6657 GI/2017

(8915)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 47]

ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 19—uoEcj 25] 2017] 'kfuokj@dkfrZd 28—vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

No. 47]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 19—NOVEMBER 25, 2017, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 28—AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r ,oa isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2664-—dsUnz ljdkj] fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds

lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, NÙkhlx<+ jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx (lh&vuqHkkx) dh

lgefr ls fnukad 28&10&2017 dh vf/lwpuk la[;k ,iQ&132@x`g&lh@2017 }kjk] iqfyl LVs'ku ikaMªh] jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+ esa Hkkjrh;

naM lafgrk] 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 384] 507 ds v/hu ntZ izkFkfedh la- 340@17 ds varxZr ekeys esa rFkk

iqfyl Fkkuk flfoy ykbal] jk;iqj] NÙkhlx<+ esa lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh vf/fu;e] 2000 dh /kjk 67(,) ds varxZr izkFkfedh la-

665@2017 ds varxZr ekeys esa ntZ vijk/ksa dk vUos"k.k djus vkSj iwNrkN djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh

'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/dkj {ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ NÙkhlx<+ jkT; ij djrh gSA

[iQk- la- 228@49@2017&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo

8916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2017

S.O. 2664.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Chhattisgarh, Home Department (C-Section), vide Notification No. F-132//Home-c/2017, dated

28.10.2017 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the

whole of the State of Chhattisgarh to investigate and inquire into the offence registered in Police Station Pandri, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh in a case under FIR No. 340/17 U/s 384, 507 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Police

Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in a case under FIR No. 665/2017 U/s 67(A) of Information Technology

Act, 2000.

[F. No. 228/49/2017-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

कृिष

कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंालय

एवं कसान क याण मंालय

(कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशा िवभाग

कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशा िवभाग

कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशा िवभाग)

नई दली, 8 नव बर, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 2665

2665

2665.—लोक-परसर 1971 (1971 का 40) क धारा 3 ारा द शि"य$ (अनिधकृत अिधभो"ा को िनकालना)

को लागू करने म. के/0 सरकार िन1 तािलका के कालम (2) म. उिलिखत अिधकारय$ जो सरकार के राजपि6त अिधकारय$ के पद के

समतुय अिधकारी ह9, को उ" अिधिनयम के तहत काय: संपादन के िलए संपदा अिधकारी िनयु" करती है जो उ" अिधिनयम के तहत

संपदा अिधकारय$ को द शि"य$ का उपयोग कर सक. गे तथा सौपे गये काय@ को कर.गे जो उनके संबंिधत Aे6ािधकार क Bथानीय

सीमा म. नीचे दी गयी तािलका के कालम (3) क संगत िविD म. दये गये लोक-परसर के संबंध म. है।

तािलका

Fम सं

अिधकारी का नाम व पदनाम

दशा:ये गये राGय$ के अनुसार Bथानीय सीमाएं

Hी पुIपनायक, मुJय शासिनक अिधकारी, पूवK

Aे6 हेतु भा. कृ. अनु. पर. का अनुसंधान परसर,

पटना।

ओिडसा, िबहार, झारखंड, पिPम बंगाल, िसQम, मेघालय,

आसाम, अTणाचल देश, नागालैVड, मिणपुर, िमजोरम, ि6पुरा,

अंडमान एवं िनकोबार ीप।

Hी के. एल. मीणा, मुJय शासिनक अिधकारी,

काजरी जोधपुर।

महाराW, गोवा, गुजरात, मXयदेश, राजBथान, छतीसगढ़, दमन

एवं दव।

Hी पुIपे/0 कुमार, मुJय शासिनक अिधकारी,

आई.ए.आर.आई., पूसा नई दली।

उर-देश, दली, हरयाणा, पंजाब, जमू एवं कZमीर,

िहमाचल-देश, चVड़ीगढ़ एवं उराखंड।

Hी जी.जी. हरकं]गी, मुJय शासिनक अिधकारी,

आई.आई.एच.आर., ब9गलुT।

तिमलनाडु, केरल, आ/^-देश, पाVडीचेरी, दादरा एवं नगर

हवेली, कना:टक, लAीप।

[फा. सं. 17/11/1995 - ई. एVड एम.]

ए. आर. सेनगु`ा, उप सिचव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 8th November, 2017

S.O. 2665.—In exercise if powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) the Central Government hereby appoints the following officers mentioned in

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8917

column(2) of the Table, being the officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate

Officers for the purpose under the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed,

on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction, in respect of the

public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column(3) of the Table below:

TABLE

S.No.

Name & Designation of the Officer

Local limits as per States indicated

Sh. Pushpnayak, CAO, ICAR Research Complex

for Eastern Region, Parisar, Patna

Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Sikkim,

Meghalaya, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland,

Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, A & N Islands.

Sh K. L. Meena, CAO, CAZRI, Jodhpur, Rajasthan

Maharashtra,

Goa,

Gujarat,

Madhya

Pradesh,

Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Daman & Diu.

Sh. Pushpendra Kumar, Chief Admn. Officer, IARI,

Pusa, New Delhi

Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jammu &

Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh &Uttrakhand.

Sh. G. G. Harakangi, Chief Admn. Officer, IIHR,

Bangaluru.

Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Pondicherry,

Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Karnataka, Lakshadweep.

[F.No. 17/11/1995- E&M]

A. R. SENGUPTA, Dy. Secy.

आवासन और शहरी काय मंालय

नई द ली, 20 नव बर, 2017

का

का.आ. 2666

2666

2666.—भू-संपदा (िविनयमन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 2016 (2016 का 16) क धारा 41 क उप-धारा (1) ारा

दa त शि"य$ का योग करते bए के/ 0 सरकार एतcारा नीचे दी गई सारणी म. िविनdदI ट िन निलिखत e यि"य$ को राजप6 म. इसके

काशन क तारीख से के/ 0ीय परामशK/सलाहकार परषद (इसके पZ चात् इसको परषद के Tप म. संदiभत कया जाएगा) के सदB य$ के

Tप म. िनयुj त करती है, अथा:त्:–

सारणी

Fम सं.

नाम

पदनाम

माननीय राG य मं6ी (B वतं6 भार) आवासन और शहरी काय:,

भारत सरकार

अX यA (पदेन)

मुJ य काय:कारी अिधकारी, नीित आयोग, भारत सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

सिचव, आवासन और शहरी काय: मं6ालय, भारत सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

सिचव राजB व िवभाग, िवa त मं6ालय, भारत सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

सिचव, आiथक काय: िवभाग िवa त मं6ालय, भारत सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

सिचव, औmोिगक नीित और संवn:न िवभाग, वािणG य और उmोग

मं6ालय, भारत सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

सिचव, उपभोj ता मामले िवभाग, उपभोj ता काय:, खाm और

साव:जिनक िवतरण मं6ालय, भारत सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

सिचव, कारपोरेट काय: मं6ालय, भारत सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

8918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सिचव, िविध काय: िवभाग, िविध और / याय मं6ालय, भारत

सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

10.

बंध िनदेशक, राI oीय आवास ब9क (एनएचबी)

सदB य (पदेन)

11.

अX यA और बंध िनदेशक आवास और नगर िवकास िनगम

(हडको)

सदB य (पदेन)

12.

मुJ य सिचव, राI oीय राजधानी Aे6 द ली सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

13.

अपर मुJ य सिचव, धान सिचव/सिचव उa तर देश सरकार

(अिधिनयम के काया:/ वयन से संबंिधत)

सदB य (पदेन)

14.

अितरj त मुJ य सिचव, धान सिचव/सिचव ओिडशा सरकार

(अिधिनयम के काया:/ वयन से संबंिधत)

सदB य (पदेन)

15.

अितरj त मुJ य सिचव, धान सिचव/सिचव हरयाणा सरकार

(अिधिनयम के काया:/ वयन से संबंिधत)

सदB य (पदेन)

16.

अितरj त मुJ य सिचव, धान सिचव/सिचव तिमलनाडु सरकार

(अिधिनयम के काया:/ वयन से संबंिधत)

सदB य (पदेन)

17.

अX यA, भू-स पदा िविनयामक ािधकरण, महाराI o

सदB य (पदेन)

18.

अX यA, भू-स पदा िविनयामक ािधकरण, गुजरात

सदB य (पदेन)

19.

अX यA, भू-स पदा िविनयामक ािधकरण, मX य देश

सदB य (पदेन)

20.

अX यA, भू-स पदा िविनयामक ािधकरण, असम

सदB य (पदेन)

21.

अX यA, भू-स पदा िविनयामक ािधकरण, कना:टक

सदB य (पदेन)

22.

अX यA, राI oीय भू-संपदा िवकास परषद (एनएआरईडीसीओ),

(नई द ली)

सदB य (पदेन)

23.

अX यA, भारतीय रयल एBटेट डेवलपस: एसोिसएशन परसंघ

(Fेडाई) (नई दली)

सदB य (पदेन)

24.

अX यA, पीपुस कलेिjटव यास$ (एफपीसीई) के िलए फोरम,

कोलकाता (पिPम बंगाल)

सदB य

25.

अX यA, फेडरेशन ऑफ़ अपाट:म.ट ओनस: एसोिसएशन (एफएओए),

गुड़गांव, हरयाणा

सदB य

26.

अXयA, नेशनल एसोिसएशन ऑफ रीटस: - इंिडया (एनएआर-

इंिडया), गुड़गांव, हरयाणा

सदB य

27.

अXयA, के/0ीय भवन और अ/य िनमा:ण Hिमक सलाहकार सिमित

(या उनके उमीदवार), Hम और रोजगार मं6ालय, भारत सरकार

सदB य (पदेन)

28.

संBथापक, न मा ब.गलुT फाउंडेशन (या उनके उमीदवार), ब.गलुp

कना:टक

सदB य

29.

बंध िनदेशक, लीएज़ फोरस, मुंबई, महाराW

सदB य

30.

अपर सिचव / संयु" सिचव (आवास), आवासन और शहरी काय:

मं6ालय, भारत सरकार

सदB य संयोजक

(पदेन)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8919

इस परषद के अX यA को कसी e यि" अथवा संगठन को इस परषद क बैठक$ म. भाग लेने के िलए एक तकनीक ितिनिध

के Tप म. सहयोिजत करने क शि"/अिधकार होगा।

जैसा क इस अिधिनयम क धारा 41 के उप-खंड/धारा (3) के अंतग:त e यवB था क गई है, इस सारणी के Fमांक 12 से 21 पर

बारी-बारी से चयन कए गए सदB य इस अिधसूचना क तारीख से तीन वष@ क अविध के िलए ऐसे सदB य के Tप म. पद पर रह.गे।

जैसा क इस अिधिनयम क धारा 41 के उप-खंड/धारा (4) के अंतग:त e यवB था क गई है, इस सारणी के Fमांक 22 से 29

पर चयन कए गए सदB य पांच वष@ क अविध हेतु ऐसे सदB य के Tप म. पद पर रह.गे।

[फा. सं. ओ.-17024/429/2017–एच]

शैलेश जोिगयानी, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2017

S.O. 2666.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Central Government

hereby appoints the following persons specified in the table below with effect from the date of its publication in the

Gazette, as members of the Central Advisory Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council), namely:–

TABLE

Sl. No.

Name

Designation

Hon’ble Minister of State (I/C), Housing and Urban

Affairs, Government of India

Chairperson (ex-officio)

CEO, Niti Aayog, Government of India

Member (ex-officio)

Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,

Government of India

Member (ex-officio)

Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,

Government of India

Member (ex-officio)

Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of

Finance, Government of India

Member (ex-officio)

Secretary,

Department

Industrial

Policy and

Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,

Government of India

Member (ex-officio)

Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of

Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution,

Government of India

Member (ex-officio)

Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government

of India

Member (ex-officio)

Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of

Law and Justice, Government of India

Member (ex-officio)

10.

Managing Director, National Housing Bank (NHB)

Member (ex-officio)

11.

Chairman and Managing Director, Housing and Urban

Development Corporation (HUDCO)

Member (ex-officio)

12.

Chief Secretary, Government of National Capital

Territory of Delhi

Member (ex-officio)

13.

Additional Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary /

Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh (dealing with

implementation of the Act)

Member (ex-officio)

8920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

Additional Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary /

Secretary, Government of Odisha (dealing with

implementation of the Act)

Member (ex-officio)

15.

Additional Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary /

Secretary, Government of Haryana (dealing with

implementation of the Act)

Member (ex-officio)

16.

Additional Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary /

Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu (dealing with

implementation of the Act)

Member (ex-officio)

17.

Chairman,

Real

Estate

Regulatory

Authority,

Maharashtra

Member (ex-officio)

18.

Chairman, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gujarat

Member (ex-officio)

19.

Chairman, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Madhya

Pradesh

Member (ex-officio)

20.

Chairman, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Assam

Member (ex-officio)

21.

Chairman, Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Karnataka

Member (ex-officio)

22.

President, National Real Estate Development Council

(NAREDCO) (New Delhi)

Member (ex-officio)

23.

President, Confederation of Real Estate Developers

Association of India (CREDAI) (New Delhi)

Member (ex-officio)

24.

President, Forum for People’s Collective Efforts

(FPCE), Kolkata (West Bengal)

Member

25.

Chairman,

Federation

Apartment

Owners

Association (FAOA), Gurgaon, Haryana

Member

26.

Chairperson, National Association of Realtors - India

(NAR-INDIA), Gurgaon, Haryana

Member

27.

Chairperson, Central Building and Other Construction

Workers Advisory Committee (or his nominee),

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of

India

Member (ex-officio)

28.

Founder, Namma Bengaluru Foundation (or his

nominee), Bengaluru Karnataka

Member

29.

Managing Director, Liases Foras, Mumbai, Maharashtra

Member

30.

Additional Secretary / Joint Secretary (Housing),

Ministry of Housing and Urban affairs, Government of

India

Member Convenor (ex-

officio)

The Chairperson of the Council shall have the power to co-opt any individual or organization, as a technical

representative, to participate in the meetings of the Council.

The members at serial numbers 12 to 21 of the table, selected by rotation, as provided under sub-section (3) of

section 41 of the Act, shall hold office as such member for a period of three years, from the date of this notification.

The members at serial numbers 22 to 29 of the table, selected as provided under sub-section (4) of section 41 of

the Act, shall hold office as such member for a period of five years, from the date of this notification.

[F. No. O-17024/429/2017–H]

SAILESH JOGIANI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8921

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2667-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls

blesa blds i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky; ds

}kjk tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk dk- vk- 591] rkjh[k 9 ekpZ] 2017] tks Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½]

rkjh[k 11 ekpZ] 2017 esa izdkf”kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk

eki

39-000 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 96-37 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh;

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ’V dh xbZ mDr

Hkwfe ds Hkkx esa dks;yk vfHkizkI; gS ;

vr%] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e] 1957 dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 37-619 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 92-96 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh mDr Hkwfe dk vtZu djus ds vius

vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS;

fVIi.k 1 % bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@518]

rkjh[k 18 flrEcj] 2017 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk&vuqiiqj ¼e/; izns”k½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly

gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM]

fcykliqj &495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fVIi.k 2 % mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gS%&

^^8- vtZu dhs ckcr~ vkifRr;kWa%&¼1) dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS]

fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds

fdUgha vf/kdkjks dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k]&bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Loa;

[kuu lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A

¼2½

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke vf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh]

vkifRrdrkZ dks Lo;a lqus tkus] fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds i”pkr~

vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkWp] ;fn dksbZ gks] djus ds i”pkr] tks og vko”;d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdMsa

;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj”kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds

vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu”p; ds fy, nsxkA

¼3½

bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk

gdnkj gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSA^^

fVIi.k 3 % dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVz~hV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 4 vizSy]1987 }kjk vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ]

1987 }kjk l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k gSA

vuqlwph

vkekMkaM lkbZfMax] tequk dksrek {ks=]

ftyk vuqiiqj] e/; izns”k

¼js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼Ikh,yth½@Hkwfe@518] rkjh[k 18 flrEcj] 2017½

lHkh vf/kdkj%

dze la-

xzke dk uke

iVokjh

gYdk la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= gsDVj esa

fVIif.k;ka

cSgkVksyk

dksrek

vuqiiqj

0.332

Hkkx

dVdksuk

dksrek

vuqiiqj

2.734

Hkkx

csfy;k

dksrek

vuqiiqj

4.266

Hkkx

8922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

xzke cSgkVksyk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd% 1364(Hkkx),1379(Hkkx),1380(Hkkx),1382(Hkkx), 1404(Hkkx),

1405(Hkkx).

xzke dVdksuk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd % 602(Hkkx), 603(Hkkx), 609(Hkkx), 610(Hkkx),

611(Hkkx), 616(Hkkx), 617(Hkkx), 619(Hkkx), 649(Hkkx), 650(Hkkx), 651(Hkkx), 659(Hkkx), 662(Hkkx), 666(Hkkx),

667(Hkkx).

xzke csfy;k ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd % 319(Hkkx), 320(Hkkx), 322(Hkkx), 325(Hkkx), 326(Hkkx),

327(Hkkx), 334(Hkkx), 335(Hkkx), 337(Hkkx), 338(Hkkx).

xzke fiijgk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd % 3(Hkkx), 14(Hkkx), 15(Hkkx), 16(Hkkx),

17(Hkkx),18(Hkkx), 21(Hkkx), 40(Hkkx), 44(Hkkx), 45(Hkkx), 46(Hkkx), 47(Hkkx), 48(Hkkx), 49(Hkkx), 60(Hkkx), 61(Hkkx),

62(Hkkx), 63(Hkkx), 66(Hkkx), 67(Hkkx), 68(Hkkx), 69(Hkkx), 70(Hkkx), 84(Hkkx), 108(Hkkx),109(Hkkx), 110(Hkkx),

360(Hkkx).

xzke lsejk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd % 18(Hkkx), 19(Hkkx), 24(Hkkx), 37(Hkkx) ls 40(Hkkx),

114(Hkkx), 116(Hkkx) ls 118(Hkkx), 127(Hkkx), 129(Hkkx), 130(Hkkx), 136(Hkkx), 137(Hkkx), 151(Hkkx), 158(Hkkx),

171(Hkkx), 179(Hkkx), 180] 181 (Hkkx) ls 184 (Hkkx), 186 (Hkkx), 450 (Hkkx) ls 452 (Hkkx), 539(Hkkx) ls

543(Hkkx), 556(Hkkx), 557(Hkkx), 560(Hkkx), 567(Hkkx) ls 569(Hkkx) 572(Hkkx), 578(Hkkx), 579(Hkkx), 667(Hkkx) ls

670(Hkkx), 672(Hkkx), 673(Hkkx).

xzke Qqydksuk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd % 502(Hkkx), 504(Hkkx), 505(Hkkx), 509(Hkkx),

510(Hkkx), 512(Hkkx), 541(Hkkx), 543(Hkkx), 544] 545(Hkkx), 548(Hkkx), 552(Hkkx), 553(Hkkx), 555(Hkkx), 595(Hkkx)

ls 598(Hkkx), 893(Hkkx), 914(Hkkx), 917(Hkkx) ls 919(Hkkx), 943(Hkkx), 944(Hkkx), 956(Hkkx) ls 959(Hkkx),

962(Hkkx), 964(Hkkx), 1001(Hkkx), 1038(Hkkx), 1042(Hkkx), 1044(Hkkx) ls 1046(Hkkx), 1054(Hkkx) ls 1057(Hkkx),

1063(Hkkx), 1064(Hkkx), 1067(Hkkx) ls 1069(Hkkx), 1277(Hkkx), 1278(Hkkx),1318(Hkkx), 1319(Hkkx).

xzke [kksMjh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd % 593(Hkkx) ls 596(Hkkx), 625(Hkkx), 627(Hkkx),

628(Hkkx), 630(Hkkx) ls 633(Hkkx).

fiijgk

dksrek

vuqiiqj

6.425

Hkkx

lsejk

dksrek

vuqiiqj

9.974

Hkkx

Qqydksuk

dksrek

vuqiiqj

8.500

Hkkx

[kksMjh

dksrek

vuqiiqj

2.982

Hkkx

dksgdk

dksrek

vuqiiqj

2.406

Hkkx

dqy % 37.619 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 92.96 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8923

xzke dksgdk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;kd % 417(Hkkx), 418(Hkkx), 427(Hkkx) ls 429(Hkkx),

448(Hkkx), 449(Hkkx), 453(Hkkx) ls 456(Hkkx), 471(Hkkx), 472(Hkkx), 474(Hkkx).

lhek o.kZu %

Cykd & A%

d&[k

js[kk] fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cSgkVksyk ds IykV la[;k 1380] 1379] 1405] 1364 ls gksrh

gqbZ fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh gSA

[k&[k&1

js[kk] fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dVdksuk ds IykV la[;k 602] 603 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq

**[k&1** ij feyrh gSA

[k&1&n

js[kk] fcUnq **[k&1** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dVdksuk ds IykV la[;k 603] 602 ls gksdj xzke

cSgkVksyk esa izos”k djrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 1364] 1404] 1380] 1382 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq **n** ij

feyrh gSA

n&d

js[kk] fcUnq **n** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cSgkVksyk ds IykV la[;k 1382] 1380 ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd

fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

Cykd & AA%

[k&2&x js[kk] fcUnq **[k&2** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dVdksuk ds IykV la[;k 609] 610] 611] 617] 616] 649] 651]

650] 662] 666] 667 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk] fcUnq **x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke csfy;k ds IykV la[;k 320] 322] 337] 335] 325] 334]

326] 327 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **?k** ij feyrh gSA

?k&³

js[kk] fcUnq **?k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fiijgk ds IykV la[;k 3] 109] 108] 21] 18] 14] 15] 16]

46] 47] 48] 49] 60] 61] 66] 68] 69] 67] 360 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA

³&p

js[kk] fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lsejk ds IykV la[;k 158] 19] 18] 19] 24] 40] 38] 39]

38] 151] 38] 40] 114] 137] 116] 117] 118] 129] 171] 127] 181] 183] 186] 184] 451] 450] 543] 541]

540] 556] 560] 579] 578] 572] 673] 672] 668] 667 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **p** ij feyrh

gSA

p&N

js[kk] fcUnq **p** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Qqydksuk ds IykV la[;kd 509] 510] 505] 504] 502] 541]

543] 544] 548] 553] 552] 598] 597] 596] 595] 1038] 1042] 1045] 1057] 1056] 1055] 1063] 1064]

1001] 1068] 1069] 958] 959] 956] 962] 964] 943] 944] tsM&4] 919] 914] 917] 893] 1319] 1277]

1278 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **N** ij feyrh gSA

N&t

js[kk] fcUnq **N** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kksMjh ds IykV la[;k 593] 594] 595] 596] 633] 631]630]

627] 628] 625 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **t** ij feyrh gSA

t&>

js[kk] fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksgdk ds IykV la[;k 428] 427] 454] 455] 456] 418]

417] 472] 474 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **>** ij feyrh gSA

>&´&V

js[kk] fcUnq **>** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dksgdk ds IykV la[;k 474] fcUnq *´*] 472] 471] 456]

455] 453] 427] 449] 448] 428] 429 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **V** ij feyrh gSA

V&B

js[kk] fcUnq **V** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [kksMjh ds IykV la[;k 625] 628] 627] 632] 633] 596]

595] 594] 593 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **B** ij feyrh gSA

B&M

js[kk] fcUnq **B** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Qqydksuk ds IykV la[;k 1278] 1277] 1319] 1318] 893]

917] 918] 914] 919] tsM&4] 944] 964] 956] 957] 1069] 1067] 1064] 1063] 1055] 1054] 1056] 1045]

1046] 1042] 1038] 595] 596] 597] 598] 553] 555] 543] 541] 502] 504] 505] 510] 512 ls gksrh gqbZ

tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **M** ij feyrh gSA

M&<

js[kk] fcUnq **M** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lsejk ds IykV la[;k 668] 669] 670] 672] 673] 572] 569]

568] 567] 560] 557] 539] 556] 539] 540] 541] 542] 543] 452] 184] 182] 181] 179] 127] 171] 129]

8924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

130] 117] 136] 137] 114] 40] 151] 37] 38] 24] 19] 158 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **<** ij

feyrh gSA

<&.k

js[kk] fcUnq **<** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke fiijgk ds IykV la[;k 360] 67] 70] 68] 66] 61] 62] 63]

48] 47] 84] 40] 45] 44] 17] 21] 108] 110] 109] 3 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **.k** ij feyrh gSA

.k&r

js[kk] fcUnq **.k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke csfy;k ds IykV la[;k 327] 326] 334] 325] 335] 338]

337] 322] 320] 319 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **r** ij feyrh gSA

r&Fk&[k&2

js[kk] fcUnq **r** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke dVdksuk ds IykV la[;k 666] 662] 650] 659] 651] 649]

619] 617] 611] 610] fcUnq *Fk*] 609 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq **[k&2** ij feyrh gSA

[Qk- la- 43015@09@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

vkj- ,l- ljkst] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2017

S.O. 2667.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal vide S.O. 591,

dated the 9^th March, 2017 in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 11^th March, 2017 issued

under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 or 1957)

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in

39.000 hectares (approximately) or 96.37 acres (approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule

annexed to that notification;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed

in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 37.619 hectares (approximately) or 92.96

acres (approximately) as all rights in or over the said lands described in the Schedule appended hereto:

Note1: The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 518, dated the 18^th September, 2017 of the area

covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) or in

the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern

Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note 2: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

“8. Objection to Acquisition.- (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7

has been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any

part of the land or any rights in or over such land.

Explanation,- It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires

to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should not be undertaken

by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after

hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report

in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or

make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central

Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by

him, for the decision of the Government.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an

interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.”

Note 3: The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001, has been appointed by the Central

Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the

20^th March, 1987, published in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4^th April, 1987.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8925

SCHEDULE

Amadand Siding, Jamuna Kotma Area,

District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh

[ Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/ 518, dated the 18^th September, 2017]

All Rights:

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Baihatola(Part): 1364(P), 1379(P), 1380(P), 1382(P), 1404(P), 1405(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Katkona (Part): 602(P), 603(P), 609(P), 610(P), 611(P), 616(P), 617(P)

619(P), 649(P), 650(P), 651(P), 659(P), 662(P), 666(P), 667(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Beliya (Part): 319(P), 320(P), 322(P), 325(P), 326(P), 327(P), 334(P),

335(P), 337(P), 338(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Piparaha (Part): 3(P), 14(P), 15(P), 16(P), 17(P), 18(P), 21(P), 40(P),

44(P), 45(P), 46(P), 47(P), 48(P), 49(P), 60(P), 61(P), 62(P), 63(P), 66(P), 67(P), 68(P), 69(P), 70(P), 84(P),

108(P), 109(P), 110(P), 360(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Semra (Part): 18(P), 19(P), 24(P), 37(P) to 40(P), 114(P), 116(P) to

118(P), 127(P), 129(P), 130(P), 136(P), 137(P), 151(P), 158(P), 171(P), 179(P), 180, 181(P) to 184(P),

186(P), 450(P) to 452(P), 539(P) to 543(P), 556(P), 557(P), 560(P), 567(P) to 569(P), 572(P), 578(P), 579(P),

667(P) to 670(P), 672(P), 673(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Fulkona (Part): 502(P), 504(P), 505(P), 509(P), 510(P), 512(P), 541(P),

543(P), 544, 545(P), 548(P), 552(P), 553(P), 555(P), 595(P) to 598(P), 893(P), 914(P), 917(P) to 919(P),

943(P), 944(P), 956(P) to 959(P), 962(P), 964(P), 1001(P), 1038(P), 1042(P), 1044(P) to 1046(P), 1054(P) to

1057(P), 1063(P),1064(P), 1067(P) to 1069(P), 1277(P), 1278(P), 1318(P), 1319(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Khodri (Part): 593(P) to 596(P), 625(P), 627(P), 628(P), 630(P) to

633(P).

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kuhka (Part): 417(P), 418(P), 427(P) to 429(P), 448(P), 449(P), 453(P)

to 456(P), 471(P), 472(P), 474(P).

Sl.

No.

Name of village

Patwari halka number

Tahsil

District

Area in hectares

Remarks

Baihatola

Kotma

Anuppur

0.332

Part

Katkona

Kotma

Anuppur

2.734

Part

Beliya

Kotma

Anuppur

4.266

Part

Piparaha

Kotma

Anuppur

6.425

Part

Semra

Kotma

Anuppur

9.974

Part

Fulkona

Kotma

Anuppur

8.500

Part

Khodri

Kotma

Anuppur

2.982

Part

Kuhka

Kotma

Anuppur

2.406

Part

Total : 37.619 hectares (approximately) or 92.96 acres(approximately)

8926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boundary description:

Block – I :

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Baihatola through plot number 1380, 1379, 1405, 1364

and meets at point ‘B’.

B-B-1

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Katkona through plot number 602, 603 and meets at point

‘B-1’.

B-1-R

Line starts from point ‘B-1’ and passes in village Katkona through plot number 603, 602 and enter in

village Baihatola and passes through plot number 1364, 1404, 1380, 1382 and meets at point ‘R’.

R-A

Line starts from point ‘R’ and passes in village Baihatola through plot number 1382, 1380 and meets at

starting point ‘A’.

Block – II :

B-2-C

Line starts from point ‘B-2’ and passes in village Katkona through plot number 609, 610, 611, 617, 616,

649, 651, 650, 662, 666, 667 and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Beliya through plot number 320, 322, 337, 335, 325, 334,

326, 327 and meets at point ‘D’.

D-E

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Piparaha through plot number 3, 109, 108, 21, 18, 14, 15,

16, 46, 47, 48, 49, 60, 61, 66, 68, 69, 67, 360 and meets at point ‘E’.

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Semra through plot number 158, 19, 18, 19, 24, 40, 38,

39, 38, 151, 38, 40, 114, 137, 116, 117, 118, 129, 171, 127, 181, 183, 186, 184, 451, 450, 543, 541, 540,

556, 560, 579, 578, 572, 673, 672, 668, 667 and meets at point ‘F’.

F-G

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes in village Fulkona through plot number 509, 510,505, 504, 502,

541, 543, 544, 548, 553, 552, 598, 597, 596, 595, 1038, 1042, 1045, 1057, 1056, 1055, 1063, 1064,

1001, 1068, 1069, 958, 959, 956, 962, 964, 943, 944, Z-4, 919, 914, 917, 893, 1319, 1277, 1278 and

meets at point ‘G’.

G-H

Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes in village Khodri through plot number 593, 594, 595, 596, 633,

631, 630, 627, 628, 625 and meets at point ‘H’.

H-I

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes in village Kuhka through plot number 428, 427, 454, 455, 456, 418,

417, 472, 474 and meets at point ‘I’.

I-J-K

Line starts from point ‘I’ and passes in village Kuhka through plot number 474, point ‘J’, 472, 471, 456,

455, 453, 427, 449, 448, 428, 429 and meets at point ‘K’.

K-L

Line starts from point ‘K’ and passes in village Khodri through plot number 625, 628, 627, 632, 633,

596, 595, 594, 593 and meets at point ‘L’.

L-M

Line starts from point ‘L’ and passes in village Fulkona through plot number 1278, 1277, 1319, 1318,

893, 917, 918, 914, 919, Z-4, 944, 964, 956, 957, 1069, 1067, 1064, 1063, 1055, 1054, 1056, 1045, 1046,

1042, 1038, 595, 596, 597, 598, 553, 555, 543, 541, 502, 504, 505, 510, 512 and meets at point ‘M’.

M-N

Line starts from point ‘M’ and passes in village Semra through plot number 668, 669, 670, 672, 673,

572, 569, 568, 567, 560, 557, 539, 556, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 452, 184, 182, 181, 179, 127, 171, 129,

130, 117, 136, 137, 114, 40, 151, 37, 38, 24, 19, 158 and meets at point ‘N’.

N-O

Line starts from point ‘N’ and passes in village Piparaha through plot number 360, 67, 70, 68, 66, 61, 62,

63, 48, 47, 84, 40, 45, 44, 17, 21, 108, 110, 109, 3 and meets at point ‘O’.

O-P

Line starts from point ‘O’ and passes in village Beliya through plot number 327, 326, 334, 325, 335, 338,

337, 322, 320, 319 and meets at point ‘P’.

P-Q-B-2

Line starts from point ‘P’ and passes in village Katkona through plot number 666, 662, 650, 659, 651,

649, 619, 617, 611, 610, point ‘Q’, 609 and meets at starting point ‘B-2’.

[F. No. 43015/09/2017-LA & IR]

R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8927

ubZ fnYyh] 24 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2668-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls

blesa blds i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ljdkj esa dks;yk ea=ky;

ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 2900¼v½ rkjh[k 7 flrEcj] 2016 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlk/kkj.k] Hkkx II]

[kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼AaAa½] rkjh[k 8 flrEcj] 2016 esa izdkf”kr dh xbZ Fkh] ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V

ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa ftldk eki 237-598 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 587-10 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ gS] dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius

vk”k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh;

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofgr mDr Hkwfe ds Hkkx

esa dks;yk vfHkizkI; gS;

vr%] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls

layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 230-681 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 570-01 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki dh mDr Hkwfe dk vtZu djus ds vius

vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS;

fVIi.k 1 % bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k ch,vkj@,l;qvkj@2017@21] rkjh[k 21 vxLr]

2017 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk&vuqiiqj ¼e/; izns”k½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV]

dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj &495006

¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

fVIi.k 2 % mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds mica/kksa dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/k gS%&

^^8- vtZu dh ckcr~ vkifRr;kWa-& ¼1½ dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr~ /kkjk 7 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fudkyh xbZ

gS] fgrc) gS] vf/klwpuk ds fudkys tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij

ds fdUgha vf/kdkjks dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa vkifRr dj ldsxkA

Li"Vhdj.k-& bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr ;g vkifRr ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy,

Loa; [kuu lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ugha djuh pkfg,A

¼2½

mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu izR;sd vkifRr l{ke vf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/kdkjh]

vkifRrdrkZ dks Lo;a lqus tkus] fof/k O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifRr;ksa dks lquus ds i”pkr~

vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tkWp] ;fn dksbZ gks] djus ds i”pkr] tks og vko”;d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½

ds v/khu vf/klwfpr Hkwfe dk ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdM~ksa

;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vkifRr;ksa ij viuh flQkfj”kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds

vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVZa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu”p; ds fy, nsxkA

¼3½

bl /kkjk ds iz;kstuks ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc) le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk

gdnkj gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k fdlh ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vftZr dj fy, tkrs gSA ^^

fVIi.k 3% dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVz~hV] dksydkrk&700001 dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu

Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM ¼AaAa½] rkjh[k 4 vizSy]1987 }kjk vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ]

1987 }kjk l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k gSA

vuqlwph

vkekMkaM CykdAA vkSj ve`r/kkjk vkSj f>fj;k Cykd ¼cjrjbZ vkekMkaM ;wth½

tequk dksrek {ks=

ftyk& vuwiiqj] e/; izns“k

¼js[kkad la[;k ch,vkj@,l;qvkj@2017@21] rkjh[k 21 vxLr] 2017½

Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj%

dze

xzke dk uke

iVokjh

gYdk la[;k

cUnkscLr la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks= gsDVj

esa

fVIi&f.k;ka

vkekMkaM

dksrek

vuwiiqj

93.306

Hkkx

eyxk

826

dksrek

vuwiiqj

137.375

Hkkx

dqy % 230.681 gsDVs;j ¼yxHkx½ ;k 570.01 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

8928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

xzke vkekMkaM ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 509 ls 517] 521] 522] 556] 557] 583] 590 ls 594] 599

ls 735] 748 ls 750] 816 ls 878] 880 ls 887] 1289¼Hkkx½] 1290 ls 1303] 1304¼Hkkx½] 1305¼Hkkx½]1309¼Hkkx½]

1310¼Hkkx½] 1311] 1312] 1313¼Hkkx½] 1341] 1342¼Hkkx½]1369¼Hkkx½] 1371 ls 1375] 1376¼Hkkx½] 1377] 1378¼Hkkx½]

1380 ls 1510] 1511¼Hkkx½] 1512¼Hkkx½] 1514 ls 1519] 1520¼Hkkx½] 1521¼Hkkx½]1543¼Hkkx½] 1544¼Hkkx½] 1545¼Hkkx½]

1610] 1611] 1612¼Hkkx½] 1613¼Hkkx½] 1614 ls 1616] 1617¼Hkkx½] 1618] 1619¼Hkkx½] 1630¼Hkkx½] 1639¼Hkkx½] 1640 ls

1646] 1647¼Hkkx½] 1648 ls 1676] 1681] 1682] 1690 ls 1692] 1694-

xzke eyxk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k% 846 ls 871] 876 ls 880] 887] 931 ls 967] 969 ls 974]

976 ls 982] 1022 ls 1086] 1278 ls 1280] 1335 ls 1372] 1375 ls 1377] 1379 ls 1390] 1401 ls 1413] 1418 ls

1420] 1422 ls 1436] 1439 ls 1592] 1598 ls 1601] 1605 ls 1608] 1610 ls 1669] 1685 ls 1726] 1729¼Hkkx½] 1730

ls 1754] 1755¼Hkkx½] 1756¼Hkkx½] 1757 ls 1761] 1929¼Hkkx½] 2210 ls 2212] 2213¼Hkkx½] 2214 ls 2228] 2231 ls

2248] 2251] 2281 ls 2285] 2472] 2473-

lhek o.kZu %

d&[k

js[kk] fcUnq **d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds IykV la[;k 509] 510] 512] 517] 516] 521]

522] 556 ds mRrjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **[k** ij feyrh gSA

[k&x

js[kk] fcUnq **[k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds IykV la[;k 556] 557] 599] 594] 591] 590 ds

if”peh lhek] 583] 730] 731] 732] 735] 748] 749] 750] 822] 820] 821] 817] 816 ds mRrjh lhek ls

gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **x** ij feyrh gSA

x&?k

js[kk] fcUnq **x** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds IykV la[;k 816] 841] 843] 878] 880] 881] 887]

885] 1651] 1650 ds if”peh lhek] 1645] 1630 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **?k** ij feyrh gSA

?k&³

js[kk] fcUnq **?k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds IykV la[;k 1646] 1642 ds mRrjh lhek] 1639]

1619] 1617 ls gksdj] 1614 ds mRrjh lhek] 1612] 1521] 1520 ls gksdj] 1519] 1518 ds mRrjh lhek]

1543] 1544] 1545 ls gksdj 1511] 1512] 1289] 1304] 1305] 1310] 1309] 1313 ds mRrjh lhek ls gksrh

gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **³** ij feyrh gSA

³&p

js[kk] fcUnq **³** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds IykV la[;k 1309] 1312] 1341 ds if”peh]1342

ls gksdj 1371] 1373 ds if”peh lhek 1369] 1376] 1378 ls gksdj 1381] 1380 ds if”peh lhek ls

gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **p** ij feyrh gSA

p&N

js[kk] fcUnq **p** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM ds IykV la[;k 1380] 1382] 1384] 1388] 1389 ds

nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **N** ij feyrh gSA

N&t

js[kk] fcUnq **N** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkekMkaM&Hkyokgh ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ

tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **t** ij feyrh gSA

t&>&´&V

js[kk] fcUnq **t** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk&Hkyokgh ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek] fcUnq *>*]fcUnq *´*

ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **V** ij feyrh gSA

V&B

js[kk] fcUnq **V** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds IykV la[;k 1669] 1668] 1667] 1685] 1686] 1687]

1761] 1757 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 1756] 1755] 1929] 2210] 2212] 2113 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 2228] 2227]

2231] 2232 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **B** ij feyrh gSA

B&M&<

js[kk] fcUnq **B** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds IykV la[;k 2232] 2235] 2236] 2285] 2284]

2281] 2282] 2248] 2251 ds iwohZ lhek fcUnq *M*] 2251] 2245 ds mRrjh lhek] 1729 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS

vkSj fcUnq **<** ij feyrh gSA

<&.k

js[kk] fcUnq **<** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds IykV la[;k 1723] 1724] 1726] 1337] 1336]

1335] 1280 ds iwohZ] 1278] 1388] 1390] 1379 ds mRrjh ,oa 1377] 1375 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh

gS vkSj fcUnq **.k** ij feyrh gSA

.k&r

js[kk] fcUnq **.k** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds IykV la[;k 1372] 1401 ds iwohZ lhek] 1409 ls

gksdj 1413] 1422] 1419] 1418] 1435] 1436] 1441] 1439] 1086] 1085] 1023] 1022 ds iwohZ lhek 1022]

1024] 1025 ds mRrjh lhek 867 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **r** ij feyrh gSA

r&Fk

js[kk] fcUnq **r** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds IykV la[;k 950] 951 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 951]

957] 958] 981] 979] 978] 977] 976 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq **Fk** ij feyrh gSA

Fk&d

js[kk] fcUnq **Fk** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke eyxk ds IykV la[;k 976] 974] 969] 967] 931] 887] 880]

876] 871] 865] 847] 846 ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq **d** ij feyrh gSA

[Qk-la- 43015@39@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

jke f“kjksef.k ljkst] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8929

New Delhi, the 24th November, 2017

S.O. 2668.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O.

2900(E), dated the 7^th September, 2016 in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated

the 8^th September, 2016 issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 or 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government gave notice of

its intention to prospect for coal in 237.598 hectares (approximately) or 587.10 acres (approximately) of the lands in the

locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed

in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 230.681 hectares (approximately) or

570.01 acres (approximately) as surface rights in or over the said lands described in the Schedule appended hereto:

Note 1 : The plan bearing number BAR/SUR/2017/21, dated the 21^stAugust, 2017 of the area covered by this

notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) or in the office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited

(Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

Note 2: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:-

“8. Objection to Acquisition.- (1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7

has been issued, may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the whole or any

part of the land or any rights in or over such land.

Explanation.-- It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself

desires to undertake mining operation in the land for the production of coal and that such operation should not be

undertaken by the Central Government or by any other person.

(2)

Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after

hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either makes a report

in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or

make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land, to the Central

Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by

him, for the decision of the Government.

(3)

For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.”

Note 3 : The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata, 700001, has been appointed by the Central

Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905, dated the

20^th March, 1987, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 4^th April, 1987.

SCHEDULE

Amadand Block-II and Amritdhara and Jhiria Block (Bartarai Amadand UG)

Jamuna Kotma Area,

District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh

(Plan bearing number BAR/SUR/2017/21, dated the 21^stAugust, 2017)

Surface Rights :

Sl.

No.

Name of

village

Patwari

halka number

Bandobast

number

Tahsil

District

Area in

hectares

Remarks

Amadand

Kotma

Anuppur

93.306

Part

Malga

826

Kotma

Anuppur

137.375

Part

Total : 230.681 hectares (approximately) or 570.01 acres (approximately).

8930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Amadand (Part): 509 to 517, 521, 522, 556, 557, 583, 590 to 594, 599 to

735, 748 to 750, 816 to 878, 880 to 887, 1289(P), 1290 to 1303, 1304(P), 1305(P), 1309(P), 1310(P), 1311,

1312, 1313(P), 1341, 1342(P), 1369(P), 1371 to 1375,1376(P), 1377, 1378(P), 1380 to 1510, 1511(P), 1512(P),

1514 to 1519, 1520(P), 1521(P), 1543(P), 1544(P), 1545(P), 1610, 1611, 1612(P), 1613(P), 1614 to 1616,

1617(P), 1618, 1619(P), 1630(P), 1639(P), 1640 to 1646, 1647(P), 1648 to 1676, 1681, 1682, 1690 to 1692,

1694.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Malga (Part): 846 to 871, 876 to 880, 887, 931 to 967, 969 to 974, 976 to

982, 1022 to 1086, 1278 to 1280, 1335 to 1372, 1375 to 1377, 1379 to 1390, 1401 to 1413, 1418 to 1420, 1422

to 1436, 1439 to 1592, 1598 to 1601, 1605 to 1608, 1610 to 1669, 1685 to 1726, 1729(P), 1730 to 1754,

1755(P), 1756(P), 1757 to 1761, 1929(P), 2210 to 2212, 2213(P), 2214 to 2228, 2231 to 2248, 2251, 2281 to

2285, 2472, 2473.

Boundary description:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes in village Amadand along northern boundary of plot number 509,

510, 512, 517, 516, 521, 522, 556 and meets at point ‘B’.

B-C

Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes in village Amadand along western boundary of plot number 556,

557, 599, 594, 591, 590, northern boundary of plot number 583, 730, 731, 732, 735, 748, 749, 750, 822,

820, 821, 817, 816 and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes in village Amadand along western boundary of plot number 816,

841, 843, 878, 880, 881, 887, 885, 1651, 1650, through 1645, 1630 and meets at point ‘D’.

D-E

Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes in village Amadand along northern boundary of plot number 1646,

1642, through 1639, 1619, 1617, along northern boundary of 1614, through 1612, 1521, 1520, along

northern boundary of 1519, 1518, through 1543, 1544, 1545, along northern boundary of 1511, 1512,

1289, 1304, 1305, 1310, 1309, 1313 and meets at point ‘E’.

E-F

Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes in village Amadand along western boundary of plot number 1309,

1312, 1341, through 1342, along western boundary of 1371, 1373, through 1369, 1376, 1378, along

western boundary of 1381, 1380 and meets at point ‘F’.

F-G

Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes in village Amadand along southern boundary of plot number 1380,

1382, 1384, 1388, 1389 and meets at point ‘G’.

G-H

Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes along partly common boundary of villages Amadand-Bhalwahi and

meets at point ‘H’.

H-I-J-K

Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes along partly common boundary of villages Malga-Bhalwahi, point

‘I’, point ‘J’ and meets at point ‘K’.

K-L

Line starts from point ‘K’ and passes in village Malga along southern boundary of plot number 1669,

1668, 1667, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1761, 1757, through 1756, 1755, 1929, 2210, 2212, 2113, along southern

boundary of 2228, 2227, 2231, 2232 and meets at point ‘L’.

L-M-N

Line starts from point ‘L’ and passes in village Malga along eastern boundary of plot number 2232, 2235,

2236, 2285, 2284, 2281, 2282, 2248, 2251, point ‘M’, northern boundary of 2251, 2245, through 1729

and meets at point ‘N’.

N-O

Line starts from point ‘N’ and passes in village Malga along eastern boundary of plot number 1723,

1724, 1726, 1337, 1336, 1335, 1280, northern boundary of 1278, 1388, 1390, 1379, eastern boundary of

1377, 1375 and meets at point ‘O’.

O-P

Line starts from point ‘O’ and passes in village Malga along eastern boundary of plot number 1372,

1401, through, 1409, along eastern boundary of 1413, 1422, 1419,1418, 1435, 1436, 1441, 1439, 1086,

1085, 1023, 1022, northern boundary of 1022, 1024, 1025, eastern boundary of 867 and meets at point

‘P’.

P-Q

Line starts from point ‘P’ and passes in village Malga along southern boundary of plot number 950, 951,

eastern boundary of 951, 957, 958, 981, 979, 978, 977, 976 and

meets at point ‘Q’.

Q-A

Line starts from point ‘Q’ and passes in village Malga along northern boundary of plot number 976, 974,

969, 967, 931, 887, 880, 876, 871, 865, 847, 846 and meets at

starting point ‘A’.

[F.No. 43015/39/2017-LA & IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8931

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2669-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-

10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@50@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2017

S.O. 2669.—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. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 50 of 2015) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 04.10.2017.

[No. L-20012/50/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 50/2015

PARTIES

The Joint Gen. Secretary,

Bahujan Mazdoor Union,

Mines Rescue Station, PO: Dhansar, Dhanbad.

Vs.

The General Manager,

E.J. Area of M/s BCCL, PO: Bhowra, Dhanbad.

Order No.L-20012/50/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 07.07.2015

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. R.R. Ram, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, 14^th August, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/50/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 07.07.2015.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Amlabad Project under E.J.Area of M/s. BCCL in

dismissing Shri Achhe Kumar Lal, Ex-M/Loader, Pers. No. 03020807 from the services of the Company,

vide letter no. BCCL/AMBD/2002/PS/6725-34 dated 30/06/.10.11.2002 is fair and justified? To what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

8932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/50/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 07.07.2015 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 50-2015 was registered on 20.07.2015 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to

file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

This Reference case is in relation to dismissal of the delinquent workman Shri Achhe Kumar Lal, Ex M. Loader

of permanent status, holding his Personnel No. 03020807 of Amlabad Project under E.J. Area of M/s BCCL The

whole episode of the issue as narrated in WS is that the workman had been performing his job with utmost sincerity

holding unblemished service career record .He had been punctual and regular The workman had been served charge

sheet by the Management over alleged absentism citing as ground . Though workman replied to the charge sheet to the

best of capability to satisfy the Management to the extent ,the workman could .The said absentism had attributed to

abruptly sickness in sever condition to his wife and children at his remote native place so the workman left for native

place for better treatment . Workman tried his best to convey the matter to the Management through his colleague but

only verbally in an open admission under W.S. Workman’s wife suffering from Jaundice had been cured after six

months but the treatment so long as his children concerned , continued even after that is why the workman had to

stay for more time .Finally when he was back for resuming of duty presenting formal representation to the

Authority concerned ,contrary to it, the Management came up with charge sheet serving to the delinquent workman ,

but went ahead in its calculative move by constituting a domestic enquiry to get to the bottom of the fact of said

misconduct of absentism. The workman concerned participated in said enquiry proceedings and apprised them of the

situation he had to stay on prolonged period rather Management arbitrarily, illegally and unjustifiably dismissed him

from service w.e.f, 10.11.2002 putting a question mark over the proceedings and report .So the alleged act of the

dismissal is unfair and unjustified and thus is liable to be set aside with reinstatement in service with full back wages

,as stated in WS. by the Union on behalf of the workman.

In challenge to it, the contra case of the O.P./Management with categorical denials is that the present reference

is not maintainable either in law or in facts; contending further the demand of the Union is hypothetical, the workman

is not entitled to any relief with further assertion that the dismissal order of the workman was not merely singled out

to one incident engulfing therein but taking into consideration of his service records as to poor attendances in the

past . The demand of the Union is fabricated and concocted to twist the case in its favour The Competent Authority

issued charge sheet dated 29/30.22.2001 after the workman had started absenting from duty since 26.09.2001 which

attracts misconduct according to clause 26.1.1. of the Certified Standing Orders ,a by- laws of the Said Company

.The so called reply was by and large remained unsatisfactory leading to setting up a domestic enquiry to go to the

bottom of the facts .The Enquiry was held with strictly following principle of the natural justice in the presence of the

workman and was found guilty of the charge, brought in against him in the said Enquiry .Going ahead the

Disciplinary Authority stepped up further by issuing a second Show Cause Notice seeking explanation of the said

absentism which too remained unresponsive on his part .Thus finally the Disciplinary Authority took final call of

dismissal order after having been found guilty of misconduct, the workman committed. So the conduct and manner

in which enquiry held, never got mired at any stage rather full opportunity was provided to come out in his defence

.Even in eventuality of not being convinced, the Management does stand by its words to adduce afresh evidence.

At last the dismissal stands legal and justified with no violation of the natural justice, the workman deserves for, as

stated by Management

There is nothing unusual ,unprecedented of the case like this one in the collieries under the Management of

M/s BCCL ,a group of collieries ,based at Dhanbad where such cases seldom gained significant just because despite

all out safety apparatus and proper mechanism in place and its periodical reviews, tragic accidents more or less take

place whatsoever of reasons. Workers mostly hailing illiteracy back ground usually feel hesitation and insecurity

that strike panic in their heart to work in underground Mines .They usually tend to resort to leave even upon slightest

illness/ urgent call, sometimes in violation the rules and byelaws. Undeniably, the working condition in most of the

collieries barring few is by and large unhygienic and not conducive to a larger extent apart from arduous nature of

work despite lots up gradation in Management‘s a host of preventive measures. The Management countered each of

the allegations justifying its cause of action after having exhausted all avenues of channels of proceedings, seems

laudable before initiating the final punishment of dismissal that left the workman in lurch. So long as any adverse point

to the workman concerned, it did not figure out in sight barring only the ground of absentism. The punishment. so

imposed seems too harsher to bear upon by the poor worker like the workman concerned to sustain livelihood with

family. As such the workman needs a little bit breather by way of fresh employment. The punishment of dismissal

inflicted upon the workman to the alleged misconduct of absentism, he committed, however does not stand

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8933

proportionate and fair , rather be termed harsher in natural justice as he was robbed off his bread and butter with no

means of alternative livelihood in days of hardships.

Hence It is of the view that the move will not be termed wrong and improper and against the natural justice with

a sole eye of easing out perpetuating industrial unrest if the workman concerned be provided a little bit breather by way

of employment as fresher in Cat.-I as General Mazdoor with an sole eye to easy out perpetuating industrial unrest. Thus

it is ordered for fresh employment of the workman concerned as in the lowest as Cat. - I with probation period rolling

over up to 2 years, with no question of back wages, whatsoever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2670-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 79@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-

10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@93@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2017

S.O. 2670.—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. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 79 of 2015) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.10.2017.

[No. L-20012/93/2015-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 79/2015

PARTIES

The Secretary,

Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Vishwakarma Colony, Nutundih,

PO: Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad.-826003 (Jharkhand).

Vs.

The General Manager,

P.B.Area of M/s BCCL,

P.O. Kusunda, Distt: Dhanbad.828116.

Order No.L-20012/93/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 12.10.2015

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. Pintu Mandal, Ld. Representative

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, 31^st July, 2017

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/93/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 12.10.2015.

8934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Burragarh Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Deo

Kumar Bhuia, Ex- M. Loader from the services vide letter dated 21.07.2004 is fair and justified? To

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/93/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 12.10.2015 the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 79 of 2015 was registered on 26.10.2015 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to

file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Representative/ Ld. Counsel respectively appeared, and contested

the case to the extent the case was reserved for Award.

This Reference case is in relation to dismissal of the delinquent workman Shri Deo Kumar Bhuia, designating

as Ex. M. Loader employee posted at Burragarh Colliery, having Personal No. 02983013 under the Management of

BCCL, a Group of the Collieries based at Dhanbad . The whole episode of the issue is, as narrated, by the Union in

WS. that the workman had fallen sick since 22.01.2004 and reported his sickness to the management accordingly.

After recovery when the workman reported himself for duty to the Management with Fitness Certificate ,he was

flatly denied and even not allowed to join for no fault of misconduct as emerged out from the Certified Standing Order

an bye-laws of the Company ,rather it went ahead with its calculative move by issuing of Charge sheet for committing

misconduct. The workman replied to the said charge sheet and subsequently, appeared in the Domestic Enquiry

constituted later on blaming the said enquiry as unfair ,improper and not in the line of the natural justice .The absent

from duty had exclusively attributed to workman’s sickness and nothing else, as alleged in the WS. Though the charge

of misconduct brought upon against the workman, was not established in course of the Enquiry so the dismissal for

committing petty misconduct had shockingly a serious blow and disproportionate as it stands capital punishment in

service arenas. The workman was worst hit being rubbed off his livelihood in days hardship. Post dismissal the

workman‘s appeal for reinstatement was made but to no avail. At last the workman cried these all the alleged acts of

the Management as foul and arbitrariness with appeal for restoring him to the actual job with arrear.

Whereas it holds against the fact, as denying categorically all the allegations brought in by the Sponsoring

Union/workman, the Management argued raising question over maintainability of Industrial Dispute any more even

after elapse of more than eleven years from the date of dismissal of workman concerned as the Union do not have no

locus standi to raise the Industrial Dispute. It is an extreme example of gross negligence that got rooted deep on the

part of the workman leading to his dismissal by virtue of, not merely singled out to a specific incident. The so called

misconduct under the clause 26.1.2. of the Certified Standing Order, the Management charged with the workman and

issuance of charge sheet at his home address is all about itself a testimony of strictly adherence of the natural justice

as the practice, contrary to it the workman concerned kept on indulging himself in absentism and turned it into

habitual practice with no sign of abating in spite of full force with which the Management did its best not to let the

efforts go in vain by slapping punishment periodically stoppage of SPRAs before resumption of duty on several counts

during workman service career. The issue, in quest, was referred to by holding Domestic Enquiry to go to bottom of

the facts and he was held guilty of the charges brought against him. The enquiry conducted in the presence of the

workman concerned and even allowed the workman to cross OP/Management witnesses. So the deposition in enquiry

to larger extent was in full transparent way even the second Show Cause Notice sent by the Disciplinary Authority was

by and large remained unresponsive.

Finally, the Disciplinary Authority came forward with handing out the dismissal letter dt.21.07.2004 only after

going through his past history of cases on absentism inclusive this one. The Management found it a grave misconduct.

So the enquiry is fair and justified and nothing sort of violation of the natural justice as the workman enjoyed the full

opportunity to defend the case. Thus, neither there was any short of violation of the natural justice, nor did it get mired

at any stage as alleged by the petitioner/Union rather the said enquiry stands as fair, proper and just.

So long as it concerned to Group of the Collieries under the Management of M/s BCCL, a part of the Coal India

Ltd., there is no longer unusual the incident like this one where numerous cases on such backgrounds might have been

pouring in slowly but steadily and the matter never gets more complicated when the labour forces are involved

.Undeniably the workmen are usually scared of stepping into the underground Mines due to safety hazards and

unhealthy conditions, surrendering in and around the site despite best of safety mechanism/technique in place. Workers

hailing mostly illiteracy backgrounds prefer remaining on absence for prolonged period rather to apprise the

Management of bare facts/ordeal; they face, without taking the Management into confidence that symbolizes breaching

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8935

of trust between the Employer and –Employee relationship. Though allegations and its counter by both of the parties

respectively are set to be logical and rational in its form. There is nothing adverse report against the workman barring

this one. Though alleged absentism had cost him employment The punishment imposed to the misconduct against the

workman shielding under the name of penalty appears to be disproportionate and a little bit harsher to bear and what

needs above anything else ,a fresh outlook to ease out of strain in Industrial relationship.

The workman concerned who was stripped of his livelihood , needs little with breather, be provided one more

opportunity by offering him fresh appointment in the lowest Grade with two- year probation subject to being found

medically fit with full proof of his Identity and determination of his actual age with statutory Record. Therefore it is

ordered that the worker concerned be appointed as fresher in the lowest Gat-I with two-year period on probation only

ensuring compliance of the above laid down conditions before appointment but no back wages whatsoever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2671-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

chlhlh,y ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 112@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-

10-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@193@1999&vkbZvkj (lh &I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2017

S.O. 2671.—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. 2,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 112 of 2004) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 25.10.2017.

[No. L-20012/193/1999-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 112/2004

PARTIES

The Area Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

At/PO Bhowra, Distt: Dhanbad-826001

Vs.

The General Manager,

E.J.Area, Sudamdih M/s BCCL,

PO: Sudamdih, Dhanbad.

Order No. L-20012/193/99-IR (C-I) dt. 18.08.99.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

Workman himself and Union Rep.

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, 07^th August, 2017

8936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/193/99-IR (C-I) dt. 18.08.99.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Ram

Charitra Turi from the service of the Company w.e.f. 09.02.94 on grounds of unauthorized absence

from duty is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?”

On receipt of the Order No.L-20012/193/99-IR (C-I) dt. 18.08.99 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, the Reference

Case No. 50-2015 was registered on 01.10.2004 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to

file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their documents. The

Union and the O.P./Management through their own Ld. Counsels appeared respectively, and contested the case.

This Reference case too deals with the case of dismissal of the workman Ram Charitra, a permanent employee

of Sudamdih Shaft Mines of M/s BCCL had been performing his job satisfactorily maintaining his service records

unblemished since long .During the long period of service the workman concerned developed T.B. and underwent

treatment but his health kept deteriorating and reached an stage beyond control that was forced him to start absenting

from duty on and from 15.02.1993 .After recovery from illness when the workman went to join duty with Medical

Certificate the Management neither considered his request nor did let him join the duty throwing him out of

employment as the workman had been idle as he was robbed of his livelihood .Though the Management assured the

workman of employment after considering his representation that kept in abeyance but it was never materialized.

The workman concerned hailing from schedule caste, came into employment in exchange of the land acquired by the

Management. Notwithstanding, the Management went ahead with part of the larger plan issued charge sheet to the

workman framing absentism as ground for misconduct simultaneously constituting an departmental enquiry that

conducted enquiry ex-parte finding him guilty of the charge levelled against him, In the a foresaid enquiry the

workman was never provided chance to defend his case and even debarred from Show cause notice, which amounts

not justified in the eye of law and against the principle, of natural justice and shockingly disproportionate. There is no

records for any intention or regular neglecting manner for absentism from duty beyond control over the circumstance

.The gravity of alleged misconduct is less than the punishment has given as dismissal, which is unwarranted, illegal

and arbitrary .The dismissal from service to workman has been in the line of severe violation of Sec.25 F of the

I.D.Act,1947 which is bad in law and invalid paving the way for the workman for reinstatement in service with full

back wages with other consequential benefits since the date he was dismissed from service .

In challenge to it, the contra case of the O.P./Management with categorical denials is that the present reference

is not maintainable either in law or in facts; contending further the demand of the Union is hypothetical, the workman

is not entitled to any relief. The Management went on with further assertion that that the dismissal order of the

workman was not singled out to one incident engulfing therein but taking into aspect of his poor attendances in the

past couple of years. the workman an permanent employee under the Employer was in the habit of remaining absent

without leave and no satisfactory cause .He had been a habitual offender slowly but steadily .He started absenting

from duty from 15.02.1993 without leave against which a charge sheet was issued for a misconduct under the

Certified Standing Order of the Company to which the workman did not bother to reply .The Said act led to formation

of an Enquiry Officer with assigned of going to the bottom of the fact of the issue, issued several notice to appear in the

enquiry on several occasions asking the workman to take part in the proceedings and even briefing adjournment of

enquiry on each notice just because of his absence on previous dates but the workman prefer to evade turning up

before the Enquiry Committee resulting in let the said enquiry be conducted ex-parte holding the workman guilty of

the charge levelled against him .So there is nothing sort of violation of natural justice in the said enquiry as alleged by

the Union rather it stands justified ,proper and in the line of the natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority having gone

through the enquiry proceedings and its findings and related papers fully agreed in principle and the past conduct of

his attendance after proper application of mind, inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service which is absolutely

right the workman deserved for .So the conduct and manner in which enquiry held never got mired at any stage. Even

in eventuality of not being convinced, the Management does stand by its words to adduce fresh evidence.

Though there is nothing unusual and unprecedented event like this as several hundred cases on same footing

happened in the Collieries earlier under the management of BCCL. The work nature of the Colliery Worker is

obviously arduous and tedious at all apart from at all time being in hale & hearty in physical structure too to work in

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8937

the hazardous atmospheres under beneath of several fetes or more from the surface where quantum of oxygen

sometimes reduces drastically leading to causality or suffocation. So workman do not hesitate to proceed on

prolonged leave even on slightest pretext of reasons on one score or another before stepping into the underground

Mines despite improved safety mechanism in place by the Management. Notwithstanding there was no deterrent to

avert the tragic accident in the Mines, and for which mostly workmen are still afraid of . As such the move will not be

called unjust and wrong-doings if the workman be provided a little reprieve to reform himself .

Hence it is of the view that the move will not be termed wrong and improper and against the natural justice if the

workman concerned be provided a little bit breathers by way of employment as fresher in Cat.-I as General Mazdoor.

So it is ordered for fresh appointment of the workman concerned in the lowest grade with probation rolling over to two

years with no back wages whatsoever.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2672-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ts,lh ,;j l£olst izkbosV 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; ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 291@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@3@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2017

S.O. 2672.—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. 291 of 2011) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 06.11.2017.

[No. L-11012/3/2011-IR (CM-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

ID No. 291/2011

Vijay Kumar-II S/o Shri Mange Ram

Village Gadaipur, PO Pahari,

Tehsil Patoudi, Dt. Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122 502

…Workman

Versus

The Executive Director,

JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.,

International Cargo Terminal,

Public Amenities Building, Ground Floor,

IGI Airport, New Delhi – 110 037

…Management

AWARD

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that a reference was received from the Ministry of Labour vide

letter No.L-11012/3/2011-IR(CM-I) dated 19.08.2011 with the following terms:

‘Whether the action of the management of JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd. in dismissing the services of Shri Vijay

Kumar-II, S/o Shri Mange Ram, ex-Supervisor without any notice or pay in lieu of notice period and

retrenchment compensation is just, fair and legal? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?’

8938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Both the parties were put to notice and thereafter, Shri Vijay Kumar, the workman herein filed statement of

claim with the averments that he was working with the management (JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.) as Loader and later

on he was promoted as supervisor and was drawing a salary of Rs.8000.00 per month. He was performing his duties

honestly and sincerely and had never been charge sheeted in the past.

The management issued ESI facilities bearing No.4801117 vide employment code No.1277 to the workman.

Later on management falsely leveled allegation upon the workman which is purely false and unwarranted since the

management always wanted to terminate the services of the workman. On 15.09.2009, the workman was suspended

with false and frivolous allegations and filed reply to the notice served by the management. A false charge sheet dated

25.09.2009 was given to the workman and management did not consider the reply filed by the workman herein.

Enquiry proceedings was conduced in an illegal manner against the workman. The workman was not given any notice

fee or compensation etc. before issuance of the charge sheet to the workman. Later on, management illegally

terminated services of the workman on 27.01.2010 without any rhyme or reason. Management has violated labour

laws intentionally and deliberately. The workman on 08.02.2010 sent written explanation against the order of dismissal

dated 27.01.2010. However, the management did not send any reply to the workman. Complaint was filed by the

workman before the Labour Officer, wherein the management also appeared. Finally, a prayer has been made by the

workman, directing the management to reinstate him with full back wages.

Management has filed amended written statement wherein it has been alleged that the workman herein was a

contractual employee under M/s JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd.. Though he was temporary/contractual employee, no

regular enquiry was required to terminate his services. However, principle of natural justice has been followed by the

management. It was reported by Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. that seal of 1/9 DIP Mail Package was found

broken due to mishandling of loader No.1037, Mr. Chhotu, who was working under Shri Vijay Kumar, Supervisor,

who misbehaved and argued loudly with the senior supervisor in the presence of others instead of admitting his

mistake. Finally, the said loader of Vijay Kumar group was replaced. Behaviour of Shri Vijay Kumar was not good

towards his seniors and n view of the above incident, order of suspension was issued to Shri Vijay Kumar on

15.05.2009. Thereafter, charge sheet dated 25.06.2009 containing article of 12 charges was also issued to Shri Vijay

Kumar through registered post. On 01.07.2009, Shri Vijay Kumar filed detailed reply thereto denying the above

charges leveled against him. However, an enquiry was fixed to look into the charges of misconduct on the part of Shri

Vijay Kumar. Shri T.N. Venkatewaran was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 13.07.2009, who has

conducted the enquiry and Shri Vijay Kumar, workman herein, also participated in the enquiry. Report was submitted

by the Enquiry Officer on 16.11.2009 holding the charges against Shri Vijay Kumar as proved. In para 7 of the written

statement it is held that pleas taken by the workman herein are not tenable for reasons mentioned in the said para.

On merits, it is alleged that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the present claim and the answering

management is not a Government authority nor involved in any work of air services. Claim is also bad for misjoinder

of the parties and Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. has engaged the management to provide cargo handling services

at the Import facilities at the Cargo Terminal. On the basis of the above engagement, answering management has

engaged some employees, including the above workman, for a limited period on contractual basis. It has been denied

that salary of the workman is Rs.8000.00. Enquiry has been conducted by the management in a fair manner in

accordance with rules and principles of natural justice were followed. The Enquiry Officer has held all the 12 charges

to be proved against the workman herein. Management has denied the other averments contained in the statement of

claim.

Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman to the amended written statement filed by the management

wherein the workman reasserted the stand taken in the statement of claim and denied the material averments contained

in the written statement.

Against this factual background, vide a order dated 04.10.2011, my learned predecessor, on the pleadings of the

parties, framed the following issues:

(i)

Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is just, fair and legal?

(ii)

Whether the punishment awarded to the claimant is proportionate to his misconduct?

(iii)

As in terms of reference.

Issue No.(i) pertaining to the domestic enquiry was treated as preliminary issue.

It is not out of place to mention here that in view of the amended written statement, this Tribunal vide order

dated 24.02.2012, framed another additional issue, i.e. ‘Whether the management is not involved in Air Transport

Service. If yes, its effects?’

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8939

10.

Management in order to prove the charges against the workman examined Shri K.J. Rawtani as MW1 and Shri

B.S. Kaushik as MW2, whose affidavits are Ex.MW1/A and Ex.MW2/A respectively. Management also tendered and

proved various documents in evidence. Shri Vijay Kumar examined himself as WW1, whose affidavit is Ex.WW1/A

and also proved documents annexed with the affidavit.

11.

This Tribunal, vide order dated 11.02.2016, decided issue No.1 which was treated as preliminary issue, in favour

of the claimant and against the management. Action of the management was held to be unfair and against the

principles of natural justice.

12.

The management had not reserved its right to adduce evidence on merits in case findings on preliminary issue,

i.e. domestic enquiry, is held to be against the management. Even no application was moved by the management when

findings preliminary enquiry was passed by this Tribunal on 11.02.2016. However, this Tribunal afforded opportunity

to both the parties to adduce evidence on merits on the remaining issues. Record of the case shows that Shri Vijay

Kumar, the claimant herein has filed affidavit in evidence which is Ex.WW1/B and tried to support the averments made

in the statement of claim. Thereafter opportunity was given to the management to bring evidence on other issues.

However, management filed affidavit of Shri K.J. Rawatani in evidence, but the said witness was never produced by

the management in the court for the purpose of cross examination. As such, averments made in the affidavit cannot be

legally taken into consideration for any purpose.

13.

Since in the present case management has not adduced any evidence after rendering of the findings on

preliminary enquiry inasmuch as no right was reserved by the management in the written statement to adduce evidence

on merits in relation to the allegations contained in the charge sheet nor any application was moved after findings was

given by this Tribunal on the preliminary enquiry, as such, there is no evidence worth the name on record which

requires further consideration. The only evidence on record after findings on preliminary enquiry is that of Shri Vijay

Kumar, the claimant herein, who has clearly stated that after his termination he is not gainfully employed anywhere

else.

Findings on Issue No (ii)

14.

This issue pertains to the punishment whether the same is proportionate to misconduct committed by the

claimant. Since this Tribunal has already held the enquiry conducted by the management to be unjust & unfair under

the law and against principles of natural justice; as such, question of proportionality of punishment now does not

survive for consideration.

Findings on issue No.iv

15.

This issue was not pressed during the course of arguments or at any stage nor there is any evidence on record to

show that the management is not involved in air transport service. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the

claimant and against the management.

Findings on Issue No.iii

16.

In the present case there is no evidence on record to suggest that after his termination, claimant herein was

gainfully employed anywhere. Management has also not led any evidence to the contrary. It has been held by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and

others (2013 Lab.I.C. 4249), as under:

‘Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back

wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of

first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants

to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the

employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing

prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence

of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to

prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not

employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully

employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.’

17.

Yet again Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shankar (2015) 9 SCC 345) set

aside the judgement of Hon’ble High Court wherein back wages were reduced to 50% and held that High Court has

exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in awarding reinstatement to the

workman to his post. It was observed that there are a number of factors which are to be taken into consideration by the

Tribunal while considering the question of grant of back wages, including reinstatement. Relevant factors are, (i)

whether the workman has approached the Tribunal at the earliest or there was delay in seeking reference, (ii) nature of

the post, (iii) length of service as well as availability of vacancy when the question of reinstatement is being decided.

8940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Since facts of no two cases are similar, as such, the Tribunal is required to keep in mind the above circumstances before

ordering grant of back wages. Legal position which emerges from the above two rulings is that where there is violation

of provisions of law by the management in passing order of termination or retrenchment and evidence on record is clear

that the workman was not gainfully employed or was not having any other source of income to make both ends meet

during the period when the matter was being considered by the Tribunal, in such circumstances, Tribunal can always

grant full back wages alongwith reinstatement.

18.

Since in the present case, no doubt, there are rulings to the effect that merely holding the termination of the

workman to be invalid or order of reinstatement of workman would not ipso facto entitle the claimant for back wages

but law is fairly clear that the claim for back wages is to be considered in the light of circumstances on record,

particularly whether workman was engaged purely on daily or casual basis or he was working against a sanctioned

post. The Tribunal is also to keep in mind whether action of the management in terminating the services of the

claimant is purely illegal. Since in the case on hand, claimant herein, was admittedly in service of the management

since 2002, as such, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant is also entitled for back wages from the date of his

termination by the management.

Relief

19.

As a sequel to my findings, it is held that the action of the management in dismissing the service of the claimant

Shri Vijay Kumar is held to be unfair and illegal and the claimant is held to be entitled to reinstatement with full back

wages. An award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : August 22, 2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2673-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad

vkWiQ lkSjk"Vª ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 891@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@14@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

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

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2017

S.O. 2673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 891/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of Saurashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.11.2017.

[No. L-12012/14/2003-IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10^th October, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 891/2004

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of Saurashtra,

Head, Office, Neelambaugh,

Bhavnagar (Gujarat) – 364001

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8941

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Saurashtra,

Rajula Branch,

Amreli (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

Shri Kishorebhai Rajabhai Dhamal,

Old Harijan Vankarvas,

Mahuva Road, Rajula,

Amreli (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri B.M. Joshi

For the Second Party : Shri Yogen Pandya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No.

L-12012/14/2003-IR(B-I) dated 27.05.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad

(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Saurashtra, Bhavnagar in not giving opportunity to

Shri Kishorebhai Rajabhai Dhamal to appear in the interview for permanent job as per circular and

terminating his service w.e.f. 31.05.1999 is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 27.05.2003. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 30.08.2003

before the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 20.12.2004 that

too before the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar. Since then the second party failed to lead his evidence. The matter was

transferred to this tribunal vide Government of India dated 01.11.2010. Both the parties issued notice Ex. 13 regarding

the transfer of this matter to this tribunal on 21.02.2011 to appear on 06.04.2011. In response to the notice, both the

parties filed the vakalatpatra Ex. 15 and 14 respectively on 28.11.2011 and 14.02.2012.

Since then the second party advocate used to appear but did not lead evidence. Today on 10.10.2017, the

advocate for the second party is present and stated that his client/workman has not been in his contact.

Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case.

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

observation as under: “the action of the management of State Bank of Saurashtra, Bhavnagar in not giving opportunity

to Shri Kishorebhai Rajabhai Dhamal to appear in the interview for permanent job as per circular and terminating his

service w.e.f. 31.05.1999 is justified.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2674-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; 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 67@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-11-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@27@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

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

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2017

S.O. 2674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2008) 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 Central

Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-41012/27/2008-IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

8942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 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-2/67 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

CENTRAL RAILWAY

The Dy. Chief Workshop Manager,

Central Railway,

Carriage & Wagon Workshop,

Matunga,

Mumbai – 400 019.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Shri Shamu Gaikwad,

Shantinagar, Opp. Barraack 1201,

Near Priyadarshini Apartment,

Bhoir Chawl, Room No.7,

Ulhasnagar, Distt - Thane.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Ms. Pooja Kulkarni, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. R.D. Deharia, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 16^th August, 2017

AWARD PART - I

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-41012/27/2008 – IR (B-I) dated 16.12.2008. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of Chief Workshop Manager, C&W Workshop, Central Railway, Matunga, Mumbai in

discontinuing the services of Shri Shamu Gaikwad w.e.f. 11.10.2001 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief

he 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 second party workman, he was working

as a Trimmer [SK] in the Carriage Workshop in Matunga of the first party management having appointed on 3.10.1991.

He has put in 11 years of service as regular employee with first party management.

According to second party workman, on 27.1.2001 he has submitted an application to the first party

management for leave for 6 days urgently to rush to his native village to attend his seriously ill mother as there being

nobody to attend her. On return from leave after 6 days on 2.2.2001 he was not allowed to resume his duty stating that

the leave applied for was not sanctioned by the first party management. He was asked to bring in duty certificate from

the first party management’s medical authorities which he could not obtain because identity card / residential card, pass

/ medical identity card etc. were lost in the absence of which the medical authorities refused to issue such duty

certificate. Medical authorities stated that unless the above documents were produced it is not possible for them to

issue said certificate. To obtain said documents the procedure by way of reporting the fact to the police, obtaining their

certificates etc. was involved. He undertook all these procedures and obtained the police certificate and submitted the

same to the first party management to enable them to issue duplicate of the said documents which would have only

made it possible to get the duty certificate as demanded by the first party management. However, this procedure got

struck up at the level of the first party management to whom second party workman submitted the police certificate.

According to the concerned workman, in the mean time he received urgent message that his mother was in coma

and he had to rush immediately to her assistance. He went to his village to attend his mother and he has had to be with

her till 14.11.2002 for nursing her to make her recovery. He was with his mother at his village in Nasik Dist. Named

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8943

Bhendali. He could not inform to the first party management since the said village is far away where proper postal

service was not available. However, he returned to the first party management after his mother was considered out of

danger and produced the duty certificate on 14.11.2002 from the Railway Medical Departmental of the first party

management as required under the rules and reported on duty. That time he was informed that his services has been

terminated by way of removal from service w.e.f. 6.9.2002.

According to the second party employee he was made to understand that on refusal of employers for sanctioning

of the leave from 27.01.2001 to 1.2.2001, first party management has taken decision to remove him from service. He

was made to understand that first party management did adopt the procedure as laid down under D & A Rules 1968

while initiating disciplinary action against him. He was also made to understand that the first party management has

sent a charge sheet, other communications etc. to his known address at Mumbai / Ulhasnagar and in the absence of any

response the first party management proceeded further and took the decision.

It is the case of second party workman that he explained the circumstances under which he was away from his

Ulhasnagar address and as such ex-parte decision / proceedings were initiated against him. He was denied the

opportunity to defend himself. The first party management could have sent the communications to the village address

of the second party workman particularly when the first party management alleged communication purported to have

been addressed to the second party workman at his Ulhasnagar address and allegedly reported un-served. It is thus case

of the second party workman that the action of the first party management in terminating his services is illegal and

malafide.

According to second party workman, he thereafter obtained copies of the charge memorandum, enquiry report

and decision of the disciplinary authority. The charge memorandum failed to fulfill mandatory requirements of the

alleged offence in the form of article of charges, imputation of charges, list of charges and documents of list of

witnesses relied upon. In the absence of compliance, these mandatory requirements of the first party management, the

charge memorandum and the action taken based thereon becomes illegal, void and is of no effect.

According to second party workman, he then submitted his appeal on 16.11.2002 which came to be dismissed.

So according to him appellate authority has also failed and neglected to apply his mind and consider the important

facts. He then submitted revision petition dated 18.12.2003 but the Revising Authority has also failed to apply their

mind. He is therefore asking for reinstatement with all consequential benefits including full wages, allowances, bonus

etc. for the intervening period from 27.1.2001 till the date of his reinstatement and interest on the amount of arrears and

wages, allowances for the period from 27.1.2001 till date of payment.

10.

The first party management [Central Railway] has resisted the statement of claim by filing written statement

Ex.9. It is the contention of the first party management that the workman concerned was issued charge memorandum

(SF V) No. E3/08056160-S ( i )/162 dated 11.10.2001 for unauthorized absence from 27.1.2001 onwards till issue of

charge sheet. The charge memorandum was attempted to serve upon the concerned workman through his immediate

incharge but as concerned workman was not present on duty it could not be served upon him. Hence the same was sent

to him at his residential address through RPAD and the same was returned by postal department undelivered. Hence as

per the existing rules the same was pasted on notice board with signatures of two witnesses and the same was deemed

to have been served upon the workman.

11.

It is also a case of the first party management that in terms of rule 9 (7) of R.S. (D & A) Rules-1968 the

delinquent employee has to submit the explanation against the charges leveled against him within the stipulated time of

10 days but the concerned employee failed to submit his explanation. Due to non-receipt of the representation from the

delinquent employee against the charges leveled against him in terms of rule 9 (9) (b) of R.S. (D & A) Rules-1968, Shri

H.M. Natekar was nominated as Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority. After nomination of Shri H.M. Natekar

as Enquiry Officer, he fixed the date of enquiry on 18.12.2001 and accordingly the advice was issued to the concerned

workman vide letter dated 5.12.2001 intimating the date of preliminary enquiry as 18.12.2001, since the employee was

not present on duty. This advice was sent to the workman by RPAD which was duly acknowledged by him. However,

he did not appear in the enquiry inspite of the knowledge of date of departmental enquiry. Since the workman did not

attend the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer gave another opportunity to the delinquent employee by fixing the

date of enquiry on 12.1.2002. Advice to this effect was sent to him vide letter dated 28.12.2001 through RPAD and the

same was returned by postal department undelivered with remarks ‘refused’. As such the delinquent employee failed,

neglected and avoided to attend the enquiry though it was last and final opportunity granted to him. The concerned

workman was well aware of the departmental enquiry initiated against him. He chose not to participate in the enquiry

proceedings at his own risk. Hence in terms of rule 9 (23) of R.S. (D & A) Rules-1968, an exp-arte decision was

delivered by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of available documentary evidence and Enquiry Officer found delinquent

employee guilty of charges leveled against him. Enquiry Officer submitted his report to disciplinary authority. The

Enquiry Officer’s report was sent to the delinquent employee and 15 days time was granted to him to submit final

8944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

representation against Enquiry Officer’s report vide letter dated 21.5.2002 through RPAD. However, the same was

returned undelivered.

12.

According to the first party management, disciplinary authority after considering the entire material on record

agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of charges and imposed penalty of removal from

service upon the delinquent employee after fulfilling all requisite formalities under R.S. (D & A) Rules-1968. While

imposing the punishment disciplinary authority also considered the workman’s past record.

13.

According to the first party management, even thereafter workman submitted an appeal against the penalty

imposed upon him to the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority confirmed the penalty imposed by

disciplinary authority and the decision of appellate authority was communicated to the employee concerned. Thereafter

he submitted revision petition and the revising authority also confirmed the order of punishment. The concerned

workman further submitted mercy appeal to CME, CST Mumbai which came to be rejected.

14.

It is thus contention of the management that action of the management against the concerned workman is

justified and legal. It has thus sought rejection of reference.

15.

Following issues are framed at Ex.11. Issue No.1 as regards fairness of departmental enquiry and findings of

Enquiry Officer whether legal or not is treated as a preliminary issue. Hence this issue is reproduced along with my

finding thereon for the reasons given below:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the enquiry of the workman Shri

Shamu Gaikwad was proper and legal and

enquiry and findings therein were proper and

legal ?

Yes

REASONS

Issue No. 1

16.

In this respect it is the case of the concerned workman that he has submitted application to the first party

management for leave for 6 days which was not sanctioned by the first party management. In his evidence the

concerned workman has stated that he submitted the application dated 27.1.2001 since urgently he has to rush to his

native village to attend his serious mother and thereafter he came back to resume his duties after 6 days on 2.2.2001

and that time he came to know that his leave application was not sanctioned by the first party management.

17.

On going through the documents, it appears that the concerned workman has not filed the said application on

record to show that he submitted such application and he had to rush to his native place since his mother was seriously

ill. Even he has not produced medical certificates to show that at the relevant time his mother was seriously ill and

therefore he has to rush to his native village to attend his mother who was seriously ill. On the contrary in his cross

examination he has admitted that he was absent on duty from 27.1.2001 to 11.10.2001 without sanction of leave.

18.

Even if some anxious consideration is given to the contention of the concerned workman that he was asked by

the first party management to bring duty certificate from medical authorities and then he could not obtain duty

certificate from the medical authorities because the identity card / residential card, pass / medical identity card etc. were

lost. In the absence of which the medical authorities refused to issue such duty certificate and then he undertook the

formalities such as reporting the facts to the police and obtain their certificates etc. and then obtained the police

certificate and submitted the same to the first party management, then it was expected of him to produce these

documents on record to show that even after submitting the police certificate the first party management did not do the

needful and the procedure got struck up at the level of first party management. No such documents are produced on

record. This sort of evidence of the concerned workman is also not substantiated by documentary evidence.

19.

In his evidence the second party workman has stated that he had to go his native place since his mother was

serious and thereafter he had to be with his mother till 14.12.2002 and then he came back after his mother was

recovered to some extend and produced the duty certificate. This sort of evidence of the concerned workman is also

not substantiated by documents such as medical certificates in respect of illness of his mother and the treatment which

was given to his mother during the relevant period. On the contrary in his cross examination he has admitted that he

did not made any application for leave. Even though according to him he had applied for leave for 6 days which was

not sanctioned. He remained absent admittedly from 27.1.2001 to 11.10.2001. If according to him he has submitted

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8945

application only for 6 days from 27.1.2001 which was not sanctioned and then he would have submitted the application

for remaining period also.

20.

In this back drop this it is to be seen whether the enquiry is fair and proper or not ? From the documents on

record, it appears that management has issued charge memorandum for unauthorized absence from work of the

concerned workman on duty from 27.1.2001 onwards till issue of charge sheet and it was attempted to be served upon

the concerned workman initially through his immediate incharge but since he was not on duty it could not be served

upon him. The same was sent to him at his residential address through RPAD and the same was returned undelivered.

A copy of enquiry report Ann.2 below Ex.12/2 shows that memorandum of charges of unauthorized absence was sent

to the concerned workman at his residential address by RPAD on 13.10.2002 and thereafter the departmental enquiry

was ordered. But then it appears that charge sheet was not served upon the concerned workman though it was sent by

RPAD on his residential address and therefore the same was pasted on notice board by the signatures of 2 witnesses.

Document at Sr. No.4 below Ex.14 shows that memorandum was pasted on notice board in presence of 2 witnesses

namely Rekha and Vijaya.

21.

Even then the concerned workman in his evidence has stated that since he was at his native village till

14.11.2002, he was not informed about the enquiry proceedings initiated against him and therefore the enquiry

proceeding was bad in law in the absence of services of notice on him calling upon him to show cause why action

should not be initiated against him for not reporting for duty.

22.

In this respect I would observe that the concerned workman was very well knowing about the enquiry

proceedings. From the documents on record it can be seen that the Enquiry Officer has issued notice vide letter dated

5.2.2001 informing the date of preliminary enquiry as on 18.12.2001 and this notice was sent to him, since he was not

on duty, by RPAD which was received by him and also communicated to him. We have document at Sr. No. 9 below

Ex.14 to show that the notice sent to the concerned workman by the Enquiry Officer informing him the date of

preliminary enquiry, was served on him and this acknowledgement bears his signature. The acknowledgement shows

that notice was served on him. Obviously, the notice was not returned undelivered. The concerned workman was

asked in his cross examination whether this acknowledgement at pg. 9 below Ex.14 bears his signature or not to which

he replied that it does not bear his signature or signature of his family members. But then there is presumption in

respect of receipt of such letter which was sent by RPAD to the effect that when such notice letter etc. are sent by

RPAD, and acknowledgement is received then it is presumed that it was served on the addressee. That would show

that the concerned workman was knowing fully well about the date of enquiry which was fixed on 18.12.2001 by the

Enquiry Officer. The advise was issued to him vide letter dated 5.12.2001 advising him the date of enquiry as on

18.12.2001. Acknowledgement at pg. 9 below Ex.14 produced on behalf of the management clearly goes to show that

advice was sent to the concerned workman by RPAD which was duly acknowledged by him. It appears that even

thereafter the concerned workman did not appear in the enquiry inspite of knowledge of the date of departmental

enquiry. He even did not make efforts to find out the next date of hearing of enquiry and continued to remain absent

for enquiry proceedings. It can be observed therefore that the concerned workman chose to remain absent on his own

and did not participate the enquiry proceedings. He is therefore estopped from saying now that the enquiry was

conducted ex-parte without giving opportunity to him to defend himself.

23.

That apart the fact remains that in his cross examination also the concerned workman has admitted that he was

absent on duty from 27.1.2001 onwards. Admittedly, he has not made any application. In view of this admission it can

be said that the concerned workman admits the charge of absenteeism. In his application dated 16.11.2002 the

concerned workman has stated that he was absent due to circumstances which has been stated in his application dated

16.11.2002 and then further stated that he be forgived for the mistakes committed by him and that he would not commit

such mistakes in future. This application also shows that he has admitted in his application the charge of absenteeism

after receipt of the order. When admission made by the concerned workman shows that he had committed the

misconduct then the question of violation of principles of natural justice cannot have relevance.

24.

In this respect, Learned Counsel for the management seeks to rely on the decision in case of K. Venkateswarlu

V/s. Nagarjuna Grameena Bank & Anr. WP No. 15623/1988 wherein it has been held that

“In disciplinary proceedings, if the delinquent admits the charge or makes an unconditional and unqualified

admission, there is nothing to be done by way of departmental enquiry and it cannot be argued that the

procedure of departmental enquiry should have been applied notwithstanding such admission or confession.

When admission made by the delinquent shows that he had committed the misconduct then the question of

violation of principles of natural justice cannot have any relevance.”

25.

As regards the opportunity to be given to the concerned workman for participating in the departmental enquiry

the evidence has come on record that he was knowing about the enquiry and notice of the preliminary date of the

8946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

enquiry was given to him by the Enquiry Officer which was served on him but then he chose to remain absent.

Therefore, he cannot come with a case that the enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice.

26.

In the decision cited supra, it has been observed in para 7 of the judgment that

“Once an opportunity is given to the employee to show cause, the employer is exonerated of his duty

of giving a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent, if the latter does not avail of the opportunity of

showing cause and throws himself at the mercy of the employer or tenders an unqualified apology

such a delinquent cannot subsequently complain that the punishment was imposed in violation of

principles of natural justice.”

27.

In para 7 of the judgment it has been observed that departmental enquiry is not necessary in case of admission of

misconduct by the employee. Even if any enquiry is made despite admission, punishment imposed cannot be set aside

on the defects in conduct of the enquiry.

28.

In view of above legal position it will have to be said that the notice of enquiry was served on the concerned

workman. He was informed about the date of enquiry. He chose to remain absent and not to participate in the enquiry.

Even thereafter in his application he admitted his misconduct in respect of absenteeism and remained absent on duty for

the period from 27.1.2001 to 11.10.2001 that too without sanction of leave. As such it will have to be said that the

enquiry was fair and proper and the concerned workman in such circumstances has no right to challenge the enquiry

mainly on the ground that the enquiry was held ex-parte and he was not given opportunity to defend himself.

29.

Even then, the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the charge memorandum shows that

it is defective having omitted important and mandatory provisions of disciplinary and appeal rules by not indicating the

same by second party workman and not attaching therewith articles of charge, statement of imputation, list of

documents and names of witnesses etc. He submits that personal inspector would have been deputed to ensure the

attendance of the workman for enquiry which was not done and as such ex-parte decision was given in violation of

principles of natural justice. The submission is also to the effect that in his application the concerned workman in good

faith to avoid complication for the absence caused has explained the reasons for his absence on duty which cannot be

taken as admission of charge.

30.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workman seeks to rely on the decision in case of UP SRTC through its

Managing Director and Anr. V/s. Jeevan Prasad Mishra & Anr. 2003 (SCC 101) to submit that the termination was bad

in absence of services of notice on the concerned workman calling upon him to show cause why action should not be

taken against him for not reporting on duty in the place of his transfer.

31.

In that case the Respondent was working as Welder. He submitted an application for leave and his prayer was

accepted. In the meantime he was transferred and was ordered to be relieved. He has challenged the order. It was

finding of the fact that despite issuance of notice in newspaper, the Respondent failed to report on duty but then the

order of termination cannot be sustained since Respondent should have been served with notice calling upon him to

show cause why action should not be taken against him for not reporting for duty and that was not done. Facts in the

present case are quite different and distinguishable.

32.

As seen the earlier the notice of preliminary date of enquiry was informed to the concerned workman and notice

was served upon him. As such there is no question of service of notice by personal inspector to ensure his attendance

for enquiry. When the concerned workman has admitted misconduct in his application that would be admissible. Such

admission is substantive evidence of the facts admitted and therefore it was duty of the concerned workman to explain

the circumstances under which he was constrained to remain absent. In his evidence the concerned workman has stated

the reasons for such absence that his mother was ill but that statement is not supported by documentary evidence.

33.

In the context the reliance is also placed by the Learned Counsel for the management on the decision in case of

Arun Kr. Sharma V/S. Union of India and Anr. 2008 LAB IC 4250. In that case the dismissal was on the ground of

unauthorized absence from duty. Petitioner despite rejection of his leave application remained absent and mis-

conducted himself, proceeded on leave atleast for a period of one year and six months and did not report back on duty

under one pretext or another. The reason stated for such absence that his parents were ill, is not supported by

documentary evidence. It is held that the dismissal from service is proper.

34.

Now, on going through the enquiry report, it appears that Enquiry Officer held that the charges of unauthorized

absence on duty leveled against the concerned workman stands proved. This finding is based on documents as regards

the absence of the concerned workman on duty for the period from 27.1.2001. Even charge of absence on duty is

admitted by the concerned workman in his cross examination and the reasons given by him for his absent are not

supported by documents.

35.

Considering all these facts, I find that the enquiry is fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

not perverse. Issue No.1 is answered according. Hence I pass the following order.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8947

ORDER

(i)

Enquiry held against the concerned workman Shri Shamu Gaikwad is fair & proper.

(ii)

Findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.

(iii)

The parties are directed to argue/lead evidence on the point of quantum of punishment.

Date: 16.08.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2675-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; 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;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-11-2017 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41011@128@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

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

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2017

S.O. 2675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of N.F. Railway

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-41011/128/2012-IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present

Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 22 of 2013

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

The Management of N.F.Railway , Lumding Division, Lumding.

-Vrs-

Workman Sri Kartick Sarkar, represented by the Rail Mazdoor Union, Guwahati.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Mr. M.U.Ahmed, learned Advocate.

Mrs. M.Bora, Learned Advocate.

For the Management

Mr. A.K.Nath, Learned Advocate.

Date of Award: 20.09.2017.

AWARD

The present reference arose out of an Industrial Dispute between the workman Sri Kartik Sarkar and the

Management of N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati. According to the Central Government, an Industrial Dispute exists

between the Management of N.F. Railways and their workman in respect of the matters which have been specified in

the Schedule as under:

8948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager (P), N.F.Railway, Lumding Division in refuting

to give effect of promotion in respect of Shri Kartik Sarkar with retrospective date with seniority over the

junior, named Shri Subodh Ch. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Goods Clerk who promoted on 28.9.2005 is justified

and valid? If not, what relief Shri Kartik Sarkar is entitled to & from what date?”

On receipt of notices both the parties appeared and submitted their respective claim statement and written

statement. The workman’s case, in brief, is as follows:

The workman Sri Kartik Sarkar was appointed in the N.F.Railway on 01.09.1987 as Junior Clerk in Goods and

Coaching stream. He was initially appointed in the scale of Rs.975-3200/- (pre revised). On 22.5.1997 he was promoted

in the hierarchy of Commercial clerk as Sr. Commercial Clerk (Goods) in the scale of Rs.4000-Rs.6,000/- as per 5^th Pay

Commission. After the aforesaid promotion his service was stagnated and it is alleged that during his aforesaid tenure

as Sr. Commercial Clerk he was superseded by at least 3 other employees namely Sri Subodh Bhattacharjee,

R.K.Choudhury and Sadhan Lal without any reason. It was further alleged that although the concerned workman and

the remaining 3 were serving in the post of Sr. Commercial Clerk/Coaching the juniors were promoted as Head

Commercial Clerk of the coaching and thus causing serious disadvantage to the workman in all respect. The workman

submitted representation to the authorities but his grievance was not redressed. It was also alleged that the authority has

been exercising administrative power arbitrarily by adopting pick and choose method in respect of granting promotion

to the workmen. On 15.2.1994 when the workman was working in Narangi Railway Station as Junior Commercial

Clerk (Goods Clerk) he was transferred to Lumding on 15.02.1994 because of certain administrative reasons and at the

time of that transfer his seniority position was shown at serial No.31 under the seniority list No.E/39-20(SNY) dated

05.11.1996. Subsequently he was transferred to Hojai on 25.04.1997. He was subsequently transferred as Sr.

Commercial Clerk (Goods) at Lumding on 21.04.2008. It is mentioned in his claim statement that on 25.04.1997 one

Sri S.C. Bhattacharjee who was junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sr. Commercial Clerk (Goods) on

25.04.1997 but subsequently the said order was reviewed and modified and he was shown to be promoted Sr.

Commercial Clerk (Coaching) with effect from 20.10.1998. According to the petitioner the aforesaid act of the

authority established that their stand that Goods and Coaching are distinct and different stream is baseless because both

schemes are interchangeable. It is alleged that the plea of the management that he could not be promoted before the

aforesaid 3 workmen because the petitioner opted to absorb himself in Commercial (Goods Wing) and Cadre Post in

Goods Wing is not permitted to promote the petitioner in higher Grade. It was specifically mentioned by the petitioner

that neither the management ever sought option from the petitioner nor the petitioner ever opted to absorb himself as

Commercial Clerk (Goods) as alleged. On the basis of the above, the workman has prayed for giving effect to his due

promotion with all consequential benefit from the date on which his junior were promoted.

The management submitted written statement against the claim statement of the workman and stated that

Sri S.C. Bhattacharjee was promoted to the post of Head Commercial Clerk (Coaching) vide order dated

18.08.2005 because his seniority is maintained in the Coaching Side. It was also stated that the petitioner workman who

joined as Commercial Clerk on 01.09.1987 was posted as Commercial Clerk (Goods) on his own request vide order

dated 28.02.1990 and subsequently he was posted as Sr. Commercial Clerk (Goods) vide order dated 29.04.1997 and

subsequently he was transferred to Lumding as Sr. Commercial Clerk (Goods) on 19.07.1999 and his seniority as Sr.

Commercial Clerk is maintained in the Goods Side and not in Coaching Side and hence, there was no question of him

being superseded by others whose seniority were maintained in Coaching Side. It was also mentioned that when his

turn of promotion came he was promoted as Head Commercial Clerk vide order dated 14.02.2011. But his promotion

could not be effected due to his DAR case pending.

The Workman side examined 2 witnesses namely Sri Kartik Sarkar (W.W.1) and Sri Mridul Kumar Das

(W.W.2). They are cross-examined by the management side. Management side however, in spite of giving several

chances, did not adduce any evidence.

W.W.1,Sri Kartik Sarkar, the concerned workman, deposed that on 01.09.1987 he was posted as Relieving

Commercial Clerk at Badarpur Sub-Division where he worked for 3 years and thereafter he applied for transfer to

Guwahati due to illness of his mother. The representation submitted by him has been exhibited as Exhibit-1. He also

submitted another reminder (Exhibit-2) seeking transfer. Ultimately vide order dated 28.02.1990 he was transferred to

Narangi as Goods Clerk and then again he was transferred from Narangi to Lumding as Goods Clerk on 17.01.1994

(Exhibit-4). He further stated while he was working at Lumding a provisional seniority list was issued by the DRM of

N.F. Railway Lumding vide dated 05.11.1996 wherein the name of the workman was at serial No.31. In the year 1997

he along with his junior namely Subodh Chandra Bhattacharjee were promoted as Sr. Goods Clerk vide dated

25.04.1997 (Exhibit-5) along with other staff. In the year 1999 a seniority list of Goods Clerk was issued vide dated

16.07.1999 ( Exhibit-6) wherein his name was at serial No.66 and Sri S.C. Bhattacharjee was shown at serial No.68. In

the mean time he was posted first at Hojai then again transferred to Lumding and ultimately in the year 2001 vide order

23.04.2001 (Exhibit-7) he was transferred to Guwahati and posted at Pandu as Sr. Goods Clerk. It was also stated that

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8949

in the year 2004 another Provisional seniority list was issued by the DRM, N.F.Railway vide 28.12.2004 ( Exhibit-8)

wherein his name was reflected as serial No.40 but name of Sri S.C. Bhattacharjee was not included in the said list. In

the year 2008 he was transferred to Lumding as Sr. Relieving Commercial Clerk vide dated 12.03.2008 (Exhibit-9) and

after his posting at Lumding on enquiry he came to know that his juniors namely Sri S.C. Bhattacharjee, Sri Haradhan

Dey, Sri Shadon Ludh, Sri R.K.Deb Choudhury and some others were promoted as Head Coaching Clerk in the year

2005. According to the concerned workman he was therefore deprived and superseded without any ground. In the year

2010 he filed a petition under RTI Act before the management of N.F. Railway seeking latest position in regard to his

promotion and in reply the management stated that his promotion and seniority were not effected as he was transferred

at his own instance.

During his cross examination by the management, he admitted that Sri S.C. Bhattacharjee and others were

promoted superseding him because they were not Goods Clerk and were working in Coaching Section. The witness

however denied the suggestion of the management that procedure as well as rules for promotion in respect of Goods

Clerk and Coaching Clerk were not the same. From the trend of the cross-examination of the management it appeared

that management took two grounds to justify the delayed promotion of the concerned workman. Firstly, according to

the management those who allegedly superseded the workman were in Coaching Department whereas the workman

was in Goods Department. Another ground taken by the management was that the workman did not submit any

representation immediately against the promotion of Sri S.C. Bhattacharjee allegedly superseding him. Relevant part of

his cross-examination is quoted below:- “….I was superseded by the above named persons who have been working in

Coaching department. Subodh Ch Bhattacharjee whom I mentioned above is senior to me in both age and length of

service. I have submitted my representation before my appointing authority alleging that promotion of Subodh Ch

Bhattacharjee was made by superseding me. But I have not produced any document in this regard. It is not a fact that

as I have not submitted any representation alleging promotion of Subodh Ch Bhattacharjee superseding me for which I

could not prodeuce any document before the court nor did I mention in my claim statement.” It was clear from the

above that even if the concerned workman thought that he was superseded in respect of promotion, he did not ventilate

his grievance to his employer. He could not show that he submitted any such representation within a reasonable time.

Workman witness No.2, an Office bearer of the Union to which the workman belong also deposed in the similar

line and summing up of his examination-in-chief on Affidavit that the concerned workman was illegally and unduly

superseded and his promotion was effected at a much later date causing pecuniary loss to him. One part of the

examination-in-chief of W.W No.2 appeared to be relevant wherein he stated as under:- “……in the NF Railway the

unification of the three existing cadres of commercial clerks, viz, goods, coaching and transshipment were not done at

the time as directed by the Railway Board……… It was effected on 1.1.2007.”

During his cross-examination the management suggested to him that the procedure and rules of promotion

regarding Goods Clerk and Coaching Clerk are not the same but the witness denied the same. The witness however

admitted in his examination in-chief on Affidavit that the unified cadre amalgamating goods, coaching and

transshipments clerk in the said unified cadre as commercial clerk was made in the year 2007 and had it been done

earlier the workman would have benefited by securing higher seniority at the time of posting as Sr. Commercial Clerk

(coaching).

10. From the evidence of W.W No.2 it was clear that till 2007, Goods, Coaching and Transhipment departments

were different streams and in the year 2007 these streams were amalgamated to create one unified cadre of commercial

clerk. Statement of the witness in examination-in-chief made it clear. Coming to the evidence of the concerned

workman, it was clear that he was posted as Senior Commercial clerk (Goods) till he was promoted as Head

Commercial Clerk. It was also clear from the materials on record that after his “alleged” supersession, he did not file

any representation to the concerned authority seeking redressal of his grievance. No such representation was proved by

him. It was therefore clear that he did not file any representation within reasonable time. From his own statement it

appeared that the alleged supersession was done in the year 2005 and the dispute was raised after substantial delay. It

was also clearly evident that he did not submit any representation before his employer highlighting his grievance and

seeking redressal. It was also clear from the evidence of the workman side, as noted above, that till 2007 Goods and

Coaching were different streams. It therefore, did not appear to me that the DRM (P), N.F. Railway, Lumding division

did any such unjustified act in respect of the promotion of the workman. The workman and another person named in

the schedule of the “Reference” belonged to two different streams namely, Goods and Coaching at the relevant time,

that is, in the year 2005. Admittedly, in the year 2007 both these streams were amalgamated to create a single stream.

This perhaps, may be the reason for which the workman did not submit any representation at the earliest. In fact, as per

materials available on record, no such representation was ever submitted before the appointing authority by the

workman.

8950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11. In view of the above it is held that the action of the DRM (P), N.F. Railway, Lumding division in respect of

the promotion of the workman Kartick Sarkar was not unjustified and invalid. The workman Sri Sarkar, therefore, is

not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly.

Send the Award to the Ministry as per procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 20^th day of September, 2017, at Guwahati.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2676-—jk"Vªifr] Jh ';ke lqUnj xxZ dks dsUæ ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds ihBklhu

vf/dkjh ds rkSj fnukad 25-09-2017 (iwokZg~u) ls 65 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr djus rd vFkkZr~ 19-01-2022 vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] fu;qDr djrs gSa A

[la- ,&19011@02@2017&lh,y,l&II]

vt; efyd] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2017

S.O. 2676.—The President is pleased to appoint Shri Shyam Sunder Garg Presiding Officer of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur with effect from 25.09.2017 (Forenoon) till he attains the

age of 65 years i.e. up to 19.01.2022 or until further orders, whichever is the earlier.

[No. A-19011/02/2017-CLS-II]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2677-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xzkeh.k cSad

vkWiQ vk;ZokVZ 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-

11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@09@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

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

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2017

S.O. 2677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of

Aryavrat and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.11.2017.

[No. L-12011/09/2014-IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, / LOK ADALAT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 25 of 2014

Between :

Shri R.P. Singh,

State Executive Committee Member,

U.P. Bank Workers’ Organisation,

3/13, Mathura Nagar,

Aligarh (U.P) – 202001

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8951

The Chairman,

Gramin Bank of Aryavrat,

Head office

A-2/46, Vijay Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow-226010

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification no.L-12011/09/2014-IR (B-I) dated 20-02-2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

“Whether Shri Anil Kumar Varshney, Officer Grade- I can be treated as workman under the provisions of

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the management of Gramin Bank of Aryavart is non-granting

him promotion to the post of officer Grade-II is just, fair and legal? If not to what relief he is entitled to and from what

date?”

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court,

Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the

case.

Shri R.P. Singh state executive committee member UP Bank organization has filed claim statement stating that

worker Anil Kumar Varshney was appointed in Aligarh Garmin Bank which was converted as Gramin bank Aryavart

in April 2013 and worker Shri Anil Kumar Varshney was working as second line officer and had been accepted by

management of bank as worker and he had cleared Departmental exam but was not promoted due to mala fide of bank

it is prayed that worker Shri Anil Kumar Varshney be promoted to officer class with effect from 20.05.2011.

Management has filed written statement denying the fact alleged in claim statement and it is further alleged that

Shri Anil Kumar Varshney is not a workman and he is not competent to raise industrial dispute.

No rejoinder is filed by workmen nor parties have adduced any oral evidence nor they have filed any

documentary evidence.

I have heard parties representative and perused the record.

On perusal of record it appears that A.R. for worker has moved an application alleging that worker is not

interested in contesting the case and this case is not being pressed by him. The application is not opposed by

management.

Therefore it is clear that worker has neither adduced any oral or documentary evidence in his support and further

he does not want to contest this I.D. and he has not pressed it. Therefore in this circumstances worker has failed to

prove his case and this tribunal is bound to decide the reference against the union and in favour of management and it is

held that worker is not entitled to any relief.

10.

The reference is decided accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2678-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xzkeh.k cSad

vkWiQ vk;ZokVZ 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 128@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-

11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@83@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

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

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2017

S.O. 2678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of

Aryavrat and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.11.2017.

[No. L-12011/83/2014-IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

8952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, / LOK ADALAT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 128 of 2014

Between :

Shri R.P. Singh,

State Executive Committee Member,

U.P. Bank Workers’ Organisation,

3/13, Mathura Nagar,

Aligarh (U.P) - 202001

The Chairman,

Gramin Bank of Aryavrat,

Head office

A-2/46, Vijay Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow-226010

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification no.L-12011/83/2014-IR (B-I) dated 24-11-2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

“Whether Shri Ramveer Singh, Officer Grade- I can be treated as workman under the provisions of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the management of Gramin Bank of Aryavart in treating his absence

from duty during the period from 08.07.2010 to 04.05.2012 as loss of pay and recovery of the same from his salary is

just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief he is entitled to and from which date?”

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court,

Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the

case.

Shri R.P. Singh state executive committee member UP Bank organization has filed claim statement stating that

worker Ram Veer Singh was appointed in Aligarh Garmin Bank which was converted as Gramin bank Aryavart in

April 2013 and worker Shri Ram Veer Singh was working as second line officer and had been accepted by

management of bank as worker and he had cleared Departmental exam but was not promoted due to mala fide of bank

as worker it is prayed that worker Shri Ram Veer Singh worker officer class I be declared as workman and he be paid

deducted amount of salary with interest.

Management has filed written statement denying the fact alleged in claim statement and it is further alleged that

Shri Ram Veer Singh is not a workman and he is not competent to raise industrial dispute.

No rejoinder is filed by workmen nor parties have adduced any oral evidence nor they have filed any

documentary evidence.

I have heard parties representative and perused the record.

On perusal of record it appears that A.R. for worker has moved an application alleging that worker is not

interested in contesting the case and this case is not being pressed by him. The application is not opposed by

management.

Therefore it is clear that worker has neither adduced any oral or documentary evidence in his support and further

he does not want to contest this I.D. and he has not pressed it. Therefore in this circumstances worker has failed to

prove his case and this tribunal is bound to decide the reference against the union and in favour of management and it is

held that worker is not entitled to any relief.

10.

The reference is decided accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 25] 2017@vxzgk;.k 4] 1939

8953

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2679-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xzkeh.k cSad

vkWiQ vk;ZokVZ 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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 129@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-

11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@82@2014&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

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

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2017

S.O. 2679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gramin Bank of

Aryavrat and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20.11.2017.

[No. L-12011/82/2014-IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, / LOK ADALAT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 129 of 2014

Between :

Shri R.P. Singh,

State Executive Committee Member,

U.P. Bank Workers’ Organisation,

3/13, Mathura Nagar,

Aligarh (U.P) - 202001

The Chairman,

Gramin Bank of Aryavrat,

Head office

A-2/46, Vijay Khand, Gomti Nagar,

Lucknow-226010

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, vide notification no.L-12011/82/2014-IR (B-I) dated 24-11-2014, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

“Whether Shri RamVeer Singh, Officer Grade- I can be treated as workman under the provisions of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947? If so, whether the action of the management of Gramin Bank of Aryavart in awarding punishment

of ‘reduction to lower stage in time scale of pay by all stage at initial basic pay of Rs 14500/- for a period of eight years

during which period the reduction shall have effect of postponding the future increments of his pay on him is just fair

and legal? If not, to what relief he is entitled to and from what date?”

In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court,

Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the

case.

Shri R.P. Singh state executive committee member UP Bank organization has filed claim statement stating that

worker Ram Veer Singh was appointed in Aligarh Garmin Bank which was converted as Gramin bank Aryavart in april

2013 and worker Shri Ram Veer Singh was working as second line officer and had been accepted by management of

bank as worker and he had cleared Departmental exam but was not promoted due to mala fide of bank as worker it is

8954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

prayed that worker Shri Ram Veer Singh officer class I be declared as workmen and he be paid full salary and

whatever amount deducted by punishment be paid to him along with interest.

Management has filed written statement denying the fact alleged in claim statement and it is further alleged that

Shri Ram Veer Singh is not a workman and he is not competent to raise industrial dispute.

No rejoinder is filed by workmen nor parties have adduced any oral evidence nor they have filed any

documentary evidence.

I have heard parties representative and perused the record.

On perusal of record it appears that A.R. for worker has moved an application alleging that worker is not

interested in contesting the case and this case is not being pressed by him. The application is not opposed by

management.

Therefore it is clear that worker has neither adduced any oral or documentary evidence in his support and further

he does not want to contest this I.D. and he has not pressed it. Therefore in this circumstances worker has failed to

prove his case and this tribunal is bound to decide the reference against the union and in favour of management and it is

held that worker is not entitled to any relief.

10.

The reference is decided accordingly.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed

by ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2017.12.08

09:29:34 +05'30'