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-41012/93/2004-IR (B-I), dated

21.10.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway Administration viz DRM, Western Railway,

Mumbai Division, Mumbai in dismissing the services of Shri Lalta Prasad is justified? If not, what relief

Shri Lalta Prasad is entitled to?”

After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second party

Union filed its statement of claim at Ex-9. According to them the workman Shri Lalta Prasad working as a Pointsman

under the Station Superintendent, Western Railway, Mumbai Central Mumbai. He had proceeded on 10 days

sanctioned leave from 8/7/1984 to 17/7/1994 and went to his native place. At his native place he fell ill and was

suffering from mental depression and was taking treatment from Doctor Aslam. As his condition was deteriorating, his

wife brought him back to Mumbai and admitted him in Jagjivan Ram Railway Hospital, Mumbai Central. From his

native place the workman had informed the office by telephone and had also written a letter to his office about his

illness. After coming to Mumbai again he had informed his office by telephone about his illness. On 26/9/1994 he had

also sent a registered letter and requested for extension of his leave till his recovery. He was under treatment upto

23/09/1996.

On 23/9/1996 he resumed his duties with fitness certificate. Since then he worked till the date of his removal

i.e. till 07/12/1997. The workman was served with a charge sheet dt. 18/11/1996 for the alleged misconduct that he

remained unauthorisedly absent from 18/7/1994 to 23/09/1996. He was also charged for not informing to the office the

reasons regarding his absence from 18/07/1994 to 23/09/1996 and did not get his leave sanctioned from competent

authority on proper medical ground and did not observe proper rule for obtaining leave. The inquiry was against the

principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Office did not explain to the workman the procedure of departmental inquiry

neither asked him to submit his explanation to the charge sheet. He was also not asked to bring defence representative.

He was not given the copy of leave record. The workman was not acquainted with English. The I.O. recorded the

proceeding in English and closed the inquiry. The I.O. did not give opportunity to submit his written brief. The

inquiry was not fair and proper. The findings of the I.O. are perverse. On the basis of report of the I.O., the

disciplinary authority of first party terminated the services of the workman. His appeal was also dismissed illegally.

The workman therefore raised industrial dispute before ALC. As conciliation failed on the report of ALC, the

Central Labour Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal. The workman therefore prays that the inquiry be

declared not fair and proper and findings of the I.O. be declared perverse. The order of first party terminating the

service of the workman be set aside and the workman be reinstated in service with full back wages.

The first party Management resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement at Ex-10. According to

them, the workman was working as Pointsman with the Railway Administration. The category of Pointsman is

declared as Safety Category Post as per the extent rules. A person appointed on the safety category post is imparted

with the field training related with the safety of the train operations. As such workman is required to work with the

8716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Station Master. Once a technical person is allotted or posted on a particular station, the said work cannot be assigned to

another untrained person and if the trained person is remaining absent the functioning of railway working would affect

tremendously. The workman despites working as Pointsman remained absent without following due procedure of leave

for a long period of 799 days from 08/07/1994 to 23/09/1996. He never bothered to see that he should be punctual in

his attendance. The workman was imposed penalty of removal from service after following the procedure under R.S.

(D & A) 1966 and his appeal as well as revision application have been dismissed by the Competent and Revisionary

Authority.

The workman had never given any application to the management for extension of leave. There was no

intimation about his sickness and workman failed to observe proper medical rules for taking leave on the ground of

sickness. Therefore workman was charge-sheeted and Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer has

explained the charges to the workman. He examined the witnesses of the management in presence of the workman.

Workman was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of management. Copies of all the papers relied

upon were supplied to the workman. Workman cross examined the witnesses of management. Opportunity was also

given to the workman to lead his evidence, oral and documentary and after hearing him and after following the

procedure, Inquiry Officer has submitted his report. Copy of the report was sent to the workman. After giving him

hearing, the disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of termination, which is quite just and proper. The

inquiry was fair and proper. The findings of the I.O. are based on the evidence on record and the punishment of

termination was proportionate to the proved misconduct. Therefore the first party prays that reference be dismissed

with cost.

The second party workman filed his rejoinder vide Ex-12. He denied all the allegations in the written statement

and reiterated the contents in his statement of claim.

As per Award Part – I, this tribunal has held that the enquiry is fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are not perverse. Therefore the issue that arises for consideration is as follows and my findings thereon are as

under:

Sr. no.

Issues

Findings

Is second party entitled for reinstatement and

back wages with continuity of service ?

What order?

As per final order.

REASONS

Issue no. 3 & 4:-

The question that arises is whether the punishment that has been imposed on the concerned workman is

proportionate or not ? In that respect the concerned workman has filed his affidavit at Ex.53. First party has filed

affidavit of Smt. Smita Mhasde at Ex.6. She is working as Assistant Personnel Officer at Mumbai Central.

It is explicit from the evidence of the concerned workman Shri Lalta Prasad that he was absent on duty for about

799 days. He admits in his cross examination that for 799 days he was absent from duty. He even admits that prior to

that also he had taken leave for more days and thereafter he was allowed to resume duty but then he remained absent

from duty for 799 days. It appears from his evidence that the reason for his absence from duty as is stated by him is his

sickness. He claims that he produced medical certificates in that respect but it is clear that there is no medical

certificates on record to show that he remained absent due to sickness for such a long period of 799 days. It is also

clear from the report of I.O. that no any documentary evidence is available regarding 2 years long sickness of the

concerned workman and therefore it appears that his revision application came to be disposed of with the findings that

the penalty imposed upon him is proportionate and that penalty is upheld. He appears to have filed mercy petition and

then he was informed that he was expected to file his mercy appeal to the President of India. Anyway the fact remains

that during the enquiry held against the concerned workman he failed to substantiate the reason of his sickness for his

absence from duty.

10.

Even then Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that as per section 11A, Labour Courts,

Tribunals and National Tribunals have power to give appropriate relief and to reduce the punishment imposed on him.

He seeks to rely on the decision in case of Central Bank, Lucknow V/S Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Indl. Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Kanpur & Ors. 2004 III CLR 549 to submit that even after recording the finding that domestic

enquiry was valid and proper and court can appreciate entire evidence for recording its own findings.

11.

In view of this even if the evidence of the concerned workman is to be appreciated then it can be said that as per

his glaring admission he was absent on duty for 799 days and there is no document to substantiate the reason that his

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8717

absence was due to his sickness. Admittedly he has not taken any leave even after he was allowed to resume his duty

and then he remained absent for 799 days. From this it can be seen that the concerned workman remained absent from

duty without any basis. He was working as Pointsman with Railway Administration. The category of Pointsman is

declared as safety category post as per the rules. A person appointed on safety category post imparted with the field

training related with the safety of training operations. As such the workman was required to work with Station Master.

Once a technical person is allotted or posted on a particular station, the said work cannot be assigned to another

untrained person and if trained person remains absent the functioning of railway working would effect. Considering

the work assigned to the concerned workman it can be said that his absence from duty would have affected the

functioning of the railway working.

12.

In view of that Learned Counsel for the management submitted that even if by introduction of section 11A in the

I.D. act certain amount of discretion is vested with Labour Court in interfering in the quantum of punishment awarded

by the management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The discretion which can be

exercised under section 11A of I.D. Act is available only to the existence of certain factors like punishment being

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscious of the court or existence of mitigating

circumstances which requires the rejection of sentence or the past conduct of workman which persuade the court to

reduce the punishment. In absence of such existing factors the Labour court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise

the power under section 11A of the act to reduce the punishment. In support of his submission of the Learned Counsel

for the management seeks to rely on the decision in case of Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. V/S. N.B. Narawade, Appeal

(Civil 1508 of 2003 SC).

13.

In the decision in case of Delhi Transport Corporation V/S. Jayprakash 2012 LLR 971, it is held that,

“In an industrial dispute is raised by the workman challenging his dismissal for his continuous and unauthorised

absence from duty, should not have been interfered by the labour course in exercise of its powers under section 11A of

I.D. Act since the charges were proved in the enquiry which was fair & proper and the order of dismissal is restored.”

14.

Considering the facts of the present case I find that the enquiry is held legal and proper and the findings of I.O.

are not perverse. The punishment of dismissal is awarded which cannot be said to be disproportionate since the

absence on duty for 799 days without any reasons or basis is a gross misconduct especially when the concerned

workman was working as Pointsman and in the category which is declared as safety category post. His absence on

duty affected the railway working and therefore his unauthorised absence from duty on his whims and on his own

problems is not as per the rules of service.

15.

Considering all these facts, I find that the punishment of dismissal as is imposed upon the concerned workman is

not disproportionate. He is not entitled for reinstatement and back wages with continuity of service etc. Issue No.3 is

therefore answered accordingly in the negative. I therefore pass the following order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 21/08/2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2582-—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- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 92@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-11-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@78@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 1st November, 2017

S.O. 2582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, 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 01.11.2017.

[No. L-12012/78/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

8718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/92 of 2014

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

STATE BANK OF INDIA

Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Admn Office, Sharda Chamber,

7^th Floor, 386/2, Shankarseth Road,

Pune – 411 037.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

Smt. Rekha Rajesh Jagtap,

S. No. 311, Bhavani Peth,

Kasewadi,

Pune – 411 042.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Shri M.G. Nadkarni, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. Umesh Vishwad, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 27^th July, 2017

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/78/2012 – IR (B-I) dated 16.01.2014. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pune in terminating the services

of Smt. Rekha Rajesh Jagtap w.e.f. 16.1.2012 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives. Second party workman filed statement of claim Ex.6. According to the concerned

workman, she was working with the first party bank since 2004 as a Sweeper. She has worked continuously from 2004

to 16.1.2012 with the first party bank. She was doing the work of cleaning and sweeping the premises of Zonal Office

Pune and the officers’ quarters of the first party bank under direct control and supervision of the first party bank. Her

work is regular and perennial. The first party bank was making payment to her. As such there is direct employer-

employee relationship between first party bank and second party workman.

According to the second party workman, a group of workmen raised the industrial dispute against the

management of first party bank, Mumbai for non-absorption of workmen engaged through contractors in services of the

first party bank. The agreement was arrived at and the contract workers were absorbed in the service of Central office

and Mumbai Main Branch of the first party bank. However, the first party bank has failed to absorb the contact

employees working in Pune and were discriminated in same situation. Therefore, the union namely Thekedar Kamgar

Sangh has made demand of absorption of second party workman and other workers. The said union has filed writ

petition bearing No. 6247 of 1998 before Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The said petition was disposed of in the year

2006 in view of law laid down in case of Steel Authority of India. Since 1998, the first party bank has stopped paying

wages to the second party workman through the contractor and has started direct payment to the second party

workman. There is no contractor since 1998 and the wages were directly paid by Pune Zonal office of the first party

bank. Even after disposal of the said writ petition the second party workman was in service and wages were paid to her

directly by the first party bank.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8719

It is contention of the second party workman that she was in continuous service and had put continuously 240

days and more continuous service in every completed year of the service. However, the first party bank has terminated

the services of the second party workman without following the procedure laid down in section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947.

Therefore the said termination is illegal, improper, arbitrary and unjust. It also amounts to unfair labour practices. The

second party workman is therefore asking to declare that the termination of her services by the first party bank is

illegal. She is also asking for re-instatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits from the

date of termination till actual date of re-instatement along with interest and cost.

First party bank has resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.7. According to the first party bank, the

bank had engaged the contractor named M/s. Golden Enterprises since June 1981 who was entrusted with the job of

house-keeping at the Zonal office, located at East Street, Gulmohar, Pune and also at the bank’s residential quarters

namely Madhuban Bank House and Ashirwad Bldg. at Nagar Road, Pune. The bank was making payment to the

contractor for the service rendered to the bank and the contractor was in turn effect the payment to the workers engaged

by him for carrying out the job given to him by the bank. The said contractor abandoned the contract in November

1998 and ran away. The bank terminated the contract with M/s. Golden Enterprises sometimes in 1999 – 2000.

However, with reference to the letter and sprit of the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 21.3.2006, the bank

continued to engage the contract labours for doing the house-keeping jobs at the bank premises. Bank used to give

money to Shri Selvam, the Supervisor against the production of the bills. Subsequently, there was inter-se dispute and

the contract labours requested bank to pay money directly to them. Accordingly, the arrangement was worked out

whereby Shri Selvam used to submit bills and bank credited the amount to the account of each contract labour.

It is also contention of the first party bank that on 10.9.2010 the bank published tender notice in local newspaper

for maintenance and house-keeping of the banks premises. The bank also suggested the contract labours to form a

society, partnership firm or a company for participating in the tender process. Contract labours did not pay heed to the

suggestion made by the bank. The tender process was completed on 16.12.2011 and the contract for maintenance and

house-keeping of the bank premises was awarded to contractor who had quoted the lowest rates. The new contractor

displayed the notice on the bank’s notice board stating that he was given contract for maintenance and house-keeping

of the banks premises and invited those who were interested to work with him to approach him. However, the

concerned workman and other workers did not avail this opportunity.

It is also contention of the first party bank that there is no employer-employee relationship between the bank and

concerned workman. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in question. Even as per order in writ

petition bearing No. 6247 of 1998 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the concerned workman did not approach the

competent authority to get the matter referred to tribunal for adjudication and as such dispute referred for adjudication

in the present reference has been raised belatedly. It is quite stale. The reference is not maintainable on that ground.

According to the first party bank, the concerned workman was engaged by the contractor named M/s. Golden

Enterprises. The bank was making payment to the said contractor who in turn was effecting the payment to the

workmen engaged by him and therefore the claim of concerned workman that she was engaged by the bank is not

maintainable. It is, thus, contention of the bank that it has not discriminated the contract employees working at Pune

and therefore the claim of the workman is completely untenable.

It is also contention of the first party bank that provisions of section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 are not applicable in

the factual matrix of the case since the service of the concerned workman automatically came to an end after new

contractor was engaged by the bank after duly following tender process.

10.

It is then contention of the first party bank that the settlement / agreement that might have been reached at

Mumbai has no relation whatsoever with the present dispute and the workman concerned cannot base her claim on the

basis of settlement entered into in a different case. On this premises, the first party bank has sought rejection of the

reference.

11.

Following issues are framed at Ex.8. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to

follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the reference is maintainable ?

Yes

Whether there exists employer-employer relationship between

the first party bank & concerned workman?

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India

in terminating the services of Smt. Rekha Rajesh Jagtap w.e.f.

16/01/2012 is legal and justified ?

Yes

8720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

If not, whether the concerned workman is entitled to be

reinstated in the services of first party with continuity of

service and all other consequential benefits ?

What Order ?

As per final

order

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

12.

The Learned Counsel for the first party bank submitted that admittedly the union namely Thekedar Kamgar

Sangh has made demand of absorption of second party workman and other workers. The said union has filed writ

petition bearing No. 6247 of 1998 before Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The main prayer of the petitioner was for

issuance of writ of mandamus to the bank for regularizing the services of the concerned workers in the banks service.

He submits that the said writ petition wad disposed of by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide

order dated 9.3.2006. In the said order the Hon’ble Bombay High Court made it clear that in view of law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Steel Authority of India & Ors. V/S. National Union Waterfront Workers &

Ors., the relief claimed in the petition cannot be granted and that only remedy available to the petitioner was to seek a

reference to the tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioners were given liberty to make necessary application to the

competent authority within two weeks from the date of order and the competent authority was directed to make

reference as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the receipt of application of

the petitioners. Submission is to the effect that the petitioners in the writ petition did not approach the competent

authority to get the matter referred to the tribunal for adjudication within time. The contact labours of M/s. Golden

Enterprises filed industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Pune through Zilla Mazdoor Sangh vide their

letter dated 23.12.2011. As such the dispute referred for adjudication in the present reference is belated i.e. after about

7 years from the date of order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. In view of this the submission is that the reference

is not maintainable.

13.

The Learned Counsel for the first party bank seeks to rely on the decision in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. V/S.

K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors. 2000 (II SCC 455) to submit that the power of the appropriate government to exercise its

powers under section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to

be no rational basis on which the Central Govt. has exercised the powers in this case after a lapse of about 7 years of

the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. As such the dispute is stale and could not be the subject matter of the

reference under section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

14.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Reserve Bank of India V/S. Gopinath Sharma & Anr. 2006 (6

SCC 221) to submit that delay of 4 years in raising the dispute even after re-employment of the most of the workmen

was held to be fatal.

15.

He then seeks to rely on the decision in case of State of Karnataka & Anr. V/S. Ravi Kumar 2009 III LLJ (206

SC) to submit that 14 years delay to challenge the termination was stale reference and the reference ought to have been

rejected on the ground alone.

16.

However, in view of the facts of the present case it is to be seen whether the second party workman and other

workers were diligent in raising the dispute before competent authority. We have document at Page 2 of list of

document dated 11.3.2016. It is a copy of the letter dated 31.5.2006 (Ex.15) addressed to the Dy. Commissioner of

Labour, Pune requesting him to intervene in the dispute and making reference within the time prescribed by the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court. That would show that Thekedar Kamgar Sangh has made an application for making the

reference within time prescribed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

17.

So far contention go, it is also a contention of the second party workman that even after the disposal of the said

writ petition second party workman was in service and the wages were paid by the first party bank to her directly. As

per her contention, the first party bank has terminated the services of the second party workman and as such the dispute

was raised by the second party workman for regularization of the services of the concerned workman. It is the

submission of the second party workman that the reference has not been arisen out of the demand of the union but the

said reference has arisen out of the demand of the individual workman. The demand is not for regularization but the

demand is for re-instatement of service. In view of these facts, it can be said that the individual workman has made the

demand for regularization of her service and the reference has arisen out of her demand. Even before that in 2006 it is

the union who has made application to the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Pune requesting him to intervene into the

dispute and make the reference within the time prescribed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The said letter dated

31.5.2006 is at Ex.15. Therefore it can be said that the union was diligent in making the reference but then

subsequently the demand is made by the individual workman for re-instatement and not for regularization. It cannot be

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8721

said therefore that the reference is belated or otherwise it is stale and not maintainable. This point is therefore

answered accordingly in negative.

Issue No. 2 & 3 :

18.

This is the main contentions issue. At the first brush I would observe that admittedly M/s. Golden Enterprises

was engaged by the bank as a contractor since 1981 for doing house-keeping at Pune Zonal office and bank’s quarters

at Pune. In her evidence also the second party workman has stated that she has joined the services in 1998. She then

admits that M/s. Golden Enterprises has abandoned the contract in November 1998 and the trade union namely

Thekedar Kamgar Sangh has filed writ petition bearing No. 6247 of 1998 on behalf of the contract workers in the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Admittedly, in the writ petition they have made averments categorically that they have

been employed by M/s. Golden Enterprises. In para 3(a) of statement of claim it is stated that they were on the muster

of M/s. Golden Enterprises. It is admitted that they were not under the disciplinary control of the bank. Even it is

admitted that they were not getting the facilities as available to the other bank employees. In view of above categorical

and clear admission, the second party workman involved in the present reference cannot take a contradictory and

inconsistent plea and cannot claim employer-employee relationship with the first party bank.

19.

Even then the Learned Counsel for the second party workman submitted that after termination of the contract in

between the first party bank and M/s. Golden Enterprises, second party workman was continued in service and the

workers were directly paid by the bank at the same daily wages rate which was paid by the contractor. Submission is to

the effect that the contract workers of M/s. Golden Enterprises were engaged by the State Bank of India and therefore

they cannot be treated as contract employees because the contract of the contractor M/s. Golden Enterprises with the

bank was cancelled and since cancellation of the contract they were continued to be in the service which would show

that first party bank was the principal employer.

20.

In this respect, if we see the evidence of the concerned workman, she admits that in the writ petition it was

categorically shown that the contract labours were employed by M/s. Golden Enterprises and they are working on

behalf of the M/s. Golden Enterprises in the premises of bank at Pune. Admittedly, in the statement of claim in para

3(a), she and other workers were shown on the muster of M/s. Golden Enterprises. It is admitted by her that before

1998 M/s. Golden Enterprises use to make payment to them. She even admits that she and other workers were not

under the disciplinary control of the bank. Admittedly they were not getting the facility as available to the other bank

employees. In view of this it can be said that the concerned workman being the employee of the contractor, the

ultimate supervision and control was of the contractor.

21.

In this respect the evidence has come on record that one Shri Selvam used to submit the bills in respect of work

of concerned workman and other workers and then the bank used to credit the amount in the account of each of the

contract labour. The question is whether the said arrangement which was worked out is sufficient to show and establish

the employer-employer relationship in between the concerned workman and the first party bank. When initially the

concerned workman was engaged by the contractor and after termination of the contract in between the said contractor

and the bank she has been continued with such arrangement in respect of payment of wages to her by the bank by

depositing her wages directly in her account after the production of bills by the said Shri Selvam, then that would not

be sufficient to say that first party bank being the principal employer was making payment of wages to the concerned

workman. Merely because the amount was credited to the workman/s account under circumstances narrated above

does not in any way alter the factual position that the concerned workman was a labour contractor and not an employee

of the bank.

22.

I say so because there is well defined procedure in the bank for recruitment and employment in the bank is done

by inserting advertisement, holding competitive test for the employment, selection procedure through merit etc. etc. No

such procedure was adopted at the time of engagement of the concerned workman as a Sweeper. The fact remains

therefore that she was a contract labour for doing the house-keeping job at the banks premises and therefore she

continued to be a contract labour even after the contract between said contractor and bank was terminated somewhere

in 1999-2000.

23.

The Learned Counsel for the first party bank submitted that the bank continued to engage contract labours for

doing the house-keeping jobs at the bank premises in view or order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 21.3.2006

whereby the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in view of petition by the petitioners took out a motion for clarification of

order passed on 9.3.2006 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and also protection till reference is made at the instance

of the petitioners to the tribunal for adjudication. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that they do not see any

protection granted by the court which was sought to be continued but then the Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed

that the contract labours employed by the bank should be continued subject to the requirements and by following

statutory obligations including payment of wages etc. and they need not be dis-continued only because the petition has

been disposed of. That would show that in view of this order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court the concerned

workman was continued in services as per the requirement and after cancellation of contract with first party bank and

8722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the contractor namely M/s. Golden Enterprises, the subsequent arrangement was made in respect of payment of wages

of the concerned employees who were engaged by the contractor and therefore the payment was made to them by

depositing the amount in their bank accounts on submission of the bills by one shri Selvam. That would again show

that the concerned workman was not considered to be the employee of the first party bank. All the while she was

continued to be contract labour even after the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court till her services automatically came

to an end.

24.

Even then the Learned Counsel for the second party workman submitted that the employees were the employees

of M/s. Golden Enterprises till that contract was not abandoned or cancelled. After cancellation of the contract in

1999-2000 M/s. Golden Enterprises ceased to be contractor and these employees were ceased to the employees of M/s.

Golden Enterprises. He submits that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has not directed to keep contract employees of M/s.

Golden Enterprises in service in orders passed on 19.1.1999 and 1.2.1999. Therefore the relation between the S.B.I.

and M/s. Golden Enterprises as principal employer and the contractor came to an end and after cancellation of the

contract in 1999-2000 the services of the employees employed by M/s. Golden Enterprises for performing the job of

cleaning, sweeping, house-keeping of S.B.I. premises automatically came to an end. These employees were ineligible

to work with S.B.I. as contract workers of M/s. Golden Enterprises. So after termination of contract of M/s. Golden

Enterprises and S.B.I., by oral orders by S.B.I. the employees were appointed to carry out the house-keeping, cleaning,

sweeping work and then since that date till the date of termination the concerned workman were employed

continuously by S.B.I. They worked for 10 – 12 years continuously on the basis of said oral order of S.B.I. and

therefore there exists employer-employee relationship in between bank and concerned employees.

25.

This submission is other way round and is not acceptable. A definite stand was taken by the concerned

employees in the WP No. 6247/1998 that they are employees employed by M/s. Golden Enterprises which has been

given a contract of house-keeping of S.B.I., Pune, Regional Office Pune has been employing several workers for

carrying out the same work. It would thus not lie in their mouth to take contradictory and inconsistent plea that they

are the workmen of the principal employer i.e. bank. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law.

Such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised. Common law principle of estoppel waiver and

acquaintance are applicable in the industrial adjudication. In the context the hand can be laid on decision in case of

Steel Authority of India V/S. Union of India 2006 (12 SC 243) wherein in para 28 of the judgment it has been observed

that such inconsistent plea is not permissible.

26.

On going through the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said WP No. 6247/1998 it has been observed

as follows:

“We have gone through the orders passed by this court on 19.1.1999 and 1.2.1999 and we do not see any

protection granted by this court and as sought to be continued. Undoubtedly the contract labours employed by

Respondent bank shall be continued subject to the requirement and by following the statutory obligations

including the payment of wages etc. and they need not be dis-continued only because this petition has been

disposed of.”

27.

In view of these observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court even after the termination of contract in between

M/s. Golden Enterprises and the bank the concerned workmen were continued and were paid wages by the bank by

depositing the wages in their respective bank accounts. That does not mean that the bank has orally appointed them as

its employees on regular basis even without following the statutory procedure.

28.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workman / union submitted that the bank was paying bonus to the concerned

employees. He refers to Ex.17 to submit that the bank was making payment through bankers’ cheque. Therefore the

submission is that as per Section 10 of Payment of Bonus Act, the employer is bound to pay the bonus. Section 2(14)

of Payment of Bonus Act defines employer and it says that in relation to any other establishment the person who or the

authority which was the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment and the managing agent is the employer.

He submits that as per section 21(4) the principal employer is not liable to pay bonus, gratuity as wages does not

include it. He is liable to pay only wages if the contractors fails to pay wages. Since S.B.I. has paid bonus to the

concerned employees it can be said that S.B.I. has engaged concerned workman directly and the bank is the employer

of the concerned workmen who are covered under the Payment of Bonus Act.

29.

This submission is also not acceptable since in the decision in case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. V/S. State of

West Bengal & Ors. 2011 (4 LLM 158), Calcutta, it has been observed in para 20 of the judgment that,

“There is no warrant for the proposition that in every case where the bonus is paid to an employee, the same is

an indicator of the employee being a regular employee. The company is an establishment in public sector. The

provisions of bonus act would apply to it only if it satisfies the conditions mentioned in sub section (1) of

section 20 thereof. If indeed the company was obliged to pay bonus to its regular employees and had in the

process shared its profits with the contract labours by paying the bonus in terms of bonus act, the very action

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8723

of extending benefits of the social welfare legislation to said labours would not change their status to regular

employees of the company.”

30.

Next submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman is that the contractor did not obtain necessary

licence. In this respect also it is necessary to refer the observations in para 20 of the citation cited supra. It has been

observed that if at all the contractor did not obtain the licence it would open to the authority concerned to take action

against it under section 23 of CLRA Act but for that the company cannot be penalized and the contract labours

employed by such erring contractor be thrust upon it. Non-obtaintion of licence without anything more would not

clothe the Respondent with any legal right to claim that they are the direct employees of the company and hence

entitled to continue in service despite the contract with KNYCEE not being renewed.

In view of this legal position it can be said that even if the contract between the bank and the contractor namely M/s.

Golden Enterprises was cancelled and could not be renewed that does not give right to the concerned employee / union

to claim that they are direct employees of the bank.

31.

Next submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman is that there is no documentary evidence to

show that Shri Selvam was the contractor after the contract of M/s. Golden Enterprises was abandoned. He submits

that before RLC the settlement of Minimum wages was reached between the bank and workman / union and the bank

has accepted to pay the minimum wages to the concerned workman. In view of that the submission is that after the

contract with M/s. Golden Enterprises was abandoned, it was the bank who paid the wages to the concerned employees

by depositing the wages in their bank account and thereby the bank has accepted it to be the employer of the concerned

workman.

32.

It is no doubt true that there is no documentary evidence to prove that Selvam was submitting the bills on the

basis of which the wages were deposited in the bank account of each workman. But then Selvam was one of the

worker along with other employees. Even the workman herself has admitted in her cross-examination that due to inter-

se dispute between the workers they requested the bank to make the direct payment and arrangement was worked out.

In view of that it can be said that some arrangement was worked out in respect of payment to these workmen after the

contract between the bank and M/s. Golden Enterprises was abandoned.

33.

In view of this, it is the submission of Learned Counsel for the bank that the workmen concerned were

continued to be engaged by K.P. Selvam as a contract labour after original contractor ran away and no wages were

directly paid to them by the bank. In view of admission of the concerned workman that the arrangement was worked

out after the inter-se dispute between the workers it can be very well said that the concerned workmen were paid wages

directly in their bank account by way of this arrangement which was worked out. Therefore that will not give them the

status of regular employees since initially they were engaged by the contractor and then there is no documentary

evidence to show that the concerned workman was appointed by the bank.

34.

It is then submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman that the concerned workman was doing

the work of sweeping and cleaning under the direction, control and supervision of first party bank. He refers to copies

of attendance register to submit that those registers are maintained by the bank and it bears the signatures of Waze,

Kulkarni and Bhosale who are the bank officers. In view of this it is submitted that the bank officers were having

control over the work carried out by the concerned employees.

35.

In his cross examination witness Sudhir Ramchandra has denied the suggestion to the effect that the bank was

having control over the work carried out by the concerned employees and that Mr. Jatar, Sudhir Pawar, Dube,

Karkhanis were supervising the work and were allotting the work to the concerned employees. Even if some anxious

consideration is given to this submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman then also it can be said that

merely because the contract labour work is under the supervisions of officers of principal employer it cannot be taken

as evidence of direct employment under the principal employer. In the decision in case of International Airport

Authority of India V/S. International Air Cargo Union and Anr. 2009 (13 SCC 374) it has been observed in para 54 of

the judgment that,

“Exercise of some control over the activities of the contract labour while they discharge their duties as labours

is inevitable and such exercise is not sufficient to hold that the contract labour will become the direct

employee of the principal employer.”

36.

In the light of above observations I hold that there does not exist employer-employee relationship between the

first party bank and second party workman. But then it is submission of the Learned Counsel for the concerned

workman that the concerned workman had worked for 240 days and continuously in every completed year of service

and her services came to be terminated without following the procedure laid down under section 25 of I.D. Act, 1947.

In this view the submission is that the said termination is illegal and improper.

8724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 11, 2017/KARTIKA 20, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

37.

This submission is also not acceptable since the fact remains that the concerned workman was engaged by the

contractor and after termination of the contract her services came to an end.

38.

For it is explicit from the evidence of Sudhir Jalanwar, the witness of the bank that on 10.11.2010 the bank

published tender notice in local newspapers for maintenance and house-keeping of bank premises. The bank also

suggested the contract labours to form a society, partnership firm or a company for participating in the tender process.

Contract labours did not pay heed to the suggestion made by the bank. The tender process was completed on

16.12.2011 and the contract for maintenance and house-keeping of the bank premises was awarded to contractor who

had quoted the lowest rates. The new contractor displayed the notice on the bank’s notice board stating that he was

given contract for maintenance and house-keeping of the banks premises and invited those who were interested to work

with him to approach him. However, the concerned workman and other workers did not avail this opportunity to work

under the new contractor. The fact remains therefore that after termination of earlier contract the services of the

concerned workman automatically came to an end.

39.

In view of this, the Learned Counsel for the first party bank submitted that though concerned workman had

worked for 240 days in a year, her appointment was not from the regular stream of appointment and therefore is not

entitled for regularization. He seeks to rely on the decision in case of Dena Bank V/S. Ashraf Yalu Shaikh 2009 III

CLR 426 to submit that since the appointment of the concerned workman was not from the regular stream of

appointment they are not entitled to reinstatement but only compensation, as envisaged under section 25 of I.D. Act,

1947.

40.

So far the submission of the concerned workman to the effect that first party bank has terminated her services

without following the procedure laid down in section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947, it can be said that there is no employer-

employee relationship between the bank and workman and that the services of the workman automatically came to an

end after the new contractor was engaged by the bank after following tender process. It is not therefore possible to

accept the submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman that the termination is illegal on account that it

was without following the procedure laid down in section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947.

41.

Realising this difficulty, Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that by way of settlement, the

similarly situated workmen and employees in Mumbai were absorbed in services of the bank and therefore the first

party bank has violated the principles of equity before law and gave different treatment to some set of employees in

Mumbai by neglecting section 12(3) and 18(3) of I.D. Act, 1947 and therefore the termination is illegal. The

submission is again other way round. There is no evidence of such discrimination. If any such agreement has been

reached then it has no relation with the present dispute. The present dispute is squarely covered by W.P. No.

6247/1998 and the same has to be dealt with in the light of order passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said

writ petition. In view of that the concerned workman cannot base a claim on the basis of settlement entered into in a

different matter under different circumstances.

42.

Considering all these facts, I hold that action of management in terminating the services of concerned workman

w.e.f. 6.1.2012 is legal and justified. The above issues are therefore answered accordingly as against each of them in

terms of above observations.

Issue No. 4 & 5 :

43.

In view of my finding the above issues, the concerned workman is not entitled to be re-instated in the services of

first party bank with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. He is not entitled to relief claimed. Thus

order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 27.07.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2583-—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- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-11-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@74@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 11] 2017@dk£rd 20] 1939

8725

New Delhi, the 1st November, 2017

S.O. 2583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, 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 01.11.2017.

[No. L-12012/74/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/20 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

STATE BANK OF INDIA

Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Admn Office, Sharda Chamber,

7^th Floor, 386/2, Shankarseth Road,

Pune – 411 037.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

Smt. Shantabai Tukaram Phule,

S No. 161/2, Wanawarigaon,

Jain Mandir Gali,

Pune – 411 040.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Shri M.G. Nadkarni, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. Umesh Vishwad, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 14^th July, 2017.

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/74/2012 – IR (B-I) dated 25.03.2013. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pune in terminating the

services of Smt. Shantabai Tukaram Phule w.e.f. 16.1.2012 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to ?”

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives. Second party workman filed statement of claim Ex.6. According to the concerned

workman, she was working with the first party bank since 1993 as a Sweeper. She has worked continuously from 1993

to 16.1.2012 with the first party bank. She was doing the work of cleaning and sweeping the premises of Zonal Office

Pune and the officers’ quarters of the first party bank under direct control and supervision of the first party bank. Her

work is regular and perennial. The first party bank was making payment to her. As such there is direct employer-

employee relationship between first party bank and second party workman.

According to the second party workman, a group of workmen raised the industrial dispute against the

management of first party bank, Mumbai for non-absorption of workmen engaged through contractors in services of the

first party bank. The agreement was arrived at and the contract workers were absorbed in the service of Central office

8726