Servants of Knowledge
About this archive Create account
Indian Gazettes A searchable archive of gazettes published by the Union and State Governments of India
Weekly Gazette of India · Government of India

This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

Published 16 December 2017

Ministry
This Gazette may contains Multiple Ministry / Organization
Department
This Gazette may contains Multiple Departments
Office
This Gazette may contains Multiple Offices
Gazetteid
NOT available ( 182100 )
Identifier
in.gazette.central.w.2017-12-16.182100
Languages
English, Hindi
Published at
Original source ↗
Gazette as published (PDF) Archive item ↗
Bookmark
Gazette text Alternate rendering

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक WEEKLY

सं. 50] नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 10—दिसम्बर 16, 2017, शनिवार/अग्रहायण 19—अग्रहायण 25, 1939

No. 50] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 10—DECEMBER 16, 2017, SATURDAY/ AGRAHAYANA 19—AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्राालय

;कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभागद्ध

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2789.—केन्द्र सरकार, कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग की दिनांक 15.11.2017 की पूर्व अध्सिूचना सं. 228/49/ 2017-एवीडी-II का अध्क्रिमण करते हुए तथा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन अध्निियम, 1946 ;अध्निियम सं. 25द्ध की धरा 6 के साथ पठित धरा 5 की उप धरा ;1द्ध द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग ;सी-सेक्शनद्ध की दिनांक 29.11.2017 की अध्सिूचना सं. एपफ-131/गृह-सी/2017 द्वारा जारी की गई सहमति से पुलिस स्टेशन पांड्री, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़ में भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ;1860 का अध्निियम सं. 45द्ध की धरा 384, 506 के अध्ीत दर्ज प्राथमिकी सं. 340/17 के अंतर्गत मामले में तथा पुलिस थाना सिविल लाइंस, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़ में सूचना प्रौद्‌योगिकी अध्निियम, 2000 की धरा 67 ;कद्ध के अंतर्गत प्राथमिकी सं. 665/2017 के अंतर्गत मामले में दर्ज अपराधें तथा उक्त मामलों में किए गए अपराधें और उक्त अपराधें को करने के क्रम में किए गए अथवा समान तथ्यों से उत्पन्न होने वाले अन्य अपराधें के संबंध् में अथवा उनसे जुडे़ प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों तथा षडयंत्राों का अन्वेषण करने और पूछताछ करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और न्यायाध्किार क्षेत्रा का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य पर करती है।

[पफा.सं. 228/49/2017-एवीडी-II]

एस. पी. आर. त्रिापाठी, अवर सचिव

7016 GI/2017

(9195)9196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2789.—In supersession of earlier DOPT Notification No. 228/49/2017-AVD-II dated 15.11.2017 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 5 read either Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Estabilshment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Chhattisgarh, Home Department (C-Section) issued vide Notification No. F-131/Home-c/2017 dated 29.11.2017 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Chhatisgarh to investigate and inquire into the offence registered in Police Station Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarth in a case under FIR No. 340/17 u/s 384, 506 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 and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences in the said cases and in other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

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

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

वित्तवित्तवित्तवित्त मंत्रालय मंत्रालय मंत्रालय मंत्रालय

(राजस्व(राजस्व(राजस्व(राजस्व िवभाग) िवभाग) िवभाग) िवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2017

सं. 2/2017सं. 2/2017सं. 2/2017सं. 2/2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2790279027902790....————जबकि कें (cid:15) सरकार ने फा. सं. ए. 12026/7/2017-प्रशा. I, के दिनांक 10 अक्तूबर, 2017 के का. आ. सं. 306/2017 द्वारा सु(cid:29)ी अनन्या रे, भारतीय राजस्व सेवा (सी. शु. एवं के . उ. शु.: 1980) (सेवानिवृत्त) को तस्कर एवं विदेशी मु(cid:15)ा छलसाधक (सम्पत्ति समप/ण) अधिनियम, 1976 के तहत स्थापित अपीलीय अधिकरण के सदस्य के रूप में पद का प्रभार 4हण करने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा 62 वर्ष की आयु तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, नियुक्त किया है।

और जबकि, सु(cid:29)ी अनन्या रे ने 23 अक्तूबर, 2017 के पूर्वाAन से उक्त अधिकरण के सदस्य के कार्यालय का प्रभार संभाला है।

अब, अिधकरण, अपीलीय अधिकरण एवं अन्य प्राधिकरण (सदस्यों की अर्हताC, अनुभव और सेवा की अन्य शतD) नियमावली, 2017 के साथ पठित तस्कर एवं विदेशी मु(cid:15)ा छलसाधक (सम्पत्ति समप/ण) अधिनियम, 1976 (1976 का 13) की धारा 12 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Hए कें (cid:15) सरकार सु(cid:29)ी अनन्या रे को उक्त अधिकरण के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्ति को अिधसूिचत करती है।

सु(cid:29)ी अनन्या रे कार्यालय का भार 23 अक्तूबर, 2017 के पूर्वाAन से तीन वषI की अवधि के लिए अथवा बासठ वर्ष की आयु पूरी करने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, धारित करेंगी।

[फा. सं. ए-12026/2/2015-एसओ (सीए)]

एस. भौिमक, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2017

No. 2/2017

S.O. 2790.—Whereas, the Central Government by Office Order No. 306/2017, bearing file No. A.12026/7/ 2017-Ad.I, dated 10th October, 2017 has appointed Ms. Ananya Ray, Indian Revenue Service (C&CE : 1980) (Retd.) as Member of the Appellate Tribunal established under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9197 Property) Act, 1976 from the date of assumption of charge of the post for a term of three years or upto 62 years or until further orders, whichever is earliest.

And whereas, Ms. Ananya Ray assumed the charge of the office of Member of the said Tribunal in the forenoon of the 23rd October, 2017.

Now in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (13 of 1976), read with the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, the Central Government hereby notifies the appointment of Ms. Ananya Ray as a Member of the aforesaid Tribunal.

Ms. Ananya Ray shall hold office for a period of three years with effect from the forenoon of 23rd October, 2017 or till she attains the age of sixty-two years or until further orders whichever is earliest.

[F. No. A-12026/2/2015-SO (CA)]

S. BHOWMICK, Under Secy.

विदेश मंत्राालय

;सीपीवी प्रभागद्ध

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2791.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अध्किारी ;शपथ एवं पफीसद्ध के अध्निियम, 1948 ;1948 का 41द्ध की धरा 2 के ख्ांड ;कद्ध के अनुसरण में केंद्र सरकार श्री संजय कुमार एवं श्री उज्ज्वल जाइस्वल, सहायक अनुभाग अध्किारी को दिनांक 4 दिसम्बर, 2017 से भारत के राजदूतावास, हवाना में सहायक कोंसुलर अध्किारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2015]

प्रकाश चन्द, निदेशक ;कोंसुलरद्ध

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2017

S.O. 2791.—In pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorises Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Ujjwal Jaiswal, Assistant Section Officers in Embassy of India, Havana to perform the Consular services as Assistant Consular Officers with effect from 4th December, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2015]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

fo|qr ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2792-—dsanzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa fo|qr ea=ky; ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu ikoj fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa ftuds 80 izfr'kr deZpkjho`an us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gS%-

1- ikoj fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM]

fot;okM+k 400 ds-oh- midsanz] uqUuk] fiu % 521212 eaMy fot;okM+k xzkeh.k] ftyk d`".kk] vka/kz izns'k

2- ikoj fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM]

fot;okM+k 765/400 ds-oh- midsanz]9198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 8oka fd- eh- ekby LVksu jk;pwj-csyxkao jksM+] vkfLdgky xkao ds ikl] jk;pwj-584104 ¼dukZVd½

3- ikoj fxzM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k fyfeVsM]

djuwy 765/400 ds-oh- midsanz] xkao vkSj eaMy] vkSokZdy] ftyk djuwy] ukan;ky gkbZos jksM+] 23 fd-eh- LVksu

[la- 11011@9@2017&fganh]

Hkkjrh] la;qDr lfpo ¼iz'kk-½

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2792.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 , the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Under the administrative control of Ministry of Power] where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Vijayawada 400 KV Sub-Station, Nunna, Pin-521212, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh

2. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

765/400 KV Sub-Station, 8th KM Milestone, Raichur-Belgaum Road, Near Askihal Village, RAICHUR- 584102 (KARNATAKA)

3. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,

765/400 KV Sub-Station, Village & Mandal : Orvakal District: Kurnool Kurnool- Nandyal Highway Road, 23 KM Milestone 8th KM Milestone,

[No. 11011/9/2017-Hindi]

BHARATI, Jt. Secy. (Adm.)

उपभोक्ताउपभोक्ताउपभोक्ताउपभोक्ता मामले मामले मामले मामले, , , , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालयखाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालयखाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालयखाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

((((उपभोक्ताउपभोक्ताउपभोक्ताउपभोक्ता मामले िवभाग मामले िवभाग मामले िवभाग मामले िवभाग))))

((((भारतीय मानक ब्यूभारतीय मानक ब्यूभारतीय मानक ब्यूभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोरोरोरो))))

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2793279327932793....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए

गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

Oम संख् या लाइसेंस संख् या स् वीकृ त करने की तिथि लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पत्ता भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक भा मा भाग अनु वर्ष
1. एल- 9512382717 02.06.2017 मै0 दिनेश फै ब्रिके शनस, धानी फोगट रोड, चरखी दादरी, िजला िभवानी, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
2. एल- 9512383323 02.06.2017 मै0 सरस् वती कं स् ट्रक् शनस, िह୍सार रोड, तोशाम, िजला िभवानी, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
3. एल- 9512383222 05.06.2017 मै0 पायनीयर पैनल प्रोडक् टस, वीपीओ इसमािलया II-बी, क ु लटाना बैरी रोड, तहसील सांपला, िजला रोहतक – 124501, हरियाणा मध् यम धनत् व के पूर्व- लेमिनेटिड फाबर बोर्ड 14587 - - 1998
4. एल- 9512383424 07.06.2017 मै0 जांगरा बिल्डिग मैटीरियल सप् लायर, ग[व रूरियावास, जिला झज् जर – 124106, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
5. एल- 9512382818 08.06.2017 मै0 त्तन् नु टाइल् स फै क् टरी, दादरी रोड, वीपीओ हलुवास, िजला िभवानी - 127021, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
6. एल- 9512382919 08.06.2017 मै0 आदि इन् टरप्राइसिस, वी. पी. ओ. पनहेड़ा खुर्द, बल् लभगढ़, िजला फरीदाबाद - 121004, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
7. एल- 9512383121 08.06.2017 मै0 अजय कं Oीट उद्योग, िपलानी रोड, बीआरसीएम कालेज के नज़दीक, बीहाल, तहसील लोहारू, िजला िभवानी – 127028, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
8. एल- 9512383020 10.06.2017 मै0 जय बाबा दयादास क ं Oीट उद्योग, वी. पी. ओ. धनाना, िजला िभवानी – 127031, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
9. एल- 9512383517 12.06.2017 मै0 कु बेर जी एa ड एसोिसएटस, र ेलवे लाइन, मुनकटी से मरैली रोड, खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
दकोरा, िजला पलवल, हरियाणा
10. एल- 9512383618 15.06.2017 मै0 सोरौट टाइल् स उद्योग, पुन् हाना रोड, होडल, िजला पलवल, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
11. एल- 9590000917 15.06.2017 मै0 सैन् को गोल् ड िलo, मेघा िसटी मॉल, जी.एफ. शॉप नं 2, एम. जी. रोड, जिला गुड़ग[व – 122002, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/शिल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
12. एल- 9512383820 19.06.2017 मै0 नीरज इन् टरलोdकग टाइल् स उद्योग, बस स् टैa ड के नज़दीक, वी. पी. ओ. - च[दी, िजला रोहतक – 124514, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
13. एल- 9512384418 19.06.2017 मै0 अनमोल रतना इन् टरलोdकग टाइल् स फै क् टरी, ग[व दरौली, तहसील कोसली, िजला रेवाड़ी – 123411, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
14. एल- 9512383921 20.06.2017 मै0 नाइस इन् टरप्राइसिस, वार्ड नंo 8, बाबा राइस िमल क े सामने, होडल, िजला पलवल – 121106, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
15. एल- 9512384620 20.06.2017 मै0 के पीसी फलैक् सी टयूबस प्राo िलo, प् लॉट नंo 7ए, 13/3, मथुरा रोड, िजला फरीदाबाद – 121003, हरियाणा िचनाई और कं Oीट वाले ब[धों में प्रयोग में आने वाले अनुप्रस् थ संकोच जोड़ों पर पी वी सी जल रोधक 15058 - - 2002
16. एल- 9512384022 22.06.2017 मै0 आर. डी. कं Oीट कं o, वीपीओ कु लटाना, सांपला बेरी रोड, सांपला, खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
िजला रोहतक – 124501, हरियाणा
17. एल- 9512384224 22.06.2017 मै0 बाबा मु ंगिपा कं स् ट्रक् शन क ं o, वी पी ओ निगाना खुर्द, तोशाम, िजला िभवानी – 127021, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
18. एल- 9512384123 23.06.2017 मै0 एल. एस. के बल इaिडया प्राo िलo, प् लॉट नंo 28-31, सैक् टर-5, फ े स - II, जी सी बावल, बावल, िजला रेवाड़ी - 123501, हरियाणा पोलीिवनाइल क् लोराइड (भारी डयूटी) इलैक् ट्रीक के बल भाग 1: 1100 किलो वाट की और तक की कार्यकारिता वोल् टता के िलए 1554 01 - 1988
19. एल- 9512384317 29.06.2017 मै0 जे. एस. इन् टरप्राइसिस, ग[व बानीपुर, पी. ओ. बावल, िजला रेवाड़ी, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
20. एल- 9512384519 30.06.2017 मै0 मंगलम इन् fाटैक, वी. पी. ओ. पिडयानवास, िजला रेवाड़ी – 123401, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9199 9200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9201

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

एस. के . वर्मा, वैgानिक ई एवं प्रमुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2793.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. Licences No. CM/L- Grant Date Name & Address of the Licensee Title of the Standard IS No. Part Sec. Year
1. L- 9512382717 02.06.2017 M/s. Dinesh Fabrications, Dhani Phogt Road, Charkhi Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
2. L- 9512383323 02.06.2017 M/s. Saraswati Constructions, Hisar Road, Tosham, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
3. L- 9512383222 05.06.2017 M/s. Pioneer Penal Products, VPO Ismalia II-B, Kultana Beri Road, Sampla, Distt. Rohtak - 124501, Haryana Pre-Laminated Medium Density Fibre Boards 14587 - - 1998
4. L- 9512383424 07.06.2017 M/s. Jangra Building Material Supplier, Village Ruriawas, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
5. L- 9512382818 08.06.2017 M/s. Tannu Tiles Factory, Dadri Road, VPO Haluwas, Distt. Bhiwani - 127021, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
6. L- 9512382919 08.06.2017 M/s. AADI Enterprises, V.P.O. Panhera Khurd, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad - 121004, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
7. L- 9512383121 08.06.2017 M/s. Ajay Concrete Udyog, Pilani Road, Near BRCM College, Behal, Tehsil Loharu, Distt. Bhiwani – 127028, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
8. L- 9512383020 10.06.2017 M/s. Jai Baba Dayadass Concrete Udyog, VPO Dhanana, Distt. Bhiwani - 127031, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
9. L- 9512383517 12.06.2017 M/s. Kuber Ji and Associates, Railway Line, Munkati to Maroli Road, Dakora, Distt. Palwal, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
10. L- 9512383618 15.06.2017 M/s. Sorout Tiles Udyog, Punhana Road, Hodal, Distt. Palwal, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
11. L- 9590000917 15.06.2017 M/s. Senco Gold Ltd., Mega City Mall, G.F. Shop No. 2, M.G. Road, Distt. Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2116
12. L- 9512383820 19.06.2017 M/s. Neeraj Interlocking Tiles Udyog, Near Bus Stand, V.P.O.- Chandi, Distt. Rohtak - 124514, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
13. L- 9512384418 19.06.2017 M/s. Anmol Ratana Interlocking Tiles Factory, Village Daroli, Tehsil Kosli, Distt. Rewari – 123411, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
14. L- 9512383921 20.06.2017 M/s. Nice Enterprises, Ward No.8, Opp. Baba Rice Mill,, Hodal, Distt. Palwal – 121106, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
15. L- 9512384620 20.06.2017 M/s. KPC Flexi Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 7A, 13/3, Mathura Road, Distt. Faridabad - 121003, Haryana PVC Water-Stops at Transverse Contraction Joints for use in Masonry and Concrete Dams 15058 - - 2002
16. L- 9512384022 22.06.2017 M/s. R.D. Concrete Co., VPO Kultana, Sampla, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
17. L- 9512384224 22.06.2017 M/s. Baba Mungippa Construction Co., Tosham, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
18. L- 9512384123 23.06.2017 M/s. L.S. Cable India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 28-31, Sector – 5, Phase – II, G.C. Bawal, Distt. Rewari – 123501, Haryana PVC Insulated (Heavy Duty) Electric Cables Part 1: For Working Voltages upto and including 1100 V 1554 01 - 1988
19. L- 9512384317 29.06.2017 M/s. J.S. Enterprises, Village Banipur, P.O. Bawal, Distt. Rewari, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
20. L- 9512384519 30.06.2017 M/s. Manglam Infratech, V.P.O. Padianwas, Distt. Rewari, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
9202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9203 9204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. K. VERMA, Scientist E & Head

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2794279427942794....———— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतhारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द /स्थिगत कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

Oम संख् या लाइसेंस संख् या सीएम एल / लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पत्ता लाइसेंस के अन् तर्गत वस् तु प्रOम / सम् बj भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक रद करने की तिथि
01 एलएलएलएल----9512368723 मै. आईयूपी जिन् दल मैटल् स एa ड एलोएस िल., दहकोरा रोड, ग[व रोहद, बहादुरगढ़, जिला झज् जर – 124501, हरियाणा बर्तनों और रसोईघर साधित्रों के िलए अल् प निकल ऑस् टेिनटीक स् टेनलैस स् टील की चादर एवं पत् ती आई एस 15997:2012 22.06.2017

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

एस. के . वर्मा, वैgानिक ई एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2794.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. Licences No. CM/L- Name & Address of the Licensee Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence Cancelled/suspension Date of Cancellation
01 L-9512368723 M/s. IUP Jindal Metals & Alloys Ltd., Dehkora Road, Village Rohad, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar – 124501, Haryana Low Nickel Austenitic Stainless Steel Sheet and Strips for Utensils and Kitchen Appliances IS 15997:2012 22.06.2017

[No. CMD/13:13]

S. K. VERMA, Scientist E & Head[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9205

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 2795279527952795.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

Oम संख् या लाइसेंस संख् या स् वीकृ त करने की तिथि लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पत्ता भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक भा मा भाग अनु वर्ष
1. एल- 9512382018 02.05.2017 मै0 दीप ज् वैलर्स, ओल् ड बिजली बोर्ड के नज़दीक, बस स् टैa ड, बहल, लोहारू, िजला िभवानी - 127028, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
2. एल- 9512382220 04.05.2017 मै0 अपना ज् वैलर्स, शॉप नं0 781/2, लिक रोड, अ4वाल धर्मशाला के नज़दीक, ओल् ड फरीदाबाद, िजला फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
3. एल- 9512382321 04.05.2017 मै0 अपना ज् वैलर्स, शॉप नं0 781/2, लिक रोड, अ4वाल धर्मशाला के नज़दीक, ओल् ड फरीदाबाद, िजला फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा च[दी एवं च[दी मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 2112 - - 2014
4. एल- 9512382422 04.05.2017 मै0 पायनीयर पैनल प्रोडक् टस, वीपीओ इसमािलया II-बी, क ु लटाना बेरी रोड, तहसील सांपला, िजला रोहतक - 124501, हरियाणा सामान् य प्रयोजनो के लिए मध् यम धनत् व के र ेशा बोर्ड 12406 - - 2003
5. एल- 9512382523 05.05.2017 मै0 ग् लेन एपलाइंिसस, आई-34, इa डस् ट्रीयल एरिया, फ े स-I, िजला फरीदाबाद - 121003, हरियाणा वित पेट्रोलियम गैसों क े साथ प्रयुक् त घरेलू गैस चूल् हे 4246 - - 2002
6. एल- 9590000117 08.05.2017 मै0 पवन ज् वैलर्स, मेन बाज़ार, माटनहेल, िजला झज् जर, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
7. एल- 9590000218 08.05.2017 मै0 राजन ज् वैलर्स, र ेलवे रोड, िजला रोहतक, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
8. एल- 9590000319 08.05.2017 मै0 मलहोत्रा सन् स ज् वैलर्स, शॉप नं0 37, पािलका बाज़ार, िसिवल रोड, िजला रोहतक - 124001, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
9. एल- 9590000420 08.05.2017 मै0 मधुसूदन ज् वैलर्स, र ेलवे रोड, फोटो वाली गली का कॉर्नर, िजला रोहतक - 124001, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
10. एल- 9590000521 08.05.2017 मै0 लाल चन् द अजय कु मार, र ेलवे रोड, िजला रोहतक - 124001, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
11. एल- 9512382624 15.05.2017 मै0 जय किसान इन् टरप्राइसिस, लोहारू रोड, बादड़ा, िजला िभवानी - 127308, हरियाणा खड़ंजे के िलए पूर्व ढलित कं Oीट ब् लॉक 15658 - - 2006
12. एल- 9590000622 17.05.2017 मै0 लाला बाल किशन ज् वैलर्स, वार्ड नं0 4, अनाज मa डी, हेली मa डी, तहसील पटौदी, िजला गुड़ग[व, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
13. एल- 9590000723 17.05.2017 मै0 लाला बाल किशन ज् वैलर्स, वार्ड नं0 4, अनाज मa डी, हेली मa डी, तहसील पटौदी, िजला गुड़ग[व, हरियाणा च[दी एवं च[दी मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 2112 - - 2014
14. एल- 9590000824 25.05.2017 मै0 लूना, बी-288, सुशांत लोक-1, िजला गुड़ग[व - 122002, हरियाणा स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मिधातु आभूषण/िशल् प वस् तुC – महीनता एवं मुहरांकन 1417 - - 2016
15. एल- 9512383719 31.05.2017 मै0 क् वािलटी िलिमटेड, सोफता, िजला पलवल - 121004, हरियाणा अनुसरित फामू र्ला - अनुपूरक आहार 15757 - - 2007
9206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9207

[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]

एस. के . वर्मा, वैgानिक ई एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2795.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. Licences No. CM/L- Grant Date Name & Address of the Licensee Title of the Standard IS No. Part Sec. Year
1. L- 9512382018 02.05.2017 M/s. Deep Jewellers, Near Old Bijli Board, Loharu Distt. Bhiwani - 127028, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
2. L- 9512382220 04.05.2017 M/s. Apna Jewellers, Shop No.781/2, Link Road, Near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Old Faridabad, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
3. L- 9512382321 04.05.2017 M/s. Apna Jewellers, Shop No.781/2, Link Road, Near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Old Faridabad, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana Silver and Silver Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 2112 - - 2014
4. L- 9512382422 04.05.2017 M/s. Pioneer Panel Products, VPO Ismalia II-B, Kultana Beri Road, Sampla, Distt. Rohtak - 124501, Haryana Medium Density Fibre Board for General Purpose 12406 - - 2003
5. L- 9512382523 05.05.2017 M/s. Glen Appliances, I-34, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Distt. Faridabad – 121003, Haryana Domestic Gas Stoves for use with Liquefied Petroleum Gas 4246 - - 2002
6. L- 9590000117 08.05.2017 M/s. Pawan Jewellers, Main Bazar, Matanhail, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
7. L- 9590000218 08.05.2017 M/s. Rajan Jewellers, Railway Road, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
8. L- 9590000319 08.05.2017 M/s. Malhotra Sons Jewellers, Shop No.37, Palika Bazar, Civil Road Distt. Rohtak - 124001, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
9. L- 9590000420 08.05.2017 M/s. Madhusudan Jewellers, Railway Road, Corner of Photo Wali Gali, Distt. Rohtak - 124001, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
10. L- 9590000521 08.05.2017 M/s. Lal Chand Ajay Kumar, Railway Road, Distt. Rohtak - 124001, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
11. L- 9512382624 15.05.2017 M/s. Jai Kissan Enterprises, Loharu Road, Badhra, Distt. Bhiwani - 127308, Haryana Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving 15658 - - 2006
12. L- 9590000622 17.05.2017 M/s. Lala Bal Kishan Jewellers, W. No.4, Anaj Mandi, Haily Mandi, Tehsil Pataudi, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
13. L- 9590000723 17.05.2017 M/s. Lala Bal Kishan Jewellers, W. No.4, Anaj Mandi, Haily Mandi, Tehsil Pataudi, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana Silver and Silver Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 2112 - - 2014
14. L- 9590000824 25.05.2017 M/s. LUNA, B-288, Sushant Lok-1, Distt. Gurgaon - 122002, Haryana Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness and Marking 1417 - - 2016
15. L- 9512383719 31.05.2017 M/s. Kwality Limited, Softa, Distt. Palwal - 121004, Haryana Follow-up Formula – Complementary Foods 15757 - - 2007
9208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[No. CMD/13:11]

S. K. VERMA, Scientist E & Head

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 2796279627962796....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द /स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9209

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

Oम संख् या लाइसेंस संख् या सीएम एल / लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पत्ता लाइसेंस के अन् तर्गत वस् तु प्रOम / सम् बj भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक रद करने की तिथि
01 एल-9801584 मै0 सूर्या प्रोडक् टस, ग[व बरौली , खेवट नं0 1, खतानी नं0 1, मुस् तकिल नं0 12, किला नं0 15/5/1, बल् लभगढ़, िजला फरीदबाबाद – 121004, हरियाणा पैके जबन् द पेय जल (पैके जबन् द प्राकृ तिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) आई एस 14543:2004 08.05.2017

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

एस. के . वर्मा, वैgानिक ई एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2796.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. Licences No. CM/L- Name & Address of the Licensee Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence Cancelled/suspension Date of Cancellation
01 L-9801584 M/s. Surya Products, Village Baroli, Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No.1, Mustkil No. 12, Kila No. 15/5/1, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad – 121004, Haryana Packaged Drinking Water (Other Than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) IS 14543:2004 08.05.2017

[No. CMD/13:13]

S. K. VERMA, Scientist E & Head

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2797.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksd fgr esa ;g vko';d gS fd ikjknhi gYnh;k&nqxkZiqj ikbiykbu lac)Zu ifj;kstuk vUrxZr isVªksfy;e inkFkksZ ds ifjogu gsrq vapy&ckSlh] ftyk&cadk] jkT;&fcgkj esa bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ml Hkwfe esa ftlds Hkhrj mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] mi;ksx dk vtZu fd;k tk,A

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gSA9210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds vUnj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh txnh'k izlkn flag o l{ke izkf/kdkjh bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ¼ikbiykbal fMohtu½ iVuk] fuf'k dqat] clar fogkj dkWyksuh] cksfjax jksM] iVuk] fiu% 800001] fcgkj dks fyf[kr :i eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

vapy&ckSlh ftyk&ckadk jkT;&fcgkj
ekStk@ Fkkuk ua0 losZ@IykWV la- lc&Mho&la- {ks=Qy
gsDVs;j vkjs oxZ ehVj
1 2 3 4 5 6
fueksdks fdrk Fkkuk ua0&399 2 00 14 12
Hkkxk Fkkuk ua0& 470 1087 00 52 05
1084 00 01 83
1085 00 00 40
1083 00 06 78
1082 00 15 54
1173 00 01 77
845 00 19 25
1058 00 20 08
1056 00 01 95
1055 00 00 40
1053 00 17 22
1059 00 06 19
1049 00 12 32
1048 00 04 76
1047 00 06 89
1046 00 01 84
1036 00 03 18
1035 00 15 87
791 00 03 37
789 00 08 75
794 00 03 40
800 00 10 26
801 00 11 54
804 00 03 55
812 00 02 44
822 00 07 18
829 00 12 00
826 00 00 42
828 00 00 48
832 00 09 31
833 00 00 40
413 00 01 41
416 00 06 51
417 00 07 88
421 00 05 35
388 00 02 25
386 00 02 12
383 00 00 40
484 00 01 16
385 00 01 65
423 00 01 39
424 00 03 42
425 00 02 59
426 00 04 05
427 00 03 55
605 00 00 40
428 00 08 93
429 00 05 05
434 00 05 53
433 00 07 06
430 00 00 40
432 00 03 03
437 00 01 97
440 00 12 38
450 00 08 58
451 00 02 06
455 00 05 94
454 00 00 40
456 00 01 51
457 00 00 40
496 00 01 70
458 00 18 52
455 00 00 82
492 00 03 46
487 00 00 92
486 00 00 40
479 00 03 98
475 00 01 63
480 00 04 21
473 00 03 40
482 00 08 14
485 00 17 22
xksf<+vk Fkkuk ua0& 392 641 00 01 89
632 00 06 89
627 00 02 72
626 00 15 88
616 00 00 70
620 00 05 76
604 00 14 28
605 00 00 50
601 00 03 74
602 00 05 00
603 00 00 59
572 00 05 97
571 00 04 69
573 00 02 85
553 00 00 74
568 00 07 40
513 00 03 70
512 00 01 09
518 00 04 82
514 00 00 40
519 00 11 90
516 00 00 43
528 00 02 18
529 00 04 82
643 00 05 41
540 00 00 40
541 00 00 96
461 00 00 40
526 00 05 41
500 00 04 93
497 00 05 01
494 00 00 33
496 00 00 40
495 00 11 95
483 00 01 97
400 00 02 91
187 00 02 03
358 00 25 72
369 00 05 21
368 00 03 21
356 00 12 51
370 00 13 50
375 00 05 24
376 00 03 21
377 00 07 45
378 00 01 96
379 00 00 62
380 00 01 67
374 00 00 40
381 00 09 59
383 00 10 61
356 00 03 79
330 00 04 83
331 00 06 40
329 00 01 25
328 00 18 68
642 00 08 51
nkseksgku fdrk Fkkuk ua0&398 14 00 01 20
15 00 05 52
16 00 01 50
17 00 02 02
18 00 01 65
19 00 00 40
22 00 05 50
23 00 02 42
24 00 00 77
28 00 00 83
29 00 02 29
30 00 01 89
31 00 05 26
32 00 05 29
33 00 01 14
110 00 02 09
117 00 07 43
dSjh Fkkuk ua0&391 784 00 02 93
785 00 00 40
786 00 02 08
787 00 11 18
791 00 00 79
792 00 01 82
793 00 07 60
794 00 00 60
1189 00 03 25
1190 00 09 35
1191 00 01 80
1183 00 01 88
1176 00 00 57
1177 00 14 14
1178 00 12 04
1179 00 00 40
1181 00 01 28
1152 00 04 01
1150 00 13 01
1148 00 10 04
1147 00 05 20
874 00 00 40
945 00 23 21
950 00 02 31
951 00 00 27
949 00 05 17
948 00 03 04
947 00 01 83
946 00 01 08
977 00 02 64
978 00 01 86
979 00 01 57
976 00 06 03
974 00 03 73
980 00 39 72
1125 00 14 11
1118 00 24 12
1237 00 04 20
1600 00 15 54
1586 00 06 43
1587 00 16 81
1550 00 07 93
1548 00 03 53
1551 00 03 59
1627 00 13 32
1629 00 05 97
1630 00 11 80
1637 00 02 55
1636 00 08 09
1638 00 00 40
1640 00 10 46
1645 00 02 14
1642 00 02 27
1653 00 01 68
1795 00 18 03
1794 00 07 89
1793 00 15 05
1796 00 01 00
jkuh Fkkuk ua0& 390 152 00 11 29
149 00 06 00
148 00 08 20
144 00 03 21
145 00 03 70
140 00 06 45
139 00 04 21
123 00 00 40
124 00 00 63
136 00 03 83
125 00 03 96
121 00 01 61
179 00 11 08
184 00 01 66
332 00 02 44
333 00 03 52
335 00 04 18
334 00 01 11
330 00 03 90
336 00 05 52
337 00 06 18
328 00 02 81
354 00 03 92
355 00 10 27
359 00 02 56
360 00 00 77
356 00 05 41
357 00 04 11
372 00 02 14
373 00 04 54
371 00 07 87
381 00 09 08
382 00 05 48
384 00 10 54
385 00 11 19
lqf[k;k cjSr Fkkuk ua0&469 911 00 22 90
912 00 02 41
916 00 05 39
917 00 05 63
918 00 00 67
921 00 02 84
926 00 04 35
1109 00 13 81
1112 00 00 52
1113 00 21 50
1115 00 03 70
1116 00 03 13
1119 00 00 40
932 00 09 26
930 00 00 98
931 00 00 40
929 00 10 66
933 00 04 97
939 00 00 83
942 00 10 56
941 00 01 69
910 00 03 33
943 00 03 65
947 00 02 70
949 00 10 96
950 00 00 57
967 00 13 42
956 00 00 40
957 00 00 40
965 00 00 74
964 00 01 40
963 00 02 90
962 00 04 36
961 00 00 45
960 00 02 91
976 00 00 41
977 00 13 53
978 00 04 25
1021 00 04 02
1016 00 00 41
1022 00 07 87
1015 00 00 40
1014 00 04 11
1013 00 11 37
1012 00 00 40
999 00 01 65
1000 00 03 55
830 00 00 74
829 00 03 50
828 00 05 85
827 00 10 75
826 00 02 80
823 00 07 03
2908 00 00 40
785 00 12 18
786 00 02 00
675 00 09 04
672 00 00 57
673 00 18 74
678 00 16 14
679 00 40 06
680 00 06 73
471 00 24 80
468 00 02 57
470 00 01 44
467 00 06 84
465 00 07 78
466 00 02 06
460 00 10 08
462 00 02 78
458 00 05 04
457 00 15 06
456 00 00 40
274 00 06 43
275 00 00 40
295 00 23 45
293 00 07 32
288 00 00 40
292 00 18 08
291 00 01 00
376 00 02 18
403 00 06 14
401 00 04 57
400 00 00 40
397 00 13 08
415 00 08 62
416 00 08 56
959 00 14 71
402 00 00 40
fldUnjiqj Fkkuk ua0&438 1857 00 08 58
1855 00 01 40
1853 00 33 79
1851 00 03 34
1846 00 07 38
1844 00 02 14
1843 00 04 37
1816 00 07 19
1835 00 09 71
1667 00 05 03
1668 00 05 49
1669 00 05 01
1671 00 03 99
1687 00 06 86
1675 00 00 74
1685 00 02 91
1688 00 01 63
1686 00 01 88
1689 00 08 69
1693 00 04 47
1694 00 05 30
1697 00 06 13
1699 00 14 28
1719 00 09 65
1724 00 01 58
1733 00 08 67
1732 00 11 23
1734 00 14 54
1730 00 06 10
1729 00 04 37
1728 00 07 93
,, 00 15 82
1629 00 11 17
1854 00 00 40
cjgEiqj Fkkuk ua0&389 129 00 04 08
128 00 09 58
127 00 05 30
119 00 02 67
126 00 02 42
116 00 03 12
115 00 04 35
114 00 14 13
113 00 08 06
190 00 00 66
108 00 50 12
107 00 03 88
106 00 03 44
104 00 02 14
103 00 05 92
195 00 00 40
191 00 02 12
105 00 01 04
106 00 01 06
116 00 03 12
102 00 05 94
101 00 02 23
fc'kquiqjk Fkkuk ua0&388 88 00 06 40
87 00 07 94
107 00 04 81
108 00 02 24
109 00 05 00
110 00 03 02
111 00 06 57
115 00 06 39
116 00 01 13
119 00 13 32
118 00 00 60
36 00 20 90
35 00 00 50
31 00 00 64
30 00 00 98
29 00 00 72
5 00 15 57
4 00 03 59
1 00 29 39
146 00 03 66
102 00 13 78
127 00 12 97
6 00 01 28
xksdqyk Vksyk Fkkuk ua0&471 unh 00 01 54
930 00 18 99
928 00 17 67
891 00 02 22
892 00 00 40
894 00 21 07
895 00 01 23
899 00 09 50
883 00 08 00
834 00 19 25
875 00 21 72
872 00 05 16
871 00 01 55
870 00 13 04
864 00 03 84
499 00 08 81
500 00 09 86
498 00 02 05
496 00 12 24
482 00 08 41
476 00 04 09
477 00 00 40
479 00 08 10
481 00 04 18
,, 00 06 48
538 00 05 27
108 00 00 84
109 00 05 24
107 00 03 57
106 00 01 17
104 00 36 83
87 00 01 51
92 00 00 00
88 00 09 83
91 00 01 01
95 00 12 59
96 00 01 10
l:ok Fkkuk ua0& 467 jksM 00 05 98
2222 00 00 59
2220 00 05 09
2219 00 35 59
2211 00 33 08
jksM 00 01 29
dSjh Fkkuk ua0&447 4939 00 10 17
282 00 00 40
281 00 07 05
278 00 01 43
280 00 07 99
270 00 06 54
269 00 02 49
268 00 01 37
267 00 01 10
266 00 09 96
263 00 28 20
jksM 00 04 94
242 00 17 26
261 00 03 53
161 00 22 70
162 00 05 29
159 00 06 49
158 00 07 27
157 00 06 11
156 00 02 15
155 00 02 89
151 00 13 89
150 00 04 17
ngqvk Fkkuk ua0&440 1768 00 10 23
1779 00 01 42
1767 00 30 38
1622 00 48 79
1621 00 33 78
1620 00 04 27
1618 00 09 89
1617 00 10 10
1616 00 01 06
1615 00 01 54
1602 00 24 74
1601 00 02 297
1603 00 25 18
1604 00 00 74
1598 00 05 30
1596 00 07 20
1595 00 01 38
1594 00 12 21
1444 00 06 46
1443 00 08 38
1447 00 01 31
1441 00 05 91
1440 00 03 09
1453 00 08 82
1438 00 06 24
1437 00 13 14
1371 00 04 63
1411 00 05 42
1434 00 00 94
1413 00 10 51
1414 00 00 40
1422 00 02 57
1425 00 22 21
1424 00 01 71
1426 00 11 16
1427 00 05 37
1428 00 01 20
1431 00 06 24
953 00 02 98
951 00 06 81
948 00 06 04
949 00 03 36
954 00 08 09
621 00 21 49
620 00 01 14
615 00 10 65
625 00 00 40
626 00 05 96
629 00 06 28
630 00 01 35
634 00 10 20
643 00 03 65
593 00 01 22
592 00 08 71
591 00 03 17
645 00 00 60
661 00 09 59
590 00 09 81
660 00 00 40
662 00 02 64
663 00 00 40
573 00 00 40
670 00 13 42
671 00 02 64
672 00 09 44
673 00 05 82
674 00 02 37
675 00 01 70
725 00 00 74
676 00 01 74
677 00 01 39
678 00 00 40
566 00 09 46
561 00 02 56
559 00 06 04
399 00 07 29
396 00 01 63
395 00 02 55
400 00 06 03
394 00 00 95
369 00 09 95
371 00 04 51
372 00 02 63
334 00 08 57
333 00 00 40
332 00 02 50
331 00 02 81
329 00 06 22
330 00 07 16
327 00 03 85
196 00 07 33
147 00 03 08
146 00 06 20
145 00 05 90
144 00 02 07
150 00 09 76
151 00 06 05
152 00 00 56
153 00 07 24
154 00 09 80
155 00 11 14
156 00 00 40
157 00 07 75
158 00 08 51
160 00 01 92
lqtkiqj Fkkuk ua0&402 15 00 04 72
14 00 02 40
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9211 9212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9213 9214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9215 9216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9217 9218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9219 9220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9221 9222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9223 9224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9225 9226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9227

[फा. सं. आर-25011/21/2017-ओआर-I]

पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017

S.O. 2797.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Block-Bausi, District.-Banka in the State of Bihar for 'Proposed Augmentation of Paradip-Haldia-Durgapur LPG pipeline and its extension up to Patna and Muzaffarpur' for the transportation of LPG Product;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Jagdish Prasad Singh & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division), Nishi Kunj, Basant Vihar Colony, Boring Road, Patna-800001 (Bihar)

SCHEDULE

Block-Bausi Dist.-Banka State-Bihar
Mouja / Thana No. Survey / Plot No. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Nimko Kita Thana No. – 399 2 00 14 12
Bhaga Thana No. – 470 1087 00 52 05
1084 00 01 83
1085 00 00 40
1083 00 06 78
1082 00 15 54
1173 00 01 77
845 00 19 25
1058 00 20 08
1056 00 01 95
1055 00 00 40
1053 00 17 22
1059 00 06 19
1049 00 12 32
1048 00 04 76
1047 00 06 89
1046 00 01 84
1036 00 03 18
1035 00 15 87
791 00 03 37
789 00 08 75
794 00 03 40
800 00 10 26
801 00 11 54
804 00 03 55
812 00 02 44
822 00 07 18
829 00 12 00
826 00 00 42
828 00 00 48
832 00 09 31
833 00 00 40
413 00 01 41
416 00 06 51
417 00 07 88
421 00 05 35
388 00 02 25
386 00 02 12
383 00 00 40
484 00 01 16
385 00 01 65
423 00 01 39
424 00 03 42
425 00 02 59
426 00 04 05
427 00 03 55
605 00 00 40
428 00 08 93
429 00 05 05
434 00 05 53
433 00 07 06
430 00 00 40
432 00 03 03
437 00 01 97
440 00 12 38
450 00 08 58
451 00 02 06
455 00 05 94
454 00 00 40
456 00 01 51
457 00 00 40
496 00 01 70
458 00 18 52
455 00 00 82
492 00 03 46
487 00 00 92
486 00 00 40
479 00 03 98
475 00 01 63
480 00 04 21
473 00 03 40
482 00 08 14
485 00 17 22
Gorhia Thana No. – 392 641 00 01 89
632 00 06 89
627 00 02 72
626 00 15 88
616 00 00 70
620 00 05 76
604 00 14 28
605 00 00 50
601 00 03 74
602 00 05 00
603 00 00 59
572 00 05 97
571 00 04 69
573 00 02 85
553 00 00 74
568 00 07 40
513 00 03 70
512 00 01 09
518 00 04 82
514 00 00 40
519 00 11 90
516 00 00 43
528 00 02 18
529 00 04 82
643 00 05 41
540 00 00 40
541 00 00 96
461 00 00 40
526 00 05 41
500 00 04 93
497 00 05 01
494 00 00 33
496 00 00 40
495 00 11 95
483 00 01 97
400 00 02 91
187 00 02 03
358 00 25 72
369 00 05 21
368 00 03 21
356 00 12 51
370 00 13 50
375 00 05 24
376 00 03 21
377 00 07 45
378 00 01 96
379 00 00 62
380 00 01 67
374 00 00 40
381 00 09 59
383 00 10 61
356 00 03 79
330 00 04 83
331 00 06 40
329 00 01 25
328 00 18 68
642 00 08 51
Domohan Kita Thana No. – 398 14 00 01 20
15 00 05 52
16 00 01 50
17 00 02 02
18 00 01 65
19 00 00 40
22 00 05 50
23 00 02 42
24 00 00 77
28 00 00 83
29 00 02 29
30 00 01 89
31 00 05 26
32 00 05 29
33 00 01 14
110 00 02 09
117 00 07 43
Sirai Thana No. – 391 784 00 02 93
785 00 00 40
786 00 02 08
787 00 11 18
791 00 00 79
792 00 01 82
793 00 07 60
794 00 00 60
1189 00 03 25
1190 00 09 35
1191 00 01 80
1183 00 01 88
1176 00 00 57
1177 00 14 14
1178 00 12 04
1179 00 00 40
1181 00 01 28
1152 00 04 01
1150 00 13 01
1148 00 10 04
1147 00 05 20
874 00 00 40
945 00 23 21
950 00 02 31
951 00 00 27
949 00 05 17
948 00 03 04
947 00 01 83
946 00 01 08
977 00 02 64
978 00 01 86
979 00 01 57
976 00 06 03
974 00 03 73
980 00 39 72
1125 00 14 11
1118 00 24 12
1237 00 04 20
1600 00 15 54
1586 00 06 43
1587 00 16 81
1550 00 07 93
1548 00 03 53
1551 00 03 59
1627 00 13 32
1629 00 05 97
1630 00 11 80
1637 00 02 55
1636 00 08 09
1638 00 00 40
1640 00 10 46
1645 00 02 14
1642 00 02 27
1653 00 01 68
1795 00 18 03
1794 00 07 89
1793 00 15 05
1796 00 01 00
Rani Thana No. – 390 152 00 11 29
149 00 06 00
148 00 08 20
144 00 03 21
145 00 03 70
140 00 06 45
139 00 04 21
123 00 00 40
124 00 00 63
136 00 03 83
125 00 03 96
121 00 01 61
179 00 11 08
184 00 01 66
332 00 02 44
333 00 03 52
335 00 04 18
334 00 01 11
330 00 03 90
336 00 05 52
337 00 06 18
328 00 02 81
354 00 03 92
355 00 10 27
359 00 02 56
360 00 00 77
356 00 05 41
357 00 04 11
372 00 02 14
373 00 04 54
371 00 07 87
381 00 09 08
382 00 05 48
384 00 10 54
385 00 11 19
Sukhia Barait Thana No. – 469 911 00 22 90
912 00 02 41
916 00 05 39
917 00 05 63
918 00 00 67
921 00 02 84
926 00 04 35
1109 00 13 81
1112 00 00 52
1113 00 21 50
1115 00 03 70
1116 00 03 13
1119 00 00 40
932 00 09 26
930 00 00 98
931 00 00 40
929 00 10 66
933 00 04 97
939 00 00 83
942 00 10 56
941 00 01 69
910 00 03 33
943 00 03 65
947 00 02 70
949 00 10 96
950 00 00 57
967 00 13 42
956 00 00 40
957 00 00 40
965 00 00 74
964 00 01 40
963 00 02 90
962 00 04 36
961 00 00 45
960 00 02 91
976 00 00 41
977 00 13 53
978 00 04 25
1021 00 04 02
1016 00 00 41
1022 00 07 87
1015 00 00 40
1014 00 04 11
1013 00 11 37
1012 00 00 40
999 00 01 65
1000 00 03 55
830 00 00 74
829 00 03 50
828 00 05 85
827 00 10 75
826 00 02 80
823 00 07 03
2908 00 00 40
785 00 12 18
786 00 02 00
675 00 09 04
672 00 00 57
673 00 18 74
678 00 16 14
679 00 40 06
680 00 06 73
471 00 24 80
468 00 02 57
470 00 01 44
467 00 06 84
465 00 07 78
466 00 02 06
460 00 10 08
462 00 02 78
458 00 05 04
457 00 15 06
456 00 00 40
274 00 06 43
275 00 00 40
295 00 23 45
293 00 07 32
288 00 00 40
292 00 18 08
291 00 01 00
376 00 02 18
403 00 06 14
401 00 04 57
400 00 00 40
397 00 13 08
415 00 08 62
416 00 08 56
959 00 14 71
402 00 00 40
Sikandarpur Thana No. – 438 1857 00 08 58
1855 00 01 40
1853 00 33 79
1851 00 03 34
1846 00 07 38
1844 00 02 14
1843 00 04 37
1816 00 07 19
1835 00 09 71
1667 00 05 03
1668 00 05 49
1669 00 05 01
1671 00 03 99
1687 00 06 86
1675 00 00 74
1685 00 02 91
1688 00 01 63
1686 00 01 88
1689 00 08 69
1693 00 04 47
1694 00 05 30
1697 00 06 13
1699 00 14 28
1719 00 09 65
1724 00 01 58
1733 00 08 67
1732 00 11 23
1734 00 14 54
1730 00 06 10
1729 00 04 37
1728 00 07 93
AA 00 15 82
1629 00 11 17
1854 00 00 40
Barhampura Thana No. – 389 129 00 04 08
128 00 09 58
127 00 05 30
119 00 02 67
126 00 02 42
116 00 03 12
115 00 04 35
114 00 14 13
113 00 08 06
190 00 00 66
108 00 50 12
107 00 03 88
106 00 03 44
104 00 02 14
103 00 05 92
195 00 00 40
191 00 02 12
105 00 01 04
106 00 01 06
116 00 03 12
102 00 05 94
101 00 02 23
Bishunpura Thana No. – 388 88 00 06 40
87 00 07 94
107 00 04 81
108 00 02 24
109 00 05 00
110 00 03 02
111 00 06 57
115 00 06 39
116 00 01 13
119 00 13 32
118 00 00 60
36 00 20 90
35 00 00 50
31 00 00 64
30 00 00 98
29 00 00 72
5 00 15 57
4 00 03 59
1 00 29 39
146 00 03 66
102 00 13 78
127 00 12 97
6 00 01 28
Gokula Tola Thana No. – 471 River 00 01 54
930 00 18 99
928 00 17 67
891 00 02 22
892 00 00 40
894 00 21 07
895 00 01 23
899 00 09 50
883 00 08 00
834 00 19 25
875 00 21 72
872 00 05 16
871 00 01 55
870 00 13 04
864 00 03 84
499 00 08 81
500 00 09 86
498 00 02 05
496 00 12 24
482 00 08 41
476 00 04 09
477 00 00 40
479 00 08 10
481 00 04 18
AA 00 06 48
538 00 05 27
108 00 00 84
109 00 05 24
107 00 03 57
106 00 01 17
104 00 36 83
87 00 01 51
92 00 00 00
88 00 09 83
91 00 01 01
95 00 12 59
96 00 01 10
Saruwa Thana No. – 467 Road 00 05 98
2222 00 00 59
2220 00 05 09
2219 00 35 59
2211 00 33 08
Road 00 01 29
Kairi Thana No. – 447 4939 00 10 17
282 00 00 40
281 00 07 05
278 00 01 43
280 00 07 99
270 00 06 54
269 00 02 49
268 00 01 37
267 00 01 10
266 00 09 96
263 00 28 20
Road 00 04 94
242 00 17 26
261 00 03 53
161 00 22 70
162 00 05 29
159 00 06 49
158 00 07 27
157 00 06 11
156 00 02 15
155 00 02 89
151 00 13 89
150 00 04 17
Dahua Thana No. – 440 1768 00 10 23
1779 00 01 42
1767 00 30 38
1622 00 48 79
1621 00 33 78
1620 00 04 27
1618 00 09 89
1617 00 10 10
1616 00 01 06
1615 00 01 54
1602 00 24 74
1601 00 02 297
1603 00 25 18
1604 00 00 74
1598 00 05 30
1596 00 07 20
1595 00 01 38
1594 00 12 21
1444 00 06 46
1443 00 08 38
1447 00 01 31
1441 00 05 91
1440 00 03 09
1453 00 08 82
1438 00 06 24
1437 00 13 14
1371 00 04 63
1411 00 05 42
1434 00 00 94
1413 00 10 51
1414 00 00 40
1422 00 02 57
1425 00 22 21
1424 00 01 71
1426 00 11 16
1427 00 05 37
1428 00 01 20
1431 00 06 24
953 00 02 98
951 00 06 81
948 00 06 04
949 00 03 36
954 00 08 09
621 00 21 49
620 00 01 14
615 00 10 65
625 00 00 40
626 00 05 96
629 00 06 28
630 00 01 35
634 00 10 20
643 00 03 65
593 00 01 22
592 00 08 71
591 00 03 17
645 00 00 60
661 00 09 59
590 00 09 81
660 00 00 40
662 00 02 64
663 00 00 40
573 00 00 40
670 00 13 42
671 00 02 64
672 00 09 44
673 00 05 82
674 00 02 37
675 00 01 70
725 00 00 74
676 00 01 74
677 00 01 39
678 00 00 40
566 00 09 46
561 00 02 56
559 00 06 04
399 00 07 29
396 00 01 63
395 00 02 55
400 00 06 03
394 00 00 95
369 00 09 95
371 00 04 51
372 00 02 63
334 00 08 57
333 00 00 40
332 00 02 50
331 00 02 81
329 00 06 22
330 00 07 16
327 00 03 85
196 00 07 33
147 00 03 08
146 00 06 20
145 00 05 90
144 00 02 07
150 00 09 76
151 00 06 05
152 00 00 56
153 00 07 24
154 00 09 80
155 00 11 14
156 00 00 40
157 00 07 75
158 00 08 51
160 00 01 92
Sujapur Thana no. – 402 15 00 04 72
14 00 02 40
9228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9229 9230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9231 9232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9233 9234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9235 9236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9237 9238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9239 9240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9241 9242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9243

[F. No. R-25011/21/2017-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2798.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksd fgr esa ;g vko';d gS fd ikjknhi gYnh;k&nqxkZiqj ikbiykbu lac)Zu ifj;kstuk vUrxZr isVªksfy;e inkFkksZa ds ifjogu gsrq vapy&cadk] ftyk&cadk] jkT;&fcgkj esa bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ml Hkwfe esa ftlds Hkhrj mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] mi;ksx dk vtZu fd;k tk,A

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gSA

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu ds vUnj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh txnh'k izlkn flag o l{ke izkf/kdkjh bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ¼ikbiykbal fMohtu½ iVuk] fuf'k dqat] clar fogkj dkWyksuh] cksfjax jksM] iVuk] fiu% 800001] fcgkj dks fyf[kr :i eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

vuqlwph

vapy&ckdk ftyk&ckadk jkT;&fcgkj
ekStk@ Fkkuk ua- losZ@IykWV la- lc&Mho&la- {ks=Qy
gsDVs;j vkjs oxZ ehVj
1 2 3 4 5 6
<+kdk Fkkuk ua-& 51 879 00 03 57
863 00 02 08
866 00 03 34
862 00 26 15
859 00 00 40
860 00 21 68
858 00 02 52
857 00 00 64
856 00 01 75
855 00 03 40
854 00 04 11
853 00 04 55
852 00 03 60
851 00 03 14
850 00 02 56
692 00 07 22
691 00 00 50
698 00 11 75
699 00 00 84
697 00 03 99
720 00 16 19
721 00 03 85
719 00 02 83
718 00 02 48
722 00 07 43
756 00 03 08
592 00 16 58
599 00 02 37
588 00 12 83
587 00 10 62
586 00 03 94
584 00 00 85
478 00 01 04
476 00 02 79
479 00 01 22
518 00 03 30
519 00 00 78
517 00 01 55
514 00 00 40
512 00 00 74
53 00 02 64
54 00 06 80
52 00 00 51
51 00 00 40
49 00 04 93
48 00 04 59
47 00 04 54
46 00 01 67
43 00 04 76
40 00 07 63
41 00 08 67
42 00 10 22
38 00 40 11
35 00 07 82
7 00 16 72
9244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9245

[फा. सं. आर-25011/21/2017-ओआर-I]

पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017

S.O. 2798.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Block-Banka, District.-Banka in the State of Bihar for 'Proposed Augmentation of Paradip-Haldia-Durgapur LPG pipeline and its extension up to Patna and Muzaffarpur' for the transportation of LPG Product;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Jagdish Prasad Singh & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Nishi Kunj, Basant Vihar Colony, Boring Road, Patna-800001 (Bihar).

9246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Block-Banka Dist.-Banka State.-Bihar
Mouja / Thana No. Survey / Plot No. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Dhaka Thana No. – 51 879 00 03 57
863 00 02 08
866 00 03 34
862 00 26 15
859 00 00 40
860 00 21 68
858 00 02 52
857 00 00 64
856 00 01 75
855 00 03 40
854 00 04 11
853 00 04 55
852 00 03 60
851 00 03 14
850 00 02 56
692 00 07 22
691 00 00 50
698 00 11 75
699 00 00 84
697 00 03 99
720 00 16 19
721 00 03 85
719 00 02 83
718 00 02 48
722 00 07 43
756 00 03 08
592 00 16 58
599 00 02 37
588 00 12 83
587 00 10 62
586 00 03 94
584 00 00 85
478 00 01 04
476 00 02 79
479 00 01 22
518 00 03 30
519 00 00 78
517 00 01 55
514 00 00 40
512 00 00 74
53 00 02 64
54 00 06 80
52 00 00 51
51 00 00 40
49 00 04 93
48 00 04 59
47 00 04 54
46 00 01 67
43 00 04 76
40 00 07 63
41 00 08 67
42 00 10 22
38 00 40 11
35 00 07 82
7 00 16 72
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9247

[F. No. R-25011/21/2017-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2017

dk-vk- 2799.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksd fgr esa ;g vko';d gS fd ikjknhi gYnh;k&nqxkZiqj ikbiykbu lac)Zu ifj;kstuk vUrxZr isVªksfy;e inkFkksZa ds ifjogu gsrq vapy&cjgV] ftyk&cadk] jkT;&fcgkj esa bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ml Hkwfe esa ftlds Hkhrj mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] mi;ksx dk vtZu fd;k tk,A

vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gSA

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu ds vUnj] Hkwfe ds Hkhrj ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds fy,] Jh txnh'k izlkn flag o l{ke izkf/kdkjh bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ¼ikbiykbal fMohtu½ iVuk] fuf'k dqat] clar fogkj dkWyksuh] cksfjax jksM] iVuk] fiu% 800001] fcgkj dks fyf[kr :i eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA9248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vuqlwph

vapy&cjgV ftyk&ckadk jkT;&fcgkj
ekStk@ Fkkuk ua- losZ@IykWV la- lc&Mho&la- {ks=Qy
gsDVs;j vkjs oxZ ehVj
1 2 3 4 5 6
cykjiqj Fkkuk ua-&115 31 00 20 35
30 00 01 62
13 00 08 63
14 00 11 21
15 00 35 76
16 00 25 49
19 00 14 03
lksuMhgk Fkkuk ua-&118 3241 00 01 14
3243 00 19 21
3239 00 03 49
3235 00 04 24
3234 00 01 65
3265 00 15 26
3264 00 07 10
3271 00 17 56
3268 00 00 74
3286 00 19 18
3288 00 03 79
3293 00 03 23
3281 00 03 50
3299 00 10 97
3300 00 05 72
3301 00 06 73
3302 00 09 73
3211 00 01 14
3315 00 09 97
3314 00 06 56
3313 00 06 90
,,, 00 16 77
6 00 01 45
3155 00 07 11
3154 00 02 84
3153 00 01 73
3157 00 09 34
3156 00 07 83
3158 00 03 82
3135 00 06 24
2014 00 00 64
2015 00 00 98
2013 00 09 80
2009 00 00 70
2010 00 09 41
2011 00 00 47
2008 00 02 32
2004 00 09 49
2005 00 03 74
1999 00 14 13
3370 00 02 77
1994 00 03 74
1993 00 18 09
1992 00 10 87
1991 00 14 29
2046 00 00 64
2048 00 15 15
2050 00 09 47
2054 00 16 84
2052 00 01 25
2061 00 07 75
2054 00 00 69
2053 00 02 91
2061 00 07 75
2059 00 04 26
2055 00 01 33
2057 00 04 53
2058 00 00 45
2056 00 00 69
1957 00 07 16
1956 00 04 43
1940 00 08 05
1941 00 03 33
1939 00 09 21
1649 00 01 61
1677 00 06 48
1678 00 02 49
1679 00 01 61
1680 00 02 60
1682 00 02 72
1615 00 06 51
1681 00 01 54
1694 00 00 40
1696 00 01 41
1670 00 04 50
1617 00 05 37
1611 00 03 25
2908 00 00 45
1698 00 07 03
3 00 02 22
1904 00 00 72
,,, 00 00 33
1705 00 06 13
1900 00 00 91
1730 00 01 47
1729 00 02 39
1728 00 02 18
1727 00 02 91
1726 00 09 78
,,, 00 01 39
1725 00 11 01
1731 00 01 50
1718 00 12 12
vkSfjvk Fkkuk ua-&385 1105 00 08 84
1996 00 23 44
1995 00 07 94
1998 00 03 63
1994 00 06 27
1993 00 05 98
1992 00 11 75
1991 00 00 40
2001 00 01 12
2002 00 14 37
2003 00 03 03
2004 00 03 49
2005 00 12 56
2011 00 13 50
2012 00 01 05
2076 00 11 55
2078 00 08 90
2075 00 08 28
2095 00 09 76
2096 00 11 47
2159 00 01 24
2158 00 00 40
2140 00 02 73
2138 00 12 08
2139 00 01 86
2131 00 01 34
2127 00 28 20
2146 00 01 15
2128 00 00 53
2123 00 02 70
2124 00 07 27
2125 00 04 45
2126 00 00 68
1710 00 00 40
1709 00 05 01
1606 00 13 24
1605 00 08 15
1612 00 07 55
1613 00 05 51
vkSfjvk Fkkuk ua-&385 1614 00 02 85
1615 00 14 89
1619 00 07 30
1618 00 05 16
1634 00 07 80
1633 00 02 73
1636 00 17 11
1639 00 00 40
1638 00 06 21
1637 00 00 93
1311 00 08 75
1312 00 02 45
1310 00 01 24
1309 00 03 09
1308 00 02 64
1302 00 02 55
1304 00 02 16
1303 00 24 48
953 00 02 08
952 00 03 68
930 00 01 10
931 00 01 37
932 00 06 90
1024 00 01 73
569 00 01 60
570 00 01 71
568 00 14 15
561 00 02 45
562 00 11 52
563 00 07 65
565 00 09 22
528 00 05 23
541 00 10 08
533 00 07 32
534 00 07 88
535 00 01 20
522 00 00 93
405 00 02 95
403 00 01 21
404 00 07 00
401 00 07 33
399 00 02 76
398 00 03 70
397 00 02 17
395 00 00 48
221 00 00 40
223 00 00 40
225 00 08 57
346 00 03 15
345 00 05 61
344 00 03 17
343 00 04 89
342 00 03 29
341 00 05 01
340 00 10 79
339 00 03 13
232 00 01 06
338 00 11 50
337 00 05 87
336 00 00 40
331 00 00 40
335 00 07 04
332 00 02 16
320 00 04 30
318 00 00 40
328 00 00 40
317 00 00 78
321 00 30 35
316 00 02 29
312 00 02 15
322 00 00 52
299 00 07 01
298 00 03 52
297 00 14 12
300 00 01 31
296 00 03 15
295 00 00 87
273 00 00 40
274 00 08 38
275 00 00 77
278 00 17 58
271 00 26 21
268 00 07 81
266 00 10 32
259 00 07 75
260 00 07 81
262 00 00 40
MQjkiqj Fkkuk ua-&119 56 00 01 17
54 00 12 80
53 00 06 20
61 00 01 70
62 00 07 24
63 00 09 38
64 00 07 48
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9249 9250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9251 9252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9253 9254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. आर-25011/21/2017-ओआर-I]

पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2017

S.O. 2799.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Block-Barhat, District-Banka in the State of Bihar for 'Proposed Augmentation of Paradip-Haldia-Durgapur LPG pipeline and its extension upto Patna and Muzaffarpur' for the transportation of LPG Product;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Jagdish Prasad Singh & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (Pipelines Division), Nishi Kunj, Basant Vihar Colony, Boring Road, Patna-800001 (Bihar)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9255

SCHEDULE

Block-Barhat Dist.-Banka State-Bihar
Mouja / Thana No. Survey / Plot No. Sub-Div-No. Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Balarpur Thana No. - 115 31 00 20 35
30 00 01 62
13 00 08 63
14 00 11 21
15 00 35 76
16 00 25 49
19 00 14 03
Sondiha Thana No. -118 3241 00 01 14
3243 00 19 21
3239 00 03 49
3235 00 04 24
3234 00 01 65
3265 00 15 26
3264 00 07 10
3271 00 17 56
3268 00 00 74
3286 00 19 18
3288 00 03 79
3293 00 03 23
3281 00 03 50
3299 00 10 97
3300 00 05 72
3301 00 06 73
3302 00 09 73
3211 00 01 14
3315 00 09 97
3314 00 06 56
3313 00 06 90
AAA 00 16 77
6 00 01 45
3155 00 07 11
3154 00 02 84
3153 00 01 73
3157 00 09 34
3156 00 07 83
3158 00 03 82
3135 00 06 24
2014 00 00 64
2015 00 00 98
2013 00 09 80
2009 00 00 70
2010 00 09 41
2011 00 00 47
2008 00 02 32
2004 00 09 49
2005 00 03 74
1999 00 14 13
3370 00 02 77
1994 00 03 74
1993 00 18 09
1992 00 10 87
1991 00 14 29
2046 00 00 64
2048 00 15 15
2050 00 09 47
2054 00 16 84
2052 00 01 25
1961 00 00 75
2054 00 00 69
2053 00 02 91
2061 00 07 75
2059 00 04 26
2055 00 01 33
2057 00 04 53
2058 00 00 45
2056 00 00 69
1957 00 07 16
1956 00 04 43
1940 00 08 05
1941 00 03 33
1939 00 09 21
1649 00 01 61
1677 00 06 48
1678 00 02 49
1679 00 01 61
1680 00 02 60
1682 00 02 72
1615 00 06 51
1681 00 01 54
1694 00 00 40
1696 00 01 41
1670 00 04 50
1617 00 05 37
1611 00 03 25
2908 00 00 45
1698 00 07 03
3 00 02 22
1904 00 00 72
AA 00 00 33
1705 00 06 13
1900 00 00 91
1730 00 01 47
1729 00 02 39
1728 00 02 18
1727 00 02 91
1726 00 09 78
AA 00 01 39
1725 00 11 01
1731 00 01 50
1718 00 12 12
Auria Thana No. -385 1105 00 08 84
1996 00 23 44
1995 00 07 94
1998 00 03 63
1994 00 06 27
1993 00 05 98
1992 00 11 75
1991 00 00 40
2001 00 01 12
2002 00 14 37
2003 00 03 03
2004 00 03 49
2005 00 12 56
2011 00 13 50
2012 00 01 05
2076 00 11 55
2078 00 08 90
2075 00 08 28
2095 00 09 76
2096 00 11 47
2159 00 01 24
2158 00 00 40
2140 00 02 73
2138 00 12 08
2139 00 01 86
2131 00 01 34
2127 00 28 20
2146 00 01 15
2128 00 00 53
2123 00 02 70
2124 00 07 27
2125 00 04 45
2126 00 00 68
1710 00 00 40
1709 00 05 01
1606 00 13 24
1605 00 08 15
1612 00 07 55
1613 00 05 51
1614 00 02 85
1615 00 14 89
1619 00 07 30
1618 00 05 16
1634 00 07 80
1633 00 02 73
1636 00 17 11
1639 00 00 40
1638 00 06 21
1637 00 00 93
1311 00 08 75
1312 00 02 45
1310 00 01 24
1309 00 03 09
1308 00 02 64
1302 00 02 55
1304 00 02 16
1303 00 24 48
953 00 02 08
952 00 03 68
930 00 01 10
931 00 01 37
932 00 06 90
1024 00 01 73
569 00 01 60
570 00 01 71
568 00 14 15
561 00 02 45
562 00 11 52
563 00 07 65
565 00 09 22
528 00 05 23
541 00 10 08
533 00 07 32
534 00 07 88
535 00 01 20
522 00 00 93
405 00 02 95
403 00 01 21
404 00 07 00
401 00 07 33
399 00 02 76
398 00 03 70
397 00 02 17
395 00 00 48
221 00 00 40
223 00 00 40
225 00 08 57
346 00 03 15
345 00 05 61
344 00 03 17
343 00 04 89
342 00 03 29
341 00 05 01
340 00 10 79
339 00 03 13
232 00 01 06
338 00 11 50
337 00 05 87
336 00 00 40
331 00 00 40
335 00 07 04
332 00 02 16
320 00 04 30
318 00 00 40
328 00 00 40
317 00 00 78
321 00 30 35
316 00 02 29
312 00 02 15
322 00 00 52
299 00 07 01
298 00 03 52
297 00 14 12
300 00 01 31
296 00 03 15
295 00 00 87
273 00 00 40
274 00 08 38
275 00 00 77
278 00 17 58
271 00 26 21
268 00 07 81
266 00 10 32
259 00 07 75
260 00 07 81
262 00 00 40
Dafarpur Thana No. - 119 56 00 01 17
54 00 12 80
53 00 06 20
61 00 01 70
62 00 07 24
63 00 09 38
64 00 07 48
9256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9257 9258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9259 9260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9261

[F. No. R-25011/21/2017-OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2017

dkdkdkdk----vkvkvkvk---- 2800280028002800.— के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइंस (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पvात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 27 दिनांक 08.07.2017 का. आ. संख्या 1582 दिनांक 22.06.2017, भाग II, खaड 3, उप-खaड (ii) तथा राजपत्र संख्या 34 दिनांक 26.08.2017 का. आ. संख्या 1960 दिनांक 21.08.2017, भाग II, खaड 3, उप-खaड (ii) में किया गया है। इस अधिसूचना से संलy अनुसूची में विनिzदष्ट हिमाचल राज्य की तहसील उना तथा हरोली, जिला उना की भूमि में, पंजाब राज्य में गाँव : झुिगयां : जिला शहीद भगत सिह नगर से हिमाचल प्रदेश के गाँव : पेखुबेला, िजला उना तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑइल काप}रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उना ब्रांच पाइपलाइन – पीएजेपीएल परियोजना के सम्बंध में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी।

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचनाओं की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 17.10.2017 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी।

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।

और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पvात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के िलए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिvय किया है।

अत: अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Hए एतhारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलy अनुसूची में विनिzदष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अ(cid:128)जत किया जाए।

और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Hए, यह निदDश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल काप}रेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षतिपू(cid:128)त के लिए इंडियन ऑयल काप}रेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगी और पाइपलाईन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामले पर के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार के वि(cid:129)j कोई वाद दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नह(cid:130) हो सके गी।

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

िजला : उना राज्य : हिमाचल प्रदेश
O.सं. तहसील का नाम गाँव का नाम हदबस्त नं. मुरब्बा/किला तथा खसरा सं. क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 हरोली बाथडी 476 1306 रास्ता 00 00 32
997 रास्ता 00 00 50
1300 00 08 33
1301 00 00 20
998 00 14 58
1279 00 12 67
1280 00 02 93
1037 00 18 76
1036 00 00 58
1038 00 06 35
1039 00 03 70
1040 00 01 25
1043 00 11 60
1061 00 10 68
1073 00 01 91
1071 00 05 30
1072 00 04 31
1070 00 00 20
1069 00 00 72
1068 00 00 20
1076 00 09 13
1077 00 01 03
1135 00 00 55
1133 00 06 35
1134 00 07 26
1121 00 04 10
1120 00 09 99
1117 00 04 22
1116 00 07 95
930 रास्ता 00 00 79
929 00 05 36
928 00 02 51
927 00 01 52
60 00 00 18
61 00 00 42
62 00 04 00
79 00 00 24
80 00 02 67
81 00 02 23
82 00 10 25
104 00 02 62
103 00 03 24
102 00 00 77
101 00 07 15
100 00 00 93
116 00 10 23
122 00 05 12
136 00 00 16
125 00 04 81
124 00 00 20
127 00 02 90
133 00 00 96
134 00 01 74
132 00 11 71
148 00 00 20
301 रास्ता 00 00 57
25 00 00 17
302 00 57 56
1126 00 01 08
1127 00 00 90
1125/4 00 01 10
1125/3 00 01 20
1125/2 00 01 45
1125/1 00 03 10
1124/1 00 00 60
2 हरोली क े लुवा 3132 00 03 98
3130 00 01 94
3128 00 05 58
3127 00 04 66
3039 00 01 81
3043 00 09 50
3041 00 00 97
3042 00 07 49
3060 00 01 59
3055 00 02 40
3059 00 06 73
3097 00 04 40
3092 00 04 02
3091 00 01 66
3093 00 02 81
3090 00 01 54
3088 00 06 12
3089 00 00 20
3085 00 03 95
3084 00 04 82
3083 00 14 46
2920 00 01 34
2919 00 03 68
2931 00 02 95
2933 00 01 58
2934 00 02 54
2917 00 01 30
2935 00 01 09
2916 00 02 40
2936 00 01 30
2940 00 01 39
2947 00 00 83
2946 00 00 26
2948 00 12 55
2950 00 00 94
2952 00 05 93
2953 00 04 61
2954 00 03 08
2643 00 00 20
2645 00 01 69
2646 00 12 28
2651 00 03 03
3302/3 00 00 20
3302/1 00 05 50
3131 00 24 66
2652 00 01 56
3 हरोली बाथू 475 1892 00 00 20
1895 00 00 57
1895/1 00 01 66
1894 00 00 20
1897 00 11 50
1898 00 00 28
1901 00 06 11
1901/1 00 00 20
1911 00 03 53
1910 00 03 79
1909 00 00 77
1912 00 06 28
1908 00 03 51
1860 00 01 28
1861 00 01 73
1867 00 04 43
1865 00 02 78
1862 00 00 20
1864 00 01 82
1854 00 04 14
1855 00 07 37
1824 00 05 52
1990 00 00 25
1822 00 02 37
1823 00 02 03
1819 00 01 73
1821 00 06 02
1817 रास्ता 00 00 73
1801 रास्ता 00 00 38
1810 00 00 96
1809 00 01 93
1808 00 04 36
1807 00 04 36
1560 00 04 13
1559 00 03 15
1553 00 01 03
1563 00 03 03
1562 00 02 63
1564 00 00 37
1566 00 08 54
1567 00 06 22
1590 00 00 51
1586 00 05 69
1581 00 10 89
1582 00 02 13
1579 00 04 11
1502 00 19 59
1499 00 11 43
1497 00 03 96
1498 00 04 93
1493 00 07 35
1666 00 02 27
1667 00 02 38
1668 00 03 25
1669 00 01 43
1485 00 00 31
1670 00 03 18
1671 00 03 82
1672 00 01 62
1673 00 00 20
1676 00 01 41
1677 00 00 87
1679 00 00 28
1680 00 00 58
1681 00 06 23
1684/1 00 03 16
4 हरोली बटखुर्द 474 1376 00 00 82
1377 00 02 78
1384 00 04 01
1385 00 00 20
1396 00 09 88
1395 00 00 20
1397 00 01 53
1442 00 00 52
1404 00 02 91
1405 00 01 96
1406 00 02 05
1403 00 00 20
1407 00 00 20
1408 00 00 20
1409 00 02 15
1412 00 00 67
1411 00 01 01
1410 00 00 66
1441 00 02 41
1440 00 03 20
1439 00 02 66
1438 00 00 20
1437 00 00 20
1456 00 00 20
1457 00 05 05
1454 00 02 92
1468 00 01 03
1467 00 00 61
1466 00 00 89
1469 00 03 24
1465 00 00 70
1470 00 02 19
1471 00 00 20
1482 00 01 82
1481 00 02 47
1486 00 01 97
1503 00 06 56
1490 00 00 20
1504 00 00 77
1510 00 01 59
1509 00 00 92
1508 00 01 46
1505 00 00 34
1507 00 02 51
1313 00 02 96
1314 00 02 48
1318 00 01 68
1317 00 01 47
1320 00 01 27
1321 00 01 40
1323 00 03 71
1324 00 00 20
1288 00 01 29
1293 00 01 27
1290 00 00 56
1289 00 01 48
1286 00 00 20
1287 00 00 29
1291 रास्ता 00 00 44
1292 रास्ता 00 00 20
1262 00 02 01
1261 00 00 39
1250 00 00 20
1249 00 02 59
1246 00 03 39
1243 00 00 20
1242/1 00 00 75
1242 00 01 04
1241 00 00 80
1239 00 02 100
1236 00 00 82
1238 00 01 02
1237 00 00 83
1232 00 02 16
1231 00 01 25
1230 00 01 11
2174/1688 00 00 61
2173/1688 00 00 37
2172/1688 00 00 99
1682 00 00 98
1690 00 04 47
1691 00 03 39
1692 00 01 51
1696 00 01 85
1718 00 02 42
1719 00 00 28
1697 00 00 20
1710 00 04 08
1717 00 00 20
1707 00 00 20
1708 00 01 30
1709 00 01 95
1711 00 01 18
5 हरोली बट कला 473 678 // 21/3 00 05 61
678 // 21/4 00 02 81
678 // 20/2 00 06 02
678 // 20/1 00 03 25
678 // 11/2 00 07 76
678 // 11/1 00 02 65
678 // 10/1 00 01 35
682 रास्ता 00 00 60
678 // 10/2/2 00 02 10
678 // 10/2/1 00 03 21
678 // 1/2 00 00 56
679 // 6/4/1 00 00 65
679 // 6/3 00 01 88
679 // 6/1 00 00 50
679 // 5/2 00 05 84
679 // 5/1 00 00 20
669 // 25/3 00 01 50
669 // 25/2 00 07 85
669 // 25/1 00 00 45
669 // 16/1 00 09 67
669 // 15/2 00 01 39
669 // 17/1 00 00 72
679 // 5/3/1 00 03 08
6 हरोली टहलीवाल िनचला 472 154 00 00 98
168 00 00 90
169 00 13 73
171 00 12 46
175 00 00 20
185 00 00 57
189 00 18 76
201 नाला 00 01 13
223 00 03 91
222 00 01 44
221 00 00 84
224 00 00 20
226 00 03 70
226/1 00 05 01
227 00 14 93
388 00 00 27
228 रास्ता 00 00 74
369 00 00 20
253 00 03 65
312 रास्ता 00 01 92
363 00 01 57
254 00 00 69
255 00 00 20
362 00 11 74
360 00 20 17
317 00 20 09
318 00 13 14
316 00 02 05
315 00 03 15
319 00 00 33
313 00 00 50
621/314 00 03 33
620/314 00 03 15
7 हरोली टहलीवाल उपरला 472 479 00 01 45
478 00 01 88
477 रास्ता 00 01 08
470 00 10 22
475 00 01 42
476 00 06 94
414 00 03 86
413 00 03 02
414/1 00 02 69
515 00 00 20
411 रास्ता 00 00 39
409 00 00 23
407 00 09 99
386 00 00 20
389 00 02 83
390 00 07 60
390/1 00 03 39
391 00 07 22
377 00 00 89
376 00 05 57
375 00 03 50
371 00 00 70
368 00 00 20
367 00 10 08
366 00 00 20
359 00 01 68
358 00 00 30
360 00 03 89
361 00 04 14
353 रास्ता 00 00 58
339 00 08 42
307 00 10 56
338 00 03 47
309 00 04 02
310 00 03 93
298 00 06 86
8 हरोली मनुवाल 471 2552 00 01 07
2562 00 04 28
2551 00 04 02
2548 00 01 25
2549 00 00 38
2550 00 00 22
2564 00 03 100
2567 00 02 11
2568 00 00 50
2570 00 03 61
2571 रास्ता 00 00 77
2572 00 01 76
2982 00 01 30
2983 00 00 20
2981 00 00 20
2574 00 00 29
2577 00 01 94
2980 00 06 41
2578 00 00 46
2580 00 00 53
2582 00 00 64
2583 00 00 54
2581 00 00 55
2600 00 01 76
2601 00 01 13
2605 00 00 20
2604 00 00 34
2602 00 00 34
2603 00 00 20
2629 00 03 68
2626 00 02 22
2628 00 00 45
2627 00 00 20
2651 00 01 71
2650 00 02 34
2653 00 00 20
2652 00 00 20
2655 00 03 17
2656 00 00 20
2659 00 01 81
2660 00 01 23
2654 00 00 20
2662 00 00 20
2661 00 00 31
2663 00 00 72
2675 00 00 37
2674 00 01 02
2664 00 00 20
2671 00 00 20
2672 00 01 40
2673 00 00 91
2677 00 02 32
2701 00 00 84
2700 00 00 67
2699 00 00 33
2698 00 00 63
2697 00 00 27
2696 00 02 02
2693 00 03 23
2707 00 00 20
2708 00 00 73
2709 00 04 12
2721 00 05 47
3492/2727 00 00 81
3499/2730 00 00 96
2728 00 05 93
3495/2729 00 00 50
3496/2729 00 00 25
2688 रास्ता 00 01 09
9 हरोली नंगल खुर्द 471 2781 00 09 98
2783 00 04 92
2785 00 02 20
2784 00 02 27
2787 00 07 79
2789 00 00 20
2788 00 05 86
2833 00 00 20
2823 00 03 35
2824 00 05 05
2832 00 02 32
2822 00 00 20
2825 00 05 02
2828 00 02 01
2827 00 03 71
2826 00 02 06
2841 00 14 06
2943 रास्ता 00 00 81
2942 00 12 64
2940 00 03 67
2939 00 00 81
2913 00 20 07
2937 00 02 02
2935 00 06 82
2934 00 05 28
2933 00 00 80
2932 00 06 24
2926 00 12 20
2924 00 00 20
2925 00 00 82
2923 00 20 73
2920 00 20 39
10 उना उदयपुर 224 1197/2 00 01 05
1197/1 00 26 40
1243/1141 00 07 55
1242/1141 00 02 15
1158/2 00 03 80
1318/1176 00 18 24
11 उना नंगड़ा िझकला 222 2210/1663 00 00 78
2206/1359 00 02 73
1328 00 02 80
2266/515 00 01 55
2267/515 00 02 26
2272/523 00 00 20
2271/523 00 02 30
2277/528 00 00 88
2268/522 00 00 20
2269/522 00 00 20
12 उना पेखूबेला 1009 00 03 60
1007 00 09 18
9262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9263 9264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9265 9266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9267 9268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9269 9270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9271 9272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9273 9274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9275 9276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9277 9278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/248/2017-ओआर-I/ई-18228]

पवन कु मार] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2017

S.O. 2800.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette No. 27 dated 08.07.2017, S.O. No. 1582 dated 22.06.2017 Part-II, section 3, sub-section (ii) and Gazette No. 34 dated 26.08.2017, S.O. No. 1960 dated 21.08.2017 Part-II, section 3, sub-section (ii) issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Una and Haroli, District Una in Himachal Pradesh State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum product from village Jhungian in the State of Punjab, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar to village Pekhubela in the State of Himachal Pradesh, District Una by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "PAJPL Una Branch line project".

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 17.10.2017

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

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9279

India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to pipeline.

District: Una State : Himachal Pradesh
Sr. No. Name of Tehsil Name of Village Hadbast No. Murabba /Killa OR Khasara No. Area
Hectare Are Sq. mtr.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Haroli Bathari 476 1306 Rasta 00 00 32
997 Rasta 00 00 50
1300 00 08 33
1301 00 00 20
998 00 14 58
1279 00 12 67
1280 00 02 93
1037 00 18 76
1036 00 00 58
1038 00 06 35
1039 00 03 70
1040 00 01 25
1043 00 11 60
1061 00 10 68
1073 00 01 91
1071 00 05 30
1072 00 04 31
1070 00 00 20
1069 00 00 72
1068 00 00 20
1076 00 09 13
1077 00 01 03
1135 00 00 55
1133 00 06 35
1134 00 07 26
1121 00 04 10
1120 00 09 99
1117 00 04 22
1116 00 07 95
930 Rasta 00 00 79
929 00 05 36
928 00 02 51
927 00 01 52
60 00 00 18
61 00 00 42
62 00 04 00
79 00 00 24
80 00 02 67
81 00 02 23
82 00 10 25
104 00 02 62
103 00 03 24
102 00 00 77
101 00 07 15
100 00 00 93
116 00 10 23
122 00 05 12
136 00 00 16
125 00 04 81
124 00 00 20
127 00 02 90
133 00 00 96
134 00 01 74
132 00 11 71
148 00 00 20
301 Rasta 00 00 57
25 00 00 17
302 00 57 56
1126 00 01 08
1127 00 00 90
1125/4 00 01 10
1125/3 00 01 20
1125/2 00 01 45
1125/1 00 03 10
1124/1 00 00 60
2 Haroli Keluwa 3132 00 03 98
3130 00 01 94
3128 00 05 58
3127 00 04 66
3039 00 01 81
3043 00 09 50
3041 00 00 97
3042 00 07 49
3060 00 01 59
3055 00 02 40
3059 00 06 73
3097 00 04 40
3092 00 04 02
3091 00 01 66
3093 00 02 81
3090 00 01 54
3088 00 06 12
3089 00 00 20
3085 00 03 95
3084 00 04 82
3083 00 14 46
2920 00 01 34
2919 00 03 68
2931 00 02 95
2933 00 01 58
2934 00 02 54
2917 00 01 30
2935 00 01 09
2916 00 02 40
2936 00 01 30
2940 00 01 39
2947 00 00 83
2946 00 00 26
2948 00 12 55
2950 00 00 94
2952 00 05 93
2953 00 04 61
2954 00 03 08
2643 00 00 20
2645 00 01 69
2646 00 12 28
2651 00 03 03
3302/3 00 00 20
3302/1 00 05 50
3131 00 24 66
2652 00 01 56
3 Haroli Bathu 475 1892 00 00 20
1895 00 00 57
1895/1 00 01 66
1894 00 00 20
1897 00 11 50
1898 00 00 28
1901 00 06 11
1901/1 00 00 20
1911 00 03 53
1910 00 03 79
1909 00 00 77
1912 00 06 28
1908 00 03 51
1860 00 01 28
1861 00 01 73
1867 00 04 43
1865 00 02 78
1862 00 00 20
1864 00 01 82
1854 00 04 14
1855 00 07 37
1824 00 05 52
1990 00 00 25
1822 00 02 37
1823 00 02 03
1819 00 01 73
1821 00 06 02
1817 Rasta 00 00 73
1801 Rasta 00 00 38
1810 00 00 96
1809 00 01 93
1808 00 04 36
1807 00 04 36
1560 00 04 13
1559 00 03 15
1553 00 01 03
1563 00 03 03
1562 00 02 63
1564 00 00 37
1566 00 08 54
1567 00 06 22
1590 00 00 51
1586 00 05 69
1581 00 10 89
1582 00 02 13
1579 00 04 11
1502 00 19 59
1499 00 11 43
1497 00 03 96
1498 00 04 93
1493 00 07 35
1666 00 02 27
1667 00 02 38
1668 00 03 25
1669 00 01 43
1485 00 00 31
1670 00 03 18
1671 00 03 82
1672 00 01 62
1673 00 00 20
1676 00 01 41
1677 00 00 87
1679 00 00 28
1680 00 00 58
1681 00 06 23
1684/1 00 03 16
4 Haroli Bat Khurd 474 1376 00 00 82
1377 00 02 78
1384 00 04 01
1385 00 00 20
1396 00 09 88
1395 00 00 20
1397 00 01 53
1442 00 00 52
1404 00 02 91
1405 00 01 96
1406 00 02 05
1403 00 00 20
1407 00 00 20
1408 00 00 20
1409 00 02 15
1412 00 00 67
1411 00 01 01
1410 00 00 66
1441 00 02 41
1440 00 03 20
1439 00 02 66
1438 00 00 20
1437 00 00 20
1456 0 00 20
1457 00 05 05
1454 00 02 92
1468 00 01 03
1467 00 00 61
1466 00 00 89
1469 00 03 24
1465 00 00 70
1470 00 02 19
1471 00 00 20
1482 00 01 82
1481 00 02 47
1486 00 01 97
1503 00 06 56
1490 00 00 20
1504 00 00 77
1510 00 01 59
1509 00 00 92
1508 00 01 46
1505 00 00 34
1507 00 02 51
1313 00 02 96
1314 00 02 48
1318 00 01 68
1317 00 01 47
1320 00 01 27
1321 00 01 40
1323 00 03 71
1324 00 00 20
1288 00 01 29
1293 00 01 27
1290 00 00 56
1289 00 01 48
1286 00 00 20
1287 00 00 29
1291 Rasta 00 00 44
1292 Rasta 00 00 20
1262 00 02 01
1261 00 00 39
1250 00 00 20
1249 00 02 59
1246 00 03 39
1243 00 00 20
1242/1 00 00 75
1242 00 01 04
1241 00 00 80
1239 00 02 100
1236 00 00 82
1238 00 01 02
1237 00 00 83
1232 00 02 16
1231 00 01 25
1230 00 01 11
2174/1688 00 00 61
2173/1688 00 00 37
2172/1688 00 00 99
1682 00 00 98
1690 00 04 47
1691 00 03 39
1692 00 01 51
1696 00 01 85
1718 00 02 42
1719 00 00 28
1697 00 00 20
1710 00 04 08
1717 00 00 20
1707 00 00 20
1708 00 01 30
1709 00 01 95
1711 00 01 18
5 Haroli Bat Kalan 473 678//21/3 00 05 61
678//21/4 00 02 81
678//20/2 00 06 02
678//20/1 00 03 25
678//11/2 00 07 76
678//11/1 00 02 65
678//10/1 00 01 35
682 Rasta 00 00 60
678//10/2/2 00 02 10
678//10/2/1 00 03 21
678//1/2 00 00 56
679//6/4/1 00 00 65
679//6/3 00 01 88
679//6/1 00 00 50
679//5/2 00 05 84
679//5/1 00 00 20
669//25/3 00 01 50
669//25/2 00 07 85
669//25/1 00 00 45
669//16/1 00 09 67
669//15/2 00 01 39
669//17/1 00 00 72
679//5/3/1 00 03 08
6 Haroli Tahliwal Nichala 472 154 00 00 98
168 00 00 90
169 00 13 73
171 00 12 46
175 00 00 20
185 00 00 57
189 00 18 76
201 Nala 00 01 13
223 00 03 91
222 00 01 44
221 00 00 84
224 00 00 20
226 00 03 70
226/1 00 05 01
227 00 14 93
388 00 00 27
228 Rasta 00 00 74
369 00 00 20
253 00 03 65
312 Rasta 00 01 92
363 00 01 57
254 00 00 69
255 00 00 20
362 00 11 74
360 00 20 17
317 00 20 09
318 00 13 14
316 00 02 05
315 00 03 15
319 00 00 33
313 00 00 50
621/314 00 03 33
620/314 00 03 15
7 Haroli Tehliwal Upparla 472 479 00 01 45
478 00 01 88
477 Rasta 00 01 08
470 00 10 22
475 00 01 42
476 00 06 94
414 00 03 86
413 00 03 02
414/1 00 02 69
515 00 00 20
411 Rasta 00 00 39
409 00 00 23
407 00 09 99
386 00 00 20
389 00 02 83
390 00 07 60
390/1 00 03 39
391 00 07 22
377 00 00 89
376 00 05 57
375 00 03 50
371 00 00 70
368 00 00 20
367 00 10 08
366 00 00 20
359 00 01 68
358 00 00 30
360 00 03 89
361 00 04 14
353 Rasta 00 00 58
339 00 08 42
307 00 10 56
338 00 03 47
309 00 04 02
310 00 03 93
298 00 06 86
8 Haroli Manuwal 471 2552 00 01 07
2562 00 04 28
2551 00 04 02
2548 00 01 25
2549 00 00 38
2550 00 00 22
2564 00 03 100
2567 00 02 11
2568 00 00 50
2570 00 03 61
2571 Rasta 00 00 77
2572 00 01 76
2982 00 01 30
2983 00 00 20
2981 00 00 20
2574 00 00 29
2577 00 01 94
2980 00 06 41
2578 00 00 46
2580 00 00 53
2582 00 00 64
2583 00 00 54
2581 00 00 55
2600 00 01 76
2601 00 01 13
2605 00 00 20
2604 00 00 34
2602 00 00 34
2603 00 00 20
2629 00 03 68
2626 00 02 22
2628 00 00 45
2627 00 00 20
2651 00 01 71
2650 00 02 34
2653 00 00 20
2652 00 00 20
2655 00 03 17
2656 00 00 20
2659 00 01 81
2660 00 01 23
2654 00 00 20
2662 00 00 20
2661 00 00 31
2663 00 00 72
2675 00 00 37
2674 00 01 02
2664 00 00 20
2671 00 00 20
2672 00 01 40
2673 00 00 91
2677 00 02 32
2701 00 00 84
2700 00 00 67
2699 00 00 33
2698 00 00 63
2697 00 00 27
2696 00 02 02
2693 00 03 23
2707 00 00 20
2708 00 00 73
2709 00 04 12
2721 00 05 47
3492/2727 00 00 81
3499/2730 00 00 96
2728 00 05 93
3495/2729 00 00 50
3496/2729 00 00 25
2688 Rasta 00 01 09
9 Haroli Nangal Khurd 471 2781 00 09 98
2783 00 04 92
2785 00 02 20
2784 00 02 27
2787 00 07 79
2789 00 00 20
2788 00 05 86
2833 00 00 20
2823 00 03 35
2824 00 05 05
2832 00 02 32
2822 00 00 20
2825 00 05 02
2828 00 02 01
2827 00 03 71
2826 00 02 06
2841 00 14 06
2943 Rasta 00 00 81
2942 00 12 64
2940 00 03 67
2939 00 00 81
2913 00 20 07
2937 00 02 02
2935 00 06 82
2934 00 05 28
2933 00 00 80
2932 00 06 24
2926 00 12 20
2924 00 00 20
2925 00 00 82
2923 00 20 73
2920 00 20 39
10 Una Udaypur 224 1197/2 00 01 05
1197/1 00 26 40
1243/1141 00 07 55
1242/1141 00 02 15
1158/2 00 03 80
1318/1176 00 18 24
11 Una Nangran Jhikla 222 2210/1663 00 00 78
2206/1359 00 02 73
1328 00 02 80
2266/515 00 01 55
2267/515 00 02 26
2272/523 00 00 20
2271/523 00 02 30
2277/528 00 00 88
2268/522 00 00 20
2269/522 00 00 20
12 Una Pekhubela 1009 00 03 60
1007 00 09 18
9280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9281 9282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9283 9284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9285 9286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9287 9288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9289 9290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9291

[F. No. R-11025(11)/248/2017-OR-I/E-18228]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2017

dkdkdkdk----vkvkvkvk---- 2801280128012801.—dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k ½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl eU=ky; dh vf/klwpuk laŒ dkŒ vkŒ 910¼v½ rkjh[k 23 ekpZ 2015 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= laŒ 681 rkjh[k 01 vçSy 2015 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh ] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk eas layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa dsjy jkT; esa Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp fjQkujh ls lsye rd æfor isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh;

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 13@08@2015 ls 03@09@2015 ds chp miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh ;

vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu ] dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS ;

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS ]mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS ;

vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tkrk gS ;

9292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe es mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj es fufgr gksus fd ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

jkT; : dsjy

ftyk : ,sjukdqye rkyqd : vkyqok

uke xzke losZ uEcj {ks=Qy
gsDVs;j ,fj;k oxZehVj 
rsDdqEckxe  ¼[k.M la0 30½   149@3             0                00                  94
                            151@8             0                06                  38
                            155@3             0                00                  74
                            155@5             0                00                  09
                            156@5             0                00                  05
                            156@6             0                00                  63
                            156@9             0                00                  60
                            157@1             0                00                  08
                            157@2             0                01                  71
                            157@4             0                11                  15
                            157@7             0                08                  56
                            157@8             0                00                  12
                            195@6             0                01                  57
                            195@8             0                00                  48
                            205@4             0                06                  32
                            205@11            0                08                  14
                            205@12            0                00                  37
                            206@6             0                00                  95
                            207@1             0                04                  93
                            207@2             0                06                  26
                            207@3             0                04                  72
                            207@6             0                00                  82
                            214@4             0                01                  00
                            214@5             0                02                  71
                            214@6             0                04                  60
                            215@1             0                00                  60
                            215@2             0                01                  22
                            215@3             0                01                  46
                            215@4             0                01                  82
                            215@5             0                02                  83
                            226@2             0                01                  98
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9293 
                            226@7             0                05                  91
                            226@8             0                04                  61
                            226@11            0                05                  88
                            226@12            0                01                  71
                            226@13            0                08                  13
                            228@4             0                01                  19
                            228@5             0                00                  23
                            228@6             0                01                  11
                            229@3             0                00                  16
                            229@4             0                02                  99
                            229@5             0                01                  47
                            229@8             0                03                  67
                            229@10            0                00                  33
                            229@16            0                01                  35
                            229@17            0                03                  80
                            230@2             0                02                  20
                            230@3             0                00                  59
                            230@14            0                00                  48
                            230@16            0                01                  34
                            230@17            0                01                  45
                            230@18            0                01                  80
oMDdqEckxe  ¼[k.M la0 28½   158@13            0                00                  06
                            158@14            0                00                  24
                            158@22            0                00                  67
                            192@6             0                00                  98
                            192@8             0                06                  10
                            208@2             0                05                  69
                            263@2             0                12                  11
                            268@16            0                05                  23
                            268@17            0                01                  42
                            268@9             0                02                  76
                            283@4             0                00                  25
                            283@5             0                00                  34
                            283@11            0                10                  28
                            283@12            0                08                  01
                            284@5             0                01                  90
                            284@7             0                00                  58
                            285@1             0                01                  90
9294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 
285@2            0                 01                 70
285@3            0                 03                 16
285@4            0                 03                 40
292@7            0                 05                 47
292@8            0                 09                 07
306@1            0                 00                 67

[फा. सं. आर-12031/196/2017-ओआर-I/ई-19746]

पवन कु मार] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2017

S.O. 2801.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas SO No. 910 (E), dated 23/03/2015 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 681 dated 01/04/2015 issued under sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamilnadu.

AND, Whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications have been made available to the public between 13/08/2015 to 03/09/2015.

AND, Whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has submitted his report to the Central Government.

AND, Whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the Right of User in the said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended to this notification are hereby acquired.

AND, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government vest free from all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : ALUVA

VILLAGE SURVEY NUMBERS AREA
HECTARES ARES SQ . MTRS
1 2 3 4 5 
THEKKUMBHAGAM                      149/3                0           00           94
BLOCK NO. 30                       151/8                0           06           38
                                   155/3                0           00           74
                                   155/5                0           00           09
                                   156/5                0           00           05
                                   156/6                0           00           63
                                   156/9                0           00           60
                                   157/1                0           00           08
                                   157/2                0           01           71
                                   157/4                0           11           15
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9295 
 157/7                 0            08             56
 157/8                 0            00             12
 195/6                 0            01             57
 195/8                 0            00             48
 205/4                 0            06             32
205/11                 0            08             14
205/12                 0            00             37
 206/6                 0            00             95
 207/1                 0            04             93
 207/2                 0            06             26
 207/3                 0            04             72
 207/6                 0            00             82
 214/4                 0            01             00
 214/5                 0            02             71
 214/6                 0            04             60
 215/1                 0            00             60
 215/2                 0            01             22
 215/3                 0            01             46
 215/4                 0            01             82
 215/5                 0            02             83
 226/2                 0            01             98
 226/7                 0            05             91
 226/8                 0            04             61
226/11                 0            05             88
226/12                 0            01             71
226/13                 0            08             13
 228/4                 0            01             19
 228/5                 0            00             23
 228/6                 0            01             11
 229/3                 0            00             16
 229/4                 0            02             99
 229/5                 0            01             47
 229/8                 0            03             67
229/10                 0            00             33
229/16                 0            01             35
229/17                 0            03             80
 230/2                 0            02             20
 230/3                 0            00             59
230/14                 0            00             48
230/16                 0            01             34
230/17                 0            01             45
9296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 
                                    230/18                0           01             80
VADAKKUMBHAGAM                      158/13                0           00             06
(BLOCK.NO. 28)                      158/14                0           00             24
                                    158/22                0           00             67
                                    192/6                 0           00             98
                                    192/8                 0           06             10
                                    208/2                 0           05             69
                                    263/2                 0           12             11
                                    268/16                0           05             23
                                    268/17                0           01             42
                                    268/9                 0           02             76
                                    283/4                 0           00             25
                                    283/5                 0           00             34
                                    283/11                0           10             28
                                    283/12                0           08             01
                                    284/5                 0           01             90
                                    284/7                 0            0             58
                                    285/1                 0           01             90
                                    285/2                 0           01             70
                                    285/3                 0           03             16
                                    285/4                 0           03             40
                                    292/7                 0           05             47
                                    292/8                 0           09             07
                                    306/1                 0           00             67

[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2017

dkdkdkdk----vkvkvkvk---- 2802280228022802.—के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को लोकिहत में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तिमलनाडु राज्य में एन्नूर से मदुरै तक वाया चेंगलप(cid:133)टु पांिडचेरी त्रिची एलपीजी परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल काप}रेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चािहए;

और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इससे उपाबj अनुसूची में व(cid:128)णत है ओर जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन िबछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अत :अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन्स (भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Hए, उस भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई (cid:134)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में व(cid:128)णत भूिम में हितबj है, उस तारीख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इ(cid:135)ीस दिन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में (cid:29)ी एस. पी. मधुसूधनन, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, भूिम अर्जन अिधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप}रेशन िलिमटेड, पाइपलाइन परियोजना, प्लाट सं.-14, जयप्रकाश स्ट्रीट, वी. जी. पी नगर, राजािजपुरम, ति(cid:129)वल्लुर, तिमलनाडू - 602001 को िलिखत रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9297 vuqlwphvuqlwphvuqlwphvuqlwph

तालुका : वडिपी िजला : मदुरै राज्य : तमिलनाडु
गाँव का नाम सवDक्षण सं.- खaड सं. उप खaड सं. क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेर एयर वर्ग मीटर
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. तु ंबिचांपी 5 4बी1 0 00 40
21 4बी 0 12 25
21 3बी 0 01 20
21 2ए 0 00 55
20 3बी 0 00 55
20 3ए 0 11 70
16 6 0 08 25
16 4 0 03 80
16 3 0 04 15
16 1बी 0 04 00
16 1ए 0 10 85
15 0 11 20
14 12सी 0 00 40
14 12बी 0 04 00
14 12ए 0 15 60
14 10 0 00 90
5. चिन्नमनयं पी 144 1 0 09 60
141 4 0 07 00
141 6 0 07 30
141 5 0 01 00
140 3 0 02 50
139 2ए 0 02 80
139 2बी 0 02 50
114 4सी 0 00 40
114 4डी 0 07 00
114 4ई 0 00 45
113 2 0 12 20
112 2 0 06 80
112 1 0 12 25
110 21बी 0 00 40
110 22 0 00 50
110 23 0 04 60
110 24 0 04 35
110 14 0 04 20
110 13 0 04 50
110 12 0 04 50
110 11 0 01 70
110 10 0 01 20
110 9 0 00 70
106 1 0 09 80
107 2 0 03 10
107 1 0 00 40
109 5बी 0 03 40
109 5ए 0 10 30
109 4 0 02 00
109 3 0 02 65
109 2 0 05 90
109 1 0 00 60
86 6 0 00 60
86 5 0 14 00
86 3 0 05 10
86 1 0 14 40
74 2ए1 0 00 40
73 2बी 0 04 00
73 2ए 0 01 10
72 2 0 06 85
67 2 0 02 35
66 5 0 00 50
66 3 0 15 80
66 2 0 08 30
66 1 0 05 75
64 5 0 03 50
9298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9299

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/96/2017-ओआर-I/ई-7820]

पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2017

S.O. 2802.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Ennore to Madurai Via Chengalpattu, Pondicherry(UT) and Trichy, a pipeline should be laid in the State of Tamil Nadu by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.P.Madhusudhanan, Competent Authority, Land Acquisition Officer Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipeline Projects, Plot No.14, Jayaprakash Street, V.G.P. Nagar, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur, TamilNadu – 602 001.

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Vadipatti District : Madurai State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village Survey No. Survey No. Area
Hectare Are Square Meter
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Thumbichampatti 5 4B1 0 00 40
21 4B 0 12 25
21 3B 0 01 20
21 2A 0 00 55
20 3B 0 00 55
20 3A 0 11 70
16 6 0 08 25
16 4 0 03 80
16 3 0 04 15
16 1B 0 04 00
16 1A 0 10 85
15 0 11 20
14 12C 0 00 40
14 12B 0 04 00
14 12A 0 15 60
14 10 0 00 90
5. Chinnamanayakkanpatti 144 1 0 09 60
141 4 0 07 00
141 6 0 07 30
141 5 0 01 00
140 3 0 02 50
139 2A 0 02 80
139 2B 0 02 50
114 4C 0 00 40
114 4D 0 07 00
114 4E 0 00 45
113 2 0 12 20
112 2 0 06 80
112 1 0 12 25
110 21B 0 00 40
110 22 0 00 50
110 23 0 04 60
110 24 0 04 35
110 14 0 04 20
110 13 0 04 50
110 12 0 04 50
110 11 0 01 70
110 10 0 01 20
110 9 0 00 70
106 1 0 09 80
107 2 0 03 10
107 1 0 00 40
109 5B 0 03 40
109 5A 0 10 30
109 4 0 02 00
109 3 0 02 65
109 2 0 05 90
109 1 0 00 60
86 6 0 00 60
86 5 0 14 00
86 3 0 05 10
86 1 0 14 40
74 2A1 0 00 40
73 2B 0 04 00
73 2A 0 01 10
72 2 0 06 85
67 2 0 02 35
66 5 0 00 50
66 3 0 15 80
66 2 0 08 30
66 1 0 05 75
64 5 0 03 50
9300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9301

[F. No. R-11025(11)/96/2017-OR-I/E-7820]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2017

dkdkdkdk----vkvkvkvk---- 2803280328032803.—के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में एन्नूर से मदुरै तक वाया चेंगलप(cid:133)टु - पांिडचेरी - त्रिची एलपीजी परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉप}रेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी है ।

और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाबj अनुसूची में व(cid:128)णत है ओर जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए।

अत: अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Hए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई (cid:134)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में व(cid:128)णत भूमि में हितबj है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इ(cid:135)ीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में (cid:29)ी एस. पी. मधुसूधनन, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, भूमि अर्जन अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप}रेशन िलिमटेड, पाइपलाइन परियोजना , प्लाट सं.14, जयप्रकाश स्ट्रीट, वी. जी. पी नगर, राजािजपुरम, ति(cid:129)वल्लुर, तिमलनाडू-602001 को

लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I9302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vuqlwphvuqlwphvuqlwphvuqlwph

तालुका : विOवांडी िजला : विल्लुपुरम राज्य : तमिलनाडु
गाँव का नाम सवDक्षण सं.- खaड सं. उप खaड सं. क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेर एयर वर्ग मीटर
1 2 3 4 5 6
37. नंदिवादी 30 2 0 13 80
31 0 13 90
32 1 0 05 20
32 2ए 0 00 80
32 2बी 0 05 95
32 2सी 0 06 30
32 3 0 02 50
32 5 0 00 40
40 5ए 0 00 60
40 6बी 0 11 40
40 6ए 0 02 60
35 3ए 0 12 30
35 4ए 0 03 40
35 4बी 0 03 95
39 2 0 00 85
39 3 0 03 10
55 1ए 0 01 65
55 1बी 0 01 60
55 1सी 0 00 40
55 2 0 17 10
59 4ए 0 03 60
59 5ए 0 03 80
59 6 0 03 70
59 7 0 04 00
59 8 0 05 20
59 9 0 06 00
61 1बी 0 10 80
61 1सी1 0 05 60
61 1सी2 0 02 55
61 1सी3 0 02 70
85 3 0 06 60
62 1ए 0 00 55
62 3 0 13 60
81 1बी 0 12 80
80 1 0 07 10
79 0 13 30
76 1ए 0 08 60
76 1बी1 0 00 40
76 2बी 0 08 45
76 3 0 04 70
76 4ए 0 04 70
76 4बी 0 04 70
76 4सी 0 04 70
88 0 09 70
89 2ए3ए 0 32 00
89 6 0 08 10
89 7 0 08 10
89 2ए6ए 0 05 20
89 2ए6बी 0 02 65
89 2ए7 0 12 10
89 2ए8ए 0 06 15
124. ठेंपैर 309 1 0 18 75
309 3 0 21 00
309 4ए 0 17 00
309 4बी 0 00 40
66 4 0 06 75
66 2ए 0 11 50
66 2बी 0 03 50
66 3डी 0 09 50
66 3सी 0 03 45
60 3 0 05 45
60 2डी 0 04 40
60 2ई 0 03 60
60 2जी 0 05 40
68 4ए 0 02 00
68 4बी 0 01 50
68 4डी 0 03 10
68 4सी 0 01 40
68 4ई 0 05 00
68 5 0 00 40
57 1सी 0 04 00
57 1ई 0 07 55
57 2ए2 0 05 60
57 2डी 0 02 60
57 2ई 0 06 10
57 2सी 0 00 40
57 2जी 0 01 60
57 2एफ़ 0 04 00
57 2एच1 0 02 00
57 2एच2 0 00 40
57 2आई 0 02 15
56 4ए 0 18 75
56 1बी 0 11 25
56 1ए 0 01 00
56 3 0 10 10
50 3सी 0 04 80
50 3डी 0 05 50
49 2बी1 0 01 00
49 2ए 0 12 80
49 1ए 0 03 25
49 1बी 0 14 00
43 2ए 0 03 25
43 2बी 0 05 65
43 2सी 0 02 00
43 2डी 0 02 50
43 2ई 0 02 15
43 4ए 0 02 15
43 4बी 0 04 00
43 4ई 0 07 50
43 4एफ़ 0 01 50
34 1 0 06 85
34 2 0 06 25
34 3 0 06 20
34 4ए 0 04 75
34 4बी 0 01 60
35 1डी 0 00 40
35 1ई 0 08 60
35 1एफ़ 0 08 65
35 1जी 0 00 40
35 3ए 0 01 20
35 3बी 0 08 00
35 4ए 0 04 70
35 4बी1 0 04 70
35 4बी2 0 04 30
35 2बी 0 00 40
31 1ए 0 04 00
31 1सी 0 00 40
36 1ए 0 00 40
36 1बी 0 03 50
36 2 0 10 80
36 3ए 0 13 70
36 3बी 0 05 60
36 5 0 00 40
36 6ए 0 03 20
36 6बी 0 04 70
30 6 0 09 00
30 7 0 14 00
29 2 0 01 75
27 1बी 0 03 95
27 5 0 15 10
28 2 0 01 80
28 3 0 09 40
19 6 0 05 15
19 5बी 0 05 15
19 11बी 0 02 40
149 2ए 0 00 40
149 2बी 0 10 20
149 5 0 21 50
149 4 0 00 70
18 2ए 0 00 95
18 3ए 0 01 40
18 2बी 0 00 60
18 3बी 0 10 10
18 4बी 0 08 30
123.छिन्नतछु र 1 3 0 01 00
1 4 0 04 00
1 6ए 0 19 45
3 2 0 03 20
3 3 0 34 30
4 1 0 18 35
23 1ए 0 04 45
23 1बी 0 13 10
23 5 0 01 40
24 1 0 14 00
24 2 0 00 40
24 4 0 04 15
24 5 0 04 50
33 1 0 11 70
33 2 0 16 10
31 1ए 0 09 00
31 1बी 0 12 60
34 1एम 0 10 80
35 0 17 30
138. कोंOांबू ंदी 15 1 0 07 90
15 11 0 06 05
15 12ए 0 02 30
15 12बी 0 03 20
15 13 0 02 60
14 1ए 0 14 70
14 5 0 03 85
14 6 0 03 50
14 7सी 0 02 15
14 7बी 0 01 50
14 8ए 0 00 40
14 8बी 0 02 00
14 7ए 0 00 80
14 8सी 0 03 70
1 1ए 0 03 10
1 1बी 0 02 40
1 1सी 0 02 40
1 2ए 0 05 75
1 2बी 0 02 90
1 3 0 05 80
1 4ए 0 05 80
1 4बी 0 11 00
130.सालाई (विOवांडी) 85 3ए 0 02 70
85 3बी1 0 15 10
85 3बी2 0 14 40
85 6 0 09 55
85 7 0 25 90
8 1 0 06 85
8 2ए 0 04 80
3 9ए 0 18 70
3 14 0 01 45
9 1ए2 0 17 30
10 1बी1 0 17 20
10 1बी2 0 05 90
133. पिल्लईयाकु र् प्पम 14 1 0 19 50
14 3 0 11 20
14 4 0 08 30
39 4ए 0 07 80
39 8 0 01 10
39 4बी 0 16 65
39 9 0 00 40
38 1 0 12 25
38 2बी 0 00 40
47 5ए 0 05 80
47 5बी 0 06 10
47 5सी 0 03 20
47 5डी 0 00 40
47 4 0 00 40
49 1सी 0 05 00
49 1बी 0 00 40
49 1डी 0 05 70
49 1ई 0 02 30
49 1एफ़ 0 03 70
49 1एच 0 00 40
49 1जी 0 05 00
49 1आई 0 00 40
49 1जे 0 04 20
49 2डी 0 03 00
49 3 0 01 20
49 4 0 19 00
49 5 0 03 90
134. कायथुर 228 3सी 0 01 15
228 3डी 0 02 65
228 4 0 04 20
228 11 0 00 40
228 12ए 0 02 35
228 12बी 0 02 95
228 13 0 02 65
228 15बी 0 00 40
228 27 0 07 00
228 8 0 10 80
224 1 0 02 80
225 0 09 90
218 1ए 0 00 40
218 2ए 0 05 20
218 2बी 0 00 40
218 3 0 01 90
218 4 0 05 50
216 1 0 04 50
216 2 0 00 90
214 1ए 0 00 75
214 1बी 0 00 60
214 3ए 0 08 00
214 3बी 0 08 10
214 4 0 06 30
214 5 0 04 20
214 6ए 0 01 25
39 6ए 0 05 50
39 6बी 0 11 50
39 8ए 0 07 50
39 8बी 0 02 90
39 8सी 0 02 70
38 3 0 02 00
33 1बी 0 03 55
33 1सी 0 01 10
33 2ई 0 02 40
33 2एफ़ 0 05 70
33 2जी 0 06 15
41 7डी 0 01 25
32 1ए 0 06 60
32 2ए 0 02 00
32 2बी 0 05 00
32 3सी 0 10 80
32 3डी 0 03 20
31 2ए 0 03 80
30 1 0 01 75
30 2 0 07 00
27 1 0 03 60
27 2 0 11 00
25 8 0 00 40
26 1 0 00 40
26 3 0 07 70
26 4 0 10 25
26 5 0 05 00
26 6 0 00 80
135. राधापुरम 288 7 0 01 00
288 8 0 07 20
288 9 0 10 80
288 10 0 03 95
264 1 0 00 40
264 2 0 42 60
264 4 0 20 00
265 0 02 75
267 4ए 0 00 40
267 4बी 0 02 90
269 1ए 0 03 60
269 1बी 0 03 60
269 1सी 0 02 30
269 2ए1 0 00 60
67 1 0 06 20
67 2 0 13 40
67 3बी 0 10 45
68 2 0 00 40
68 5ए 0 03 90
68 5बी 0 13 35
68 6 0 10 45
68 7 0 00 40
68 9ए 0 01 95
68 9बी 0 06 00
69 2 0 12 00
69 3 0 05 00
70 3ए 0 00 45
70 4ए 0 03 45
79 1 0 09 30
80 1ए1 0 02 60
80 1ए2 0 06 75
80 2 0 08 30
87 1ए 0 05 80
87 1बी 0 03 90
87 2ए 0 01 90
87 2बी 0 04 90
87 2सी 0 09 40
87 4ए 0 12 25
87 4बी 0 04 90
148 1 0 02 50
148 3 0 00 40
147 1 0 04 60
147 2 0 05 85
147 3 0 01 80
105 2 0 02 55
129 0 19 25
127 3बी 0 10 45
127 3सी 0 10 45
125 9 0 15 85
125 10 0 07 90
116 1 0 05 70
123 5 0 16 75
123 6ए 0 00 40
123 6बी 0 03 80
181.मदुरपाककम 437 5 0 17 65
437 6 0 00 40
437 10 0 00 40
437 12 0 03 60
437 14 0 03 00
437 15 0 03 00
437 17 0 05 80
437 21 0 03 20
437 20 0 02 65
436 1बी 0 01 25
436 1ए 0 01 50
436 2सी 0 01 30
436 3 0 00 55
445 17ए 0 00 80
445 17बी 0 04 00
445 10 0 03 25
444 1 0 02 00
444 2 0 02 20
444 3 0 00 65
444 4 0 00 40
444 9 0 05 70
444 10 0 06 85
429 2ए 0 01 80
429 4ए 0 00 90
429 4बी 0 00 65
429 5ए 0 01 50
429 5बी 0 02 55
428 1 0 01 90
428 2 0 00 75
428 5 0 01 35
428 6बी 0 03 55
428 7ए 0 02 80
428 7बी 0 00 80
427 3 0 04 70
427 8 0 03 80
427 12 0 04 70
427 15ए 0 00 40
427 15बी 0 03 20
425 2 0 05 05
425 3ए 0 02 75
425 3बी 0 03 60
424 1 0 03 25
424 2 0 03 00
420 0 03 45
419 0 02 20
418 8 0 05 80
418 10 0 03 25
418 11सी 0 02 10
418 12 0 01 95
418 21ए 0 04 50
418 21बी 0 05 05
418 21सी 0 05 30
415 8सी 0 05 05
415 8डी 0 06 35
415 11 0 05 25
555 0 00 40
413 7 0 00 60
413 9 0 12 60
413 10 0 00 40
414 0 12 85
556 1 0 03 00
556 3 0 05 20
556 4 0 03 40
558 1 0 00 40
558 2 0 00 40
557 2ए 0 05 40
557 2बी 0 05 40
557 2सी 0 04 35
559 4 0 02 70
560 2ए2 0 05 00
560 2बी 0 04 45
560 2सी 0 02 20
583 1 0 04 70
583 4 0 00 40
583 3 0 05 15
584 1 0 04 60
584 2 0 03 10
584 3 0 00 60
571 0 06 30
572 1 0 01 70
572 2 0 03 75
572 3 0 03 95
573 1 0 03 30
573 5 0 00 40
574 0 05 80
575 2 0 06 60
575 3बी 0 00 40
614 3 0 00 40
613 2 0 04 20
612 1ए 0 02 30
612 1बी 0 02 40
612 1सी 0 00 40
612 1डी 0 04 70
576 3 0 01 90
611 1ए 0 08 45
611 1बी 0 00 65
611 2 0 00 40
610 0 02 80
609 1 0 10 85
606 2 0 00 40
607 1ए 0 01 60
607 1बी 0 04 50
608 2 0 04 70
608 3 0 04 70
622 0 08 30
623 5 0 02 85
625 0 15 20
624 0 00 55
627 12ए 0 07 90
627 12बी 0 01 55
627 8 0 00 40
182.मु ंगिल्पटु 27 1ए 0 07 20
27 1बी 0 07 20
27 1सी 0 07 60
27 1ई 0 05 80
27 1एफ़ 0 03 70
27 1जी 0 00 40
27 5 0 10 80
26 1ए3 0 07 20
25 1ए 0 00 90
25 1बी 0 03 00
25 2 0 03 10
25 3 0 03 10
31 4 0 06 00
31 3 0 04 60
31 5 0 00 80
22 1 0 06 60
22 2ए 0 07 00
22 2बी 0 01 40
22 4ए 0 00 40
22 4बी 0 04 70
35 2ए 0 01 60
35 2बी1 0 02 90
35 2बी2 0 00 70
36 1ए 0 03 05
36 1बी 0 08 30
36 2ए2 0 08 00
36 2बी 0 01 50
46 1 0 04 30
46 2 0 00 40
46 6ए 0 07 20
46 6बी 0 08 65
46 7 0 01 20
46 9 0 02 70
46 10 0 02 70
46 12 0 00 40
37 20 0 02 20
45 1 0 09 20
45 2 0 01 60
52 0 02 40
163 1 0 05 80
155 1ए 0 01 10
156 0 14 40
158 0 10 30
157 0 02 40
159 0 07 20
160 0 00 40
192 2बी 0 06 10
192 2सी 0 04 00
192 4बी 0 00 40
192 5 0 04 10
191 2 0 00 40
193 1बी 0 04 30
193 1ए 0 00 40
193 3बी 0 00 60
193 4ए 0 04 10
193 4बी 0 02 75
212 0 03 40
213 2सी3 0 00 80
213 2सी4 0 04 70
185 1 0 02 40
185 2 0 00 40
185 4ए 0 00 40
220 1 0 02 50
220 2 0 18 00
222 1 0 00 60
184 1 0 05 40
184 2ए 0 01 75
184 2बी 0 00 40
196. वादनूर 511/ई 1 0 00 40
515 0 04 50
516 1 0 02 05
516 2 0 02 45
519 0 02 85
504 1 0 09 00
504 2 0 00 40
524 1 0 01 90
524 2 0 00 75
499 2 0 02 50
499 4बी 0 01 20
499 4सी 0 04 10
498 2 0 07 40
498 3 0 02 30
494 2 0 03 15
493 2ए 0 05 15
493 2बी 0 01 20
444 2 0 06 90
447 0 02 15
452 1 0 02 40
452 2 0 04 00
452 3 0 05 20
453 1सी 0 02 60
453 1बी 0 00 40
456 4 0 03 10
456 3ए1 0 03 10
456 3बी1 0 06 85
454 0 06 65
459 4 0 00 40
466 2 0 11 30
466 3 0 01 15
466 4 0 09 25
197. सेशांगनूर 148 4 0 06 10
160 1 0 17 50
159 2 0 06 10
159 3 0 04 30
158 1 0 00 40
158 2 0 02 45
138 0 31 35
13 1 0 06 80
13 2 0 13 70
13 3बी 0 06 15
13 7ए 0 09 00
13 7बी 0 03 15
18 1 0 03 80
18 2 0 09 40
18 3ए 0 02 10
18 4 0 08 50
18 3डी 0 00 40
18 3ई 0 01 40
18 5बी 0 07 20
18 5डी 0 07 60
19 2ए 0 00 40
20 1ए 0 05 30
20 1बी 0 05 50
20 1सी 0 04 70
20 1डी 0 05 50
20 1ई 0 00 40
208. पेरियबाबूसमुम 1 1 0 00 40
1 2 0 11 20
8 2 0 03 00
8 9 0 05 50
8 8बी 0 05 50
39 1बी 0 04 80
39 1सी 0 20 30
39 4ए 0 14 10
39 4बी 0 01 80
35 1 0 10 80
35 4ए 0 03 00
35 4बी 0 06 50
33 1 0 04 35
33 2 0 10 20
33 5 0 00 40
33 3 0 17 30
57 2ए 0 14 00
57 1बी 0 17 65
370 0 10 80
371 1बी 0 05 60
371 1ए 0 00 40
369 1 0 13 50
369 2 0 13 15
368 0 00 40
367 0 05 90
363 1 0 02 10
363 2 0 06 15
354 1बी2बी 0 06 00
354 1बी2सी 0 06 00
354 1बी1 0 01 00
354 2 0 18 00
355 0 14 20
353 2 0 01 80
346 2 0 10 80
347 0 06 50
343 0 12 45
342 0 14 75
438 2 0 14 75
440 3ए 0 15 40
439 3 0 14 65
449 2बी 0 10 25
450 1ए 0 11 35
450 2सी 0 07 90
450 2डी 0 03 40
468 2बी 0 04 90
468 2सी 0 04 70
468 2डी 0 03 25
480 1ए 0 01 60
480 1बी 0 06 30
480 2ए 0 20 00
480 4बी 0 05 40
480 4ए 0 03 45
479 2बी2 0 01 05
477 2 0 08 30
477 3 0 03 45
212. छिन्नबाबूसमुम 15 1 0 08 45
15 7 0 10 30
15 9 0 05 10
14 2 0 04 70
14 4 0 04 50
14 5 0 04 80
14 10ए 0 08 20
14 9 0 03 00
14 13बी 0 08 00
3 1 0 12 15
2 6 0 03 10
2 12 0 04 20
2 13ए 0 04 45
2 7ए1 0 14 00
2 7ए2 0 02 80
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9303 9304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9305 9306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9307 9308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9309 9310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9311 9312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9313 9314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9315 9316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9317 9318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9319 9320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9321 9322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/96/2017-ओआर-I/ई-7820]

पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2017

S.O. 2803.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Ennore to Madurai Via Chengalpattu, Pondicherry(UT) and Trichy, a pipeline should be laid in the State of Tamil Nadu by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9323

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.P. Madhusudhanan, Competent Authority, Land Acquisition Officer Indian Oil Corporation Limited, For Petroleum Pipeline Projects, Plot No.14, Jayaprakash Street, V.G.P. Nagar, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu – 602 001.

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Vikravandi District : Villupuram State : Tamil Nadu
Name of the Village Survey No. Sub Division No. Area
Hectare Are Square Meter
1 2 3 4 5 6
37. Nandivadi 30 2 0 13 80
31 0 13 90
32 1 0 05 20
32 2A 0 00 80
32 2B 0 05 95
32 2C 0 06 30
32 3 0 02 50
32 5 0 00 40
40 5A 0 00 60
40 6B 0 11 40
40 6A 0 02 60
35 3A 0 12 30
35 4A 0 03 40
35 4B 0 03 95
39 2 0 00 85
39 3 0 03 10
55 1A 0 01 65
55 1B 0 01 60
55 1C 0 00 40
55 2 0 17 10
59 4A 0 03 60
59 5A 0 03 80
59 6 0 03 70
59 7 0 04 00
59 8 0 05 20
59 9 0 06 00
61 1B 0 10 80
61 1C1 0 05 60
61 1C2 0 02 55
61 1C3 0 02 70
85 3 0 06 60
62 1A 0 00 55
62 3 0 13 60
81 1B 0 12 80
80 1 0 07 10
79 0 13 30
76 1A 0 08 60
76 1B1 0 00 40
76 2B 0 08 45
76 3 0 04 70
76 4A 0 04 70
76 4B 0 04 70
76 4C 0 04 70
88 0 09 70
89 2A3A 0 32 00
89 6 0 08 10
89 7 0 08 10
89 2A6A 0 05 20
89 2A6B 0 02 65
89 2A7 0 12 10
89 2A8A 0 06 15
124. Thenpair 309 1 0 18 75
309 3 0 21 00
309 4A 0 17 00
309 4B 0 00 40
66 4 0 06 75
66 2A 0 11 50
66 2B 0 03 50
66 3D 0 09 50
66 3C 0 03 45
60 3 0 05 45
60 2D 0 04 40
60 2E 0 03 60
60 2G 0 05 40
68 4A 0 02 00
68 4B 0 01 50
68 4D 0 03 10
68 4C 0 01 40
68 4E 0 05 00
68 5 0 00 40
57 1C 0 04 00
57 1E 0 07 55
57 2A2 0 05 60
57 2D 0 02 60
57 2E 0 06 10
57 2C 0 00 40
57 2G 0 01 60
57 2F 0 04 00
57 2H1 0 02 00
57 2H2 0 00 40
57 2 I 0 02 15
56 4A 0 18 75
56 1B 0 11 25
56 1A 0 01 00
56 3 0 10 10
50 3C 0 04 80
50 3D 0 05 50
49 2B1 0 01 00
49 2A 0 12 80
49 1A 0 03 25
49 1B 0 14 00
43 2A 0 03 25
43 2B 0 05 65
43 2C 0 02 00
43 2D 0 02 50
43 2E 0 02 15
43 4A 0 02 15
43 4B 0 04 00
43 4E 0 07 50
43 4F 0 01 50
34 1 0 06 85
34 2 0 06 25
34 3 0 06 20
34 4A 0 04 75
34 4B 0 01 60
35 1D 0 00 40
35 1E 0 08 60
35 1F 0 08 65
35 1G 0 00 40
35 3A 0 01 20
35 3B 0 08 00
35 4A 0 04 70
35 4B1 0 04 70
35 4B2 0 04 30
35 2B 0 00 40
31 1A 0 04 00
31 1C 0 00 40
36 1A 0 00 40
36 1B 0 03 50
36 2 0 10 80
36 3A 0 13 70
36 3B 0 05 60
36 5 0 00 40
36 6A 0 03 20
36 6B 0 04 70
30 6 0 09 00
30 7 0 14 00
29 2 0 01 75
27 1B 0 03 95
27 5 0 15 10
28 2 0 01 80
28 3 0 09 40
19 6 0 05 15
19 5B 0 05 15
19 11B 0 02 40
149 2A 0 00 40
149 2B 0 10 20
149 5 0 21 50
149 4 0 00 70
18 2A 0 00 95
18 3A 0 01 40
18 2B 0 00 60
18 3B 0 10 10
18 4B 0 08 30
123. Chinnatachchur 1 3 0 01 00
1 4 0 04 00
1 6A 0 19 45
3 2 0 03 20
3 3 0 34 30
4 1 0 18 35
23 1A 0 04 45
23 1B 0 13 10
23 5 0 01 40
24 1 0 14 00
24 2 0 00 40
24 4 0 04 15
24 5 0 04 50
33 1 0 11 70
33 2 0 16 10
31 1A 0 09 00
31 1B 0 12 60
34 1M 0 10 80
35 0 17 30
138. Konkrambundi 15 1 0 07 90
15 11 0 06 05
15 12A 0 02 30
15 12B 0 03 20
15 13 0 02 60
14 1A 0 14 70
14 5 0 03 85
14 6 0 03 50
14 7C 0 02 15
14 7B 0 01 50
14 8A 0 00 40
14 8B 0 02 00
14 7A 0 00 80
14 8C 0 03 70
1 1A 0 03 10
1 1B 0 02 40
1 1C 0 02 40
1 2A 0 05 75
1 2B 0 02 90
1 3 0 05 80
1 4A 0 05 80
1 4B 0 11 00
130.Salai (Vikravandi) 85 3A 0 02 70
85 3B1 0 15 10
85 3B2 0 14 40
85 6 0 09 55
85 7 0 25 90
8 1 0 06 85
8 2A 0 04 80
3 9A 0 18 70
3 14 0 01 45
9 1A2 0 17 30
10 1B1 0 17 20
10 1B2 0 05 90
133. Pillaiyarkuppam 14 1 0 19 50
14 3 0 11 20
14 4 0 08 30
39 4A 0 07 80
39 8 0 01 10
39 4B 0 16 65
39 9 0 00 40
38 1 0 12 25
38 2B 0 00 40
47 5A 0 05 80
47 5B 0 06 10
47 5C 0 03 20
47 5D 0 00 40
47 4 0 00 40
49 1C 0 05 00
49 1B 0 00 40
49 1D 0 05 70
49 1E 0 02 30
49 1F 0 03 70
49 1H 0 00 40
49 1G 0 05 00
49 1 I 0 00 40
49 1J 0 04 20
49 2D 0 03 00
49 3 0 01 20
49 4 0 19 00
49 5 0 03 90
134. Kayathur 228 3C 0 01 15
228 3D 0 02 65
228 4 0 04 20
228 11 0 00 40
228 12A 0 02 35
228 12B 0 02 95
228 13 0 02 65
228 15B 0 00 40
228 27 0 07 00
228 8 0 10 80
224 1 0 02 80
225 0 09 90
218 1A 0 00 40
218 2A 0 05 20
218 2B 0 00 40
218 3 0 01 90
218 4 0 05 50
216 1 0 04 50
216 2 0 00 90
214 1A 0 00 75
214 1B 0 00 60
214 3A 0 08 00
214 3B 0 08 10
214 4 0 06 30
214 5 0 04 20
214 6A 0 01 25
39 6A 0 05 50
39 6B 0 11 50
39 8A 0 07 50
39 8B 0 02 90
39 8C 0 02 70
38 3 0 02 00
33 1B 0 03 55
33 1C 0 01 10
33 2E 0 02 40
33 2F 0 05 70
33 2G 0 06 15
41 7D 0 01 25
32 1A 0 06 60
32 2A 0 02 00
32 2B 0 05 00
32 3C 0 10 80
32 3D 0 03 20
31 2A 0 03 80
30 1 0 01 75
30 2 0 07 00
27 1 0 03 60
27 2 0 11 00
25 8 0 00 40
26 1 0 00 40
26 3 0 07 70
26 4 0 10 25
26 5 0 05 00
26 6 0 00 80
135. Radhapuram 288 7 0 01 00
288 8 0 07 20
288 9 0 10 80
288 10 0 03 95
264 1 0 00 40
264 2 0 42 60
264 4 0 20 00
265 0 02 75
267 4A 0 00 40
267 4B 0 02 90
269 1A 0 03 60
269 1B 0 03 60
269 1C 0 02 30
269 2A1 0 00 60
67 1 0 06 20
67 2 0 13 40
67 3B 0 10 45
68 2 0 00 40
68 5A 0 03 90
68 5B 0 13 35
68 6 0 10 45
68 7 0 00 40
68 9A 0 01 95
68 9B 0 06 00
69 2 0 12 00
69 3 0 05 00
70 3A 0 00 45
70 4A 0 03 45
79 1 0 09 30
80 1A1 0 02 60
80 1A2 0 06 75
80 2 0 08 30
87 1A 0 05 80
87 1B 0 03 90
87 2A 0 01 90
87 2B 0 04 90
87 2C 0 09 40
87 4A 0 12 25
87 4B 0 04 90
148 1 0 02 50
148 3 0 00 40
147 1 0 04 60
147 2 0 05 85
147 3 0 01 80
105 2 0 02 55
129 0 19 25
127 3B 0 10 45
127 3C 0 10 45
125 9 0 15 85
125 10 0 07 90
116 1 0 05 70
123 5 0 16 75
123 6A 0 00 40
123 6B 0 03 80
181. Madurapakkam 437 5 0 17 65
437 6 0 00 40
437 10 0 00 40
437 12 0 03 60
437 14 0 03 00
437 15 0 03 00
437 17 0 05 80
437 21 0 03 20
437 20 0 02 65
436 1B 0 01 25
436 1A 0 01 50
436 2C 0 01 30
436 3 0 00 55
445 17A 0 00 80
445 17B 0 04 00
445 10 0 03 25
444 1 0 02 00
444 2 0 02 20
444 3 0 00 65
444 4 0 00 40
444 9 0 05 70
444 10 0 06 85
429 2A 0 01 80
429 4A 0 00 90
429 4B 0 00 65
429 5A 0 01 50
429 5B 0 02 55
428 1 0 01 90
428 2 0 00 75
428 5 0 01 35
428 6B 0 03 55
428 7A 0 02 80
428 7B 0 00 80
427 3 0 04 70
427 8 0 03 80
427 12 0 04 70
427 15A 0 00 40
427 15B 0 03 20
425 2 0 05 05
425 3A 0 02 75
425 3B 0 03 60
424 1 0 03 25
424 2 0 03 00
420 0 03 45
419 0 02 20
418 8 0 05 80
418 10 0 03 25
418 11C 0 02 10
418 12 0 01 95
418 21A 0 04 50
418 21B 0 05 05
418 21C 0 05 30
415 8C 0 05 05
415 8D 0 06 35
415 11 0 05 25
555 0 00 40
413 7 0 00 60
413 9 0 12 60
413 10 0 00 40
414 0 12 85
556 1 0 03 00
556 3 0 05 20
556 4 0 03 40
558 1 0 00 40
558 2 0 00 40
557 2A 0 05 40
557 2B 0 05 40
557 2C 0 04 35
559 4 0 02 70
560 2A2 0 05 00
560 2B 0 04 45
560 2C 0 02 20
583 1 0 04 70
583 4 0 00 40
583 3 0 05 15
584 1 0 04 60
584 2 0 03 10
584 3 0 00 60
571 0 06 30
572 1 0 01 70
572 2 0 03 75
572 3 0 03 95
573 1 0 03 30
573 5 0 00 40
574 0 05 80
575 2 0 06 60
575 3B 0 00 40
614 3 0 00 40
613 2 0 04 20
612 1A 0 02 30
612 1B 0 02 40
612 1C 0 00 40
612 1D 0 04 70
576 3 0 01 90
611 1A 0 08 45
611 1B 0 00 65
611 2 0 00 40
610 0 02 80
609 1 0 10 85
606 2 0 00 40
607 1A 0 01 60
607 1B 0 04 50
608 2 0 04 70
608 3 0 04 70
622 0 08 30
623 5 0 02 85
625 0 15 20
624 0 00 55
627 12A 0 07 90
627 12B 0 01 55
627 8 0 00 40
182. Mungilpattu 27 1A 0 07 20
27 1B 0 07 20
27 1C 0 07 60
27 1E 0 05 80
27 1F 0 03 70
27 1G 0 00 40
27 5 0 10 80
26 1A3 0 07 20
25 1A 0 00 90
25 1B 0 03 00
25 2 0 03 10
25 3 0 03 10
31 4 0 06 00
31 3 0 04 60
31 5 0 00 80
22 1 0 06 60
22 2A 0 07 00
22 2B 0 01 40
22 4A 0 00 40
22 4B 0 04 70
35 2A 0 01 60
35 2B1 0 02 90
35 2B2 0 00 70
36 1A 0 03 05
36 1B 0 08 30
36 2A2 0 08 00
36 2B 0 01 50
46 1 0 04 30
46 2 0 00 40
46 6A 0 07 20
46 6B 0 08 65
46 7 0 01 20
46 9 0 02 70
46 10 0 02 70
46 12 0 00 40
37 20 0 02 20
45 1 0 09 20
45 2 0 01 60
52 0 02 40
163 1 0 05 80
155 1A 0 01 10
156 0 14 40
158 0 10 30
157 0 02 40
159 0 07 20
160 0 00 40
192 2B 0 06 10
192 2C 0 04 00
192 4B 0 00 40
192 5 0 04 10
191 2 0 00 40
193 1B 0 04 30
193 1A 0 00 40
193 3B 0 00 60
193 4A 0 04 10
193 4B 0 02 75
212 0 03 40
213 2C3 0 00 80
213 2C4 0 04 70
185 1 0 02 40
185 2 0 00 40
185 4A 0 00 40
220 1 0 02 50
220 2 0 18 00
222 1 0 00 60
184 1 0 05 40
184 2A 0 01 75
184 2B 0 00 40
196.Vadanur 511/E 1 0 00 40
515 0 04 50
516 1 0 02 05
516 2 0 02 45
519 0 02 85
504 1 0 09 00
504 2 0 00 40
524 1 0 01 90
524 2 0 00 75
499 2 0 02 50
499 4B 0 01 20
499 4C 0 04 10
498 2 0 07 40
498 3 0 02 30
494 2 0 03 15
493 2A 0 05 15
493 2B 0 01 20
444 2 0 06 90
447 0 02 15
452 1 0 02 40
452 2 0 04 00
452 3 0 05 20
453 1C 0 02 60
453 1B 0 00 40
456 4 0 03 10
456 3A1 0 03 10
456 3B1 0 06 85
454 0 06 65
459 4 0 00 40
466 2 0 11 30
466 3 0 01 15
466 4 0 09 25
197. Seshanganur 148 4 0 06 10
160 1 0 17 50
159 2 0 06 10
159 3 0 04 30
158 1 0 00 40
158 2 0 02 45
138 0 31 35
13 1 0 06 80
13 2 0 13 70
13 3B 0 06 15
13 7A 0 09 00
13 7B 0 03 15
18 1 0 03 80
18 2 0 09 40
18 3A 0 02 10
18 4 0 08 50
18 3D 0 00 40
18 3E 0 01 40
18 5B 0 07 20
18 5D 0 07 60
19 2A 0 00 40
20 1A 0 05 30
20 1B 0 05 50
20 1C 0 04 70
20 1D 0 05 50
20 1E 0 00 40
208. Periyababusamudram 1 1 0 00 40
1 2 0 11 20
8 2 0 03 00
8 9 0 05 50
8 8B 0 05 50
39 1B 0 04 80
39 1C 0 20 30
39 4A 0 14 10
39 4B 0 01 80
35 1 0 10 80
35 4A 0 03 00
35 4B 0 06 50
33 1 0 04 35
33 2 0 10 20
33 5 0 00 40
33 3 0 17 30
57 2A 0 14 00
57 1B 0 17 65
370 0 10 80
371 1B 0 05 60
371 1A 0 00 40
369 1 0 13 50
369 2 0 13 15
368 0 00 40
367 0 05 90
363 1 0 02 10
363 2 0 06 15
354 1B2B 0 06 00
354 1B2C 0 06 00
354 1B1 0 01 00
354 2 0 18 00
355 0 14 20
353 2 0 01 80
346 2 0 10 80
347 0 06 50
343 0 12 45
342 0 14 75
438 2 0 14 75
440 3A 0 15 40
439 3 0 14 65
449 2B 0 10 25
450 1A 0 11 35
450 2C 0 07 90
450 2D 0 03 40
468 2B 0 04 90
468 2C 0 04 70
468 2D 0 03 25
480 1A 0 01 60
480 1B 0 06 30
480 2A 0 20 00
480 4B 0 05 40
480 4A 0 03 45
479 2B2 0 01 05
477 2 0 08 30
477 3 0 03 45
212. Chinnababusamudram 15 1 0 08 45
15 7 0 10 30
15 9 0 05 10
14 2 0 04 70
14 4 0 04 50
14 5 0 04 80
14 10A 0 08 20
14 9 0 03 00
14 13B 0 08 00
3 1 0 12 15
2 6 0 03 10
2 12 0 04 20
2 13A 0 04 45
2 7A1 0 14 00
2 7A2 0 02 80
9324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9325 9326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9327 9328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9329 9330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9331 9332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9333 9334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9335 9336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9337 9338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9339

[F. No. R-11025(11)/96/2017-OR-I/E-7820]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

9340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2804.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, अध्यक्ष, हदुस्तान एयरोनॉटिक्स लिमिटेड बैंगलोर और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 01/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14011/26/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 01/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-14011/26/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 31st October, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 01/2015

I Party

II Party

The President,                                           1.   The Chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
HAL Permanent Casual                                          15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore – 560001
Employees Association,                                   2.   The Deputy General Manager(HR), Hindustan
HAL Vimanapura,                                               Aeronautics Limited, ARDC Design Complex,
Bangalore – 560017.                                           Vimanapura, Bangalore - 560037
Advocate for I Party:                                    Advocates for II Party:
Mr. G.V.P. Reddy                                         Mr. N.S. Narasimha Swamy &

Mr. Thulasiram Singh B. K.

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-14011/26/2014-IR(DU) dated 05.01.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dispute raised by the workman Shri. M. Rajaiah in changing the date of birth in the

service records from 03.02.1953 to 03.02.1958 at the end of his service is valid? If not, to what relief

the workmen is entitled to?"

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9341

2. The I Party has submitted in the claim statement as follows:-

The I Party prays this Court, to

a) Direct the II Party to correct the date of birth of the claimant workman as 03.02.1958, in the service records of the II Party and consequently,

b) Direct the II Party to reinstate the workman/claimant to the service of the II Party.

c) Direct the II Party to pay the back wages from the date of superannuation till the date of reinstatement.

d) Direct the II Party to pay the compensation in the interest of justice and equity.

3. However, in the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is clearly held as follows:- "As we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the 'appropriate Government' in relation to the respondent company (HAL) is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits."

4. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with regard to the above mentioned matter as follows:-

"Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the present Matter?"

5. POINT :- In the present case, the I Party has prayed to answer the points of dispute in favour of the workmen by correcting the date of birth of the claimant workman as 03.02.1958, in the service records of the II Party and consequently, to direct the II Party to reinstate with back wages and pass such other order or orders as deemed necessary to meet the ends of justice.

6. Further, this Tribunal by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 26.02.2016 in C.A. No. 9332-9333/2010 in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs HAL has called upon the parties to examine and submit with regard to maintainability of the dispute on the ground that in respect of the dispute pertaining to HAL the appropriate government is the State Government.

7. Further, taking into consideration the above mentioned points and principles as laid down by the Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no other alternative, except to follow the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In fact, the I Party has also not raised any appropriate, tenable suitable and proper objection, regarding the said details, in accordance with law. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on other issues raised by both the sides, as this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature and also liberty is granted to the I Party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award passed by this Court, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play. Accordingly, this point is answered. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the I party, particularly, in the light of the above mentioned judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the present matter suffers for want of jurisdiction before this Court and liberty is given to the I party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award, by adopting the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity, good conscience and fair play and this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues raised by both the parties, as the present matter has been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 31st October, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2805.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, मुख्य प्रबंध्क ;एचआरद्ध, हदुस्तान एयरोनॉटिक्स लिमिटेड बैंगलोर एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 03/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक9342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 03/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Manager (HR), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 2nd November, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 03/2016

I Party

II Party

The Chief Manager (HR) &,

Sh. R. Surendra Babu, S/o. Late R. Rajagopal, Disciplinary Authority, HAL, No. G-1424, 4th Cross, Overhaul Division, Bengaluru HAL Quarters, Marathhalli, Complex, HRD, PB No. 1786, Bengaluru – 560037

Bengaluru - 560017

Advocate for I Party: Advocates for II Party:

M/s. S. B. Mukkannappa & Associates Mr. Swamy & Mr. Singh

1. The I Party has submitted in the claim statement as follows:-

The I Party prays this Court, to

a) Set aside the order of dismissal dated 03.12.2013 and consequently reinstate the I Party into service with continuity of service with all other consequential benefits along with the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement under the facts and circumstances of the case.

b) Pass such other order, orders this Court may deemed fit to grant.

2. However, in the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is clearly held as follows:- "As we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the 'appropriate Government' in relation to the respondent company (HAL) is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits."

3. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with regard to the above mentioned matter as follows:- "Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the present Matter?"

4. POINT :- In the present case, the I Party has prayed to Set aside the order of dismissal dated 03.12.2013 and consequently reinstate the I Party into service with continuity of service with all other consequential benefits along with the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement under the facts and circumstances of the case and also to pass such other order, this Court may deemed fit to grant in this case.

5. Further, this Tribunal by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 26.02.2016 in C.A. No. 9332-9333/2010 in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs HAL has called upon the parties to examine and submit with regard to maintainability of the dispute on the ground that in respect of the dispute pertaining to HAL the appropriate Government is the State Government.

6. Further, taking into consideration the above mentioned points and principles as laid down by the Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no other alternative, except to follow the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In fact, the I Party has also not raised any appropriate, tenable suitable and proper objection, regarding the said details, in accordance with law. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on other issues raised by both the sides, as this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9343 also liberty is granted to the I Party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award passed by this Court, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play. Accordingly, this point is answered. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the I party, particularly, in the light of the above mentioned judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the present matter suffers for want of jurisdiction before this Court and liberty is given to the I party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award, by adopting the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity, good conscience and fair play and this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues raised by both the parties, as the present matter has been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 2nd November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2806.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारत अर्थ मूवर्स लिमिटेड का प्रबंध्न, कोलर गोल्ड पफील्ड एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध

में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 03/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 03/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Kolar Gold Fields and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 2nd November, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 03/2017

I Party

II Party

The Management of BEML Ltd,

Sh. Thirunavooukarasu, S/o Late C Thooyamathy, Earth Movers Division, KGF No. 1857, Chinnappa Compound, Complex, BEML Nagar, Coronation Town, Kolar Gold Fields – 563115. Robertsonpet Post, Kolar Gold Fields – 563122.

Advocates for I Party: Mr. Muralidhara & Mr. M. Venkatappa9344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. Brief details mentioned in the Claim Statement are as follows:-

This is an ID filed under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 read with 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, stating that, the I Party being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 30.07.2015 passed against him by the II Party, approached the Asst. Labour Commissioner (C), Bangalore seeking his intervention and conciliation in the matter. The II Party though participated in the conciliation proceedings, has not filed any objection. Since there has been no prospect of a settlement, the Conciliation Officer recorded failure of the conciliation proceedings and issued Endorsement dated 23.03.2017 advising party to approach the jurisdictional Labour Court as per the amended provisions of Sec. 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Hence, I Party has come before this Court assailing the order of dismissal dated 30.01.2015 and claiming the relief of reinstatement and all other consequential benefits for the reasons mentioned in the claim statement. The I Party/Workman has been employed in the II Party as Welder on 05.04.2011. He has got a good record of service. There has been no adverse remarks against him either on his conduct or his work performance. All of a sudden, the II Party/Management placed I Party/Workman under suspension by order dated 09.07.2014 pending domestic enquiry. Thereafter, II Party issued charge sheet dated 02.02.2015 alleging therein that, as per the report received by them, he has indulged in an act of kidnapping Master K. Bhavan Prasad, aged 3 and half years, studying in LKG at Sacred Heart School, KGF who is the son of Sh. T. Kamaraj, Asst. General Manager, Fabrication Shop, E.M. Division on 04.07.2014. Further, the I Party by his letter dated 11.02.2015 denied the allegation made against him in the charge sheet. Further, in the Enquiry Officer's report it is held that, the I Party has been guilty of the charges of misconduct under Clause 21.3. 21.7 and 21.39 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. However, II Party has predetermined and they have been issued final order dated 30.07.2015 imposing the punishment of removal from service which does not disqualify for future employment. Further, the I Party/Workman submits that, the order of removal from service is unjust, and illegal for the reasons stated in the claim statement. The I Party/Workman submits that, the II Party/Management has removed him from service which is patently unjust and illegal. He has been entirely dependent on the job with the II Party/Management for his livelihood. He has no other source of livelihood to eke out a living for himself and his dependent family members. Therefore, the I Party/Workman prays this Court to set aside the order of removal from service dated 30.07.2015 passed against him by the II Party/Management as untenable in law and to direct the II Party/Management to reinstate him into his original post held by him with full back wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

2. RPAD notice has been sent to II Party in Transaction No. A RK931312317 in dated 30.05.2017, through Department of Posts, India and also served acknowledgment received by this Court. Still no representation has been made on behalf of II Party and II Party also called absent, set exparte.

3. The following pertinent point that, arises for consideration in the present matter:-

"Whether, the I Party/Workman is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the Claim Statement for the reasons and grounds stated in the Claim Statement?"

4. POINT :- The I Party/Workman has examined himself as WW-1 and marked Ex W-1 to Ex W-6, as pointed out herein below. In the claim statement as well as in the evidence the I Party/ Workman has stated that, a false allegation has been made against him and the Criminal Court has also acquitted him as per the judgment enclosed as Ex W-6. On perusal of Ex W-6, it is seen that, the I Party/Workman has been acquitted by District and Sessions Court by the judgment dated 31.08.2017. Further, the I Party/Workman has pointed out in his evidence that, he has been targeted for victimization for his active participation in the legitimate trade union activities and the charges levelled against him are false, baseless and motivated and he has no other source of income and he is not gainfully employed. Further, as per Ex W-2 I Party/Workman has given explanation for the charge sheet and also stated that, written complaint is an after- thought mechanism and also requested for the dropping of the further proceedings in this case. Further, in the claim statement as well as in the evidence workman has clearly stated that, the termination notice and final order passed on behalf of II Party are not valid and there is perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

5. On perusal of record, it is seen that, already notice has been sent to II Party and also served to II Party. Hence, it is found that, in spite of giving sufficient and adequate chances by issuing notice of hearing to II party, the II Party remained absent. It is for the II Party to establish that, the II Party/Management has not violated any provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. Further, the I Party has specifically stated in the affidavit that, he has suffered financial hardship and mental agony during the period of unemployment and all these years, since the order of removal, he has no other source of income to survive. Hence, the I Party has prayed to grant reinstatement, full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

6. On careful perusal of materials brought on records, it is found that, II Party has not established that, the management has taken appropriate action as against I Party, in accordance with the principles of Natural Justice and also, I Party has established that, he is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim statement. Further, the II Party has not disproved the claim made by the I Party in accordance with law. Further, in Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs State[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9345 of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 88, by V. Kishna Iyer. J: "Industrial Jurisprudence does not brook nice nuances and torturesome technicalities to stand in the way of just solutions reached in a rough and ready manner. Grim and grimy life-situations have no time for the finer manners of elegant jurisprudence." Thus, the process of industrial adjudication is an onerous task being guided by the constitutional mandates and aiming at settlement of the industrial dispute on a fair and just basis, tested on the touchstone of social and economic justice. When an industrial dispute is raised, it is a commotion to be pacified by dispensing justice. In such adjudication, not just the right to equality and other Constitutional guarantees, but the aims and ideals of the Constitution enter into the consideration. It is the duty of the Courts to apply directive principles in interpreting the Constitution and the laws. Also, it is reported in Lloyds Bank Ltd Vs. Bundy, (1974) 3 All ER 757 that Lord Denning first clearly enunciated his theory of "inequality of bargaining power". His Lordship began his discussion on this part of the case by stating (at page 763): "There are cases in our books in which the courts will set aside a contract, or a transfer of property, when the parties have not met on equal terms, when the one is so strong in bargaining power and the other so weak that, as a matter of common fairness, it is not right that the strong should be allowed to push the weak to the wall." In the present case also, it is seen that, the II Party has not established the alleged misconduct committed by the I Party, as per the Principles of Preponderance of Probability and also, as per the Principles of Natural Justice, for the above mentioned various reasons.

7. Further, it is observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in W.P. No. 9974/2006 (L-TER), dated 07.01.2015, (Before Mr. Hon'ble Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Mr. Hon'ble Justice Budihal. R. B), in the case of The Management of National Aerospace Laboratories Vs Engineering & General Workers Union and the Managing Directors, as follows:- "The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal, therefore, is expansive and creative and not restricted to only enforcing or interpreting the contract of service or the extant legal provisions and it is not-fettered by the limitations of contracts and can even involve extension of existing agreement of the making of a new one, or in general, creation of new obligations or modification of old ones." In the present case also, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is found that, I Party is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim statement for the reasons mentioned therein. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the I Party. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

The II party/management is not justified in imposing the punishment of Removal from service on I party/Sh. T. Thirunavookarasu w.e.f. 30.07.2015, and the said II party is directed to reinstate the I Party, with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits that he would have received in the absence of the impugned penalty of removal from service, and the present matters is ordered accordingly, without costs, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the matter.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 02nd November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

WW 1 Sh. T. Thirunavookarasu, I Party/ workman

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibits Date Description of Document
Ex W-1 02.02.2015 Charge sheet issued to I Party by II Party
Ex W-2 11.02.2015 Explanation for Charge sheet
Ex W-3 26.06.2015 Reply to Report & findings of Enquiry Officer
Ex W-4 21.07.2015 Representation to Second Show Cause Notice
Ex W-5 30.07.2015 Termination Order issued to I Party by II Party
Ex W-6 31.08.2017 Judgment passed by District and Sessions Court in S.C. No. 96/2015
9346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2807.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, महाप्रबंध्क ;एचआरडीद्ध, भारत अर्थ मूवर्स लिमिटेड, बैंगलोर और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके

कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 13/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14011/04/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 13/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager (HRD), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Bangalore and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-14011/04/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 1st November, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 13/2014

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary, BEML Contract Workers Union, Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075.

1. The General Manager (HRD), Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore-560075

2. The Management of M/s. Bejee Contractors, C/o the BEML, Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075

3. The Management M/s. Creative Contractors, C/o the BEML, Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075

4. The Management M/s. Amps Contracts,, C/o the BEML, Bangalore Complex, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore – 560075

Advocates for I Party :

Mr. Cliftion D' Rozario & Mr. Raghupathi. S

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide Order No.L-14011/04/2014-IR(DU) dated 20.03.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the charter of demands raised by the union and denial by the management is valid? If not,

what relief can be given to the aggrieved workmen?"

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9347

2. Perused the materials on record. It is clearly stated in the letter dated 30.10.2017 signed by S.Govinda Raju, General Secretary as follows:- "Sub: Compliance Report of the terms and conditions of MOU dated 30.08.2017. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, copy of which is annexured herewith, we confirm that, the terms and conditions in this agreement are fully implemented. Hence, we are filing this Report of implementation stating that, the dispute is settled and we confirm that all the points of disputes raised in the claim statement are satisfied." Further, the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between M/s. AMPS Facilities Management Services Pvt Ltd and Contract Labour (TCL Workers) Represented by BEML WCL Public Sector Workers Union, Bangalore Complex dated 30.08.2017 is enclosed as Annexure-A. Further, in the Memo of withdrawal dated 13.10.2017, it is stated as follows:- "The I Party herein has raised the above industrial dispute making various claims against the II Party. The I Party and II Party No. 2 to 4 had discussion and has arrived at a settlement before the conciliation officer and in the presence of II Party No.1 under section 12(3) r/w section 18(3) of the Industrial Act, 1947. A copy of the said settlement is produced herewith and marked as Annexure –A. Therefore, the I Party, most respectfully prays that, this Court may be pleased to record the settlement and to dismiss the dispute as not pressed in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Today, S.Govinda Raju, General Secretary with Mob. 9620159192 present and also Ms. Divya, Senior Manager legal for II Party present and also confirmed the above mentioned details. On perusal of records it is seen that, the dispute is settled and the CR has to be dismissed as not pressed as per the memo of withdrawal dated 13.10.2017 filed on behalf of I Party.

AWARD

The Memo of Withdrawal dated 13.10.2017 and Compliance Report dated 30.10.2017 and Memorandum of Settlement dated 30.08.2017 are to be treated as the part of the present award for better and proper understanding of the settlement and the dispute is dismissed as not pressed, as per the request made in the memo of withdrawal dated 13.10.2017.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 01st November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2808.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, मुख्य प्रबंध्क वित्त, हदुस्तान एयरोनॉटिक्स लिमिटेड, बैंगलोर एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच,

अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 21/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2017-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 21/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Manager Finance, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 17.11.2017.

[No. L-42025/03/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 2nd November, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 21/2015

9348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I Party

II Party

Chief Manager Finance, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd,

New Tippasandra Post,

Sh. R. Venkatesh, S/o. M.S. Raman, Residing at 2302, 6th 'B' Main, Post Bag No. 7502, MIG 3rd Stage, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru - 560075 Bangalore - 560064

Advocates for I Party: Advocates for II Party:

Mr. A.J. Srinivasan & Mr. Sundaraswamy & Mr. Ramdas Ms. Sreedevi Srinivasan

1. The I Party has submitted in the claim statement as follows:-

The I Party prays this Court, to Advice and direct the II Party Management to withdraw the order of dismissal dated 23.02.2015 which is illegal and unjustified and direct the II Party Management to reinstate the I Party workmen in his original post, with all consequential benefits like full back wages, continuity of service etc., to meet the ends of justice.

2. However, in the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, it is clearly held as follows:- "As we have set aside the order passed in L.P.A. No. 84 of 2006 and opined that the 'appropriate Government' in relation to the respondent company (HAL) is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits."

3. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important and preliminary point arises for consideration, with regard to the above mentioned matter as follows:- "Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to try the present Matter?"

4. POINT :- In the present case, the I Party has prayed to advice and direct the II Party Management to withdraw the order of dismissal dated 23.02.2015 which is illegal and unjustified and direct the II Party Management to reinstate the I Party workmen in his original post, with all consequential benefits like full back wages, continuity of service etc., to meet the ends of justice.

5. Further, this Tribunal by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 26.02.2016 in C.A. No. 9332-9333/2010 in the case of Nashik Workers Union Vs HAL has called upon the parties to examine and submit with regard to maintainability of the dispute on the ground that in respect of the dispute pertaining to HAL the appropriate government is the State Government.

6. Further, taking into consideration the above mentioned points and principles as laid down by the Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court has no other alternative, except to follow the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In fact, the I Party has also not raised any appropriate, tenable suitable and proper objection, regarding the said details, in accordance with law. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion on other issues raised by both the sides, as this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present matter of this nature and also liberty is granted to the I Party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/Tribunal/Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award passed by this Court, in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play. Accordingly, this point is answered. Hence, the following Award is passed:-

AWARD

This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the I party, particularly, in the light of the above mentioned judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9332-9333/2010, dated 26.02.2016, in the case of Nashik workers Union Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the present matter suffers for want of jurisdiction before this Court and liberty is given to the I party to raise the dispute before the proper, competent and appropriate Judicial Forum/ Tribunal/Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the present Award, by adopting the procedure known under the law, in the best interest of justice, equity, good conscience and fair play and this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the various other issues raised by both the parties, as the present matter has been disposed of, on the limited ground of jurisdiction point alone, and also, without costs, for the above mentioned facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 2nd November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9349

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2809.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, प्रसिपल, रीजनल इंस्टीट्‌यूट ऑपफ एजुकेशन, भुवनेश्वर और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी/संघ के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 29/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/39/2016-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 29/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Principal, Regional Institute of Education, Bhubaneswar and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.11.2017.

[No. L-42011/39/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 29/2016

No. L-42011/39/2016-IR (DU), dated 06.05.2016

Date of Passing Order – 23rd October, 2017

Between:

1. The Principal,

Regional Institute of Education, Po. RIE Campus, Sachivalya Marg, Bhubaneswar-751 022.

2. Prof. A.K. Mohapatra, Warden,

Gopabandhu Hostel, Regional Institute of Education, Po. Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751 022

… 1st Party-Managements (And)

The President, Regional Institute of Education Workers Union, CITU, Odisha State Office, VR-5/1, Unit-III, Kharvelanagar, Bhubaneswar-751 001

… 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances :

Shri S.K. Rout, Section Officer …   For the 1st Party-Management No.1 & 2.
None                           …    For the 2nd Party-Union.

ORDER

Authorized representative for the Managements is present whereas, the 2nd party-Union is found absent on repeated calls. After filing of statements/pleadings by the parties the case was fixed for filing of rejoinder and for settlement of issues. The record further reveals that despite several adjournments from time to time the 2nd party-Union failed to make its appearance or to take any step to participate in the proceeding. In the above back-drops and in9350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] absence of the 2nd party-Union there is no alternative than to presume that either the Union has lost its interest to pursue the dispute for its judicial adjudication or there exists no further dispute between the parties. In the given situation I am constrained to return the reference to the Ministry for taking necessary action at their end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2810.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, प्रसिपल, रीजनल इंस्टीट्‌यूट ऑपफ एजुकेशन, भुवनेश्वर और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी/संघ के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 30/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/38/2016-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 30/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Principal, Regional Institute of Education, Bhubaneswar and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.11.2017.

[No. L-42011/38/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 30/2016

No. L-42011/38/2016-IR (DU), dated 06.05.2016

Date of Passing Order – 23rd October, 2017

Between:

1. The Principal,

Regional Institute of Education, Po. RIE Campus, Sachivalya Marg, Bhubaneswar-751 022.

2. Prof. A.K. Mohapatra, Warden,

Gopabandhu Hostel, Regional Institute of Education, Po. Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751 022

… 1st Party-Managements (And)

The President, Regional Institute of Education Workers Union, CITU, Odisha State Office, VR-5/1, Unit-III, Kharvelanagar, Bhubaneswar-751 001

… 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances :

Shri S.K. Rout, Section Officer …   For the 1st Party-Management No.1 & 2.
None                           …    For the 2nd Party-Union.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9351

ORDER

Authorized representative for the Managements is present whereas, the 2nd party-Union is found absent on repeated calls. After filing of statements/pleadings by the parties the case was fixed for filing of rejoinder and for settlement of issues. The record further reveals that despite several adjournments from time to time the 2nd party-Union failed to make its appearance or to take any step to participate in the proceeding. In the above back-drops and in absence of the 2nd party-Union there is no alternative than to presume that either the Union has lost its interest to pursue the dispute for its judicial adjudication or there exists no further dispute between the parties. In the given situation I am constrained to return the reference to the Ministry for taking necessary action at their end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2811.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, प्रसिपल, रीजनल इंस्टीट्‌यूट ऑपफ एजुकेशन, भुवनेश्वर और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी/संघ के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 31/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/40/2016-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 31/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Principal, Regional Institute of Education, Bhubaneswar and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.11.2017.

[No. L-42011/40/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 31/2016

No. L-42011/40/2016-IR (DU), dated 06.05.2016

Date of Passing Order – 23rd October, 2017

Between:

1. The Principal,

Regional Institute of Education, Po. RIE Campus, Sachivalya Marg, Bhubaneswar-751 022.

2. Prof. A.K. Mohapatra, Warden,

Gopabandhu Hostel, Regional Institute of Education, Po. Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751 022

… 1st Party-Managements

(And)

The President, Regional Institute of Education Workers Union, CITU, Odisha State Office, VR-5/1, Unit-III, Kharvelanagar, Bhubaneswar-751 001

… 2nd Party-Union9352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances :

Shri S.K. Rout, Section Officer …   For the 1st Party-Management No.1 & 2.
None                           …    For the 2nd Party-Union.

ORDER

Authorized representative for the Managements is present whereas, the 2nd party-Union is found absent on repeated calls. After filing of statements/pleadings by the parties the case was fixed for filing of rejoinder and for settlement of issues. The record further reveals that despite several adjournments from time to time the 2nd party-Union failed to make its appearance or to take any step to participate in the proceeding. In the above back-drops and in absence of the 2nd party-Union there is no alternative than to presume that either the Union has lost its interest to pursue the dispute for its judicial adjudication or there exists no further dispute between the parties. In the given situation I am constrained to return the reference to the Ministry for taking necessary action at their end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2812.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, अध्यक्ष, ओएसएसपीएआरसी, उड़ीसा एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 68/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/153/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 68/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chairman, OSSPARC, Orissa and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.11.2017.

[No. L-42012/153/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 68/2014

Date of Passing Award – 27th October, 2017

Between :

The Chairman, Orissa Shrimp Seed Production, Supply and Research Centre (OSSPARC), Gopalpur-on-Sea, Dist. Ganjam, Orissa – 760 001 …1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Ashok Kumar Patra, S/o. Late Sadananda Patra, Nehru Nagar, 7th Lane, Brahmapur, Dist. Ganjam, Orissa – 760 001 …2nd Party-Workman[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9353

Appearances :

Shri U.C. Mohapatra, Project Director … For the 1st Party-Management None … For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER Authorized representative for the 1st Party-Management is present so also the representative of the disputant workman. It is seen from the record that the case is lingering without any substantial hearing on account of non- compliance of the order dated 12.1.2017 of this Tribunal whereby the disputant workman is directed to deposit the 35% of the amount received by the him towards his V.R.S. It is pertinent to mention here that the present case is registered in the event of receipt of reference made by the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 42012/153/2014 (IR(DU), dated 15.12.2014 in exercise of its power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act and the schedule of the reference is:-

"Whether the claim of the workman Shri Ashok Kumar Patra, Ex-Purchase Assistant for reinstatement of service on the ground of alleged illegal termination w.e.f. 31.3.2010 after receipt of VRS benefits from the employer Orissa Shrimp Seed Production, Supply and Research Centre (OSSPARC) is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to"?

2. On being noticed the disputant workman submitted his statement of claim pleading inter-alia that he was appointed as Work Assistant with effect from 01.01.1994 in the organization of the Management and he was confirmed in the said post with effect from 1.1.1996 vide memorandum dated 20.8.2005 issued by the Management (Annexure-2). He continued in the said post of Work Assistant till 31.3.2010 when he and some others were retrenched in the guise of V.R.S. imposed on them forcibly. It is his further claim that they were not paid with financial benefits of such V.R.S. as per the fixation of pay by 6th C.P.C. though the pay fixation as set out by 6th C.P.C. is already in force in other Central Government offices and Undertakings. Prayer has been made in the statement of claim for reinstatement of the disputant workman along with back wages and other financial benefits treating the so-called forcible V.R.S. as illegal and amounting to illegal termination of his service.

3. The Management has resisted the claim of the disputant workman with a written statement that all the allegations raised by the disputant workman are not correct. The maintainability of the reference is also challenged. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Raijibhai Bhikabhai Parmar & Ors. - versus- Reliance Industries Limited and Another reported in 2016 LLR 673. This Tribunal in its order dated 12.1.2017 directed the disputant workman to deposit at least 35% of the amount received towards financial benefits of the alleged V.R.S. on and before 2.3.2017. The disputant workman is yet to comply with the direction of this Tribunal despite the case having suffered four adjournments. On being asked the representative of the disputant workman submitted that the workman is not in a position to make any deposit of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. It is apparent from the pleadings and submissions of the parties that the alleged forceful un-employment of the disputant workman was due to V.R.S. accepted by the disputant workman. Whether such V.R.S. was volunteered or forceful would be determined in the award after taking the pleadings and evidence of the parties into consideration. The said V.R.S. exists in the eye of law till the same is declared illegal and invalid. It cannot be over-sighted that as per the settled principles the voluntary retirement once accepted in terms of the scheme or rules as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn. Further-more having regard to the financial benefits availed by the disputant workman and his unwillingness to make deposit 35% of such benefit despite direction of this Tribunal and keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case under reference I am of the opinion that the disputant workman is not competent to raise the dispute on his V.R.S. Furthermore, no person can blow hot and cold simultaneously i.e. accept the V.R.S. financial benefits and not prepared to refund a part of such benefit to challenge his V.R.S. as illegal and unjustified. In the above premises non-compliance of the order dated 12.1.2017 of this Tribunal amounts to default of the applicant. Hence, the Tribunal has no alternative than to return the reference without any adjudication and the reference is disposed of accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2813.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, अध्यक्ष, ओएसएसपीएआरसी, उड़ीसा एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 69/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/154/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक9354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 69/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chairman, OSSPARC, Orissa and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.11.2017.

[No. L-42012/154/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 69/2014

Date of Passing Award – 27th October, 2017

Between :

The Chairman, Orissa Shrimp Seed Production, Supply and Research Centre (OSSPARC), Gopalpur-on-Sea, Dist. Ganjam, Orissa – 760 001 …1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Purna Chandra Rao, At./Po. Rangailunda, Via Bhanja Vihar,, Brahmapur, Dist. Ganjam, Orissa – 760 001 …2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

Shri U.C. Mohapatra, Project Director     …        For the 1st Party-Management
None                                      …        For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Authorized representative for the 1st Party-Management is present so also the representative of the disputant workman. It is seen from the record that the case is lingering without any substantial hearing on account of non- compliance of the order dated 12.1.2017 of this Tribunal whereby the disputant workman is directed to deposit the 35% of the amount received by the him towards his V.R.S. It is pertinent to mention here that the present case is registered in the event of receipt of reference made by the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-42012/154/2014 (IR(DU), dated 15.12.2014 in exercise of its power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act and the schedule of the reference is:-

"Whether the claim of the workman Shri Purna Chandra Rao, Ex-Purchase Assistant for reinstatement of service on the ground of alleged illegal termination w.e.f. 31.3.2010 after receipt of VRS benefits from the employer Orissa Shrimp Seed Production, Supply and Research Centre (OSSPARC) is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to"?

2. On being noticed the disputant workman submitted his statement of claim pleading inter-alia that he was appointed as Work Assistant with effect from 01.01.1994 in the organization of the Management and he was confirmed in the said post with effect from 1.1.1996 vide memorandum dated 20.8.2005 issued by the Management (Annexure-2). He continued in the said post of Work Assistant till 31.3.2010 when he and some others were retrenched in the guise of V.R.S. imposed on them forcibly. It is his further claim that they were not paid with financial benefits of such V.R.S. as per the fixation of pay by 6th C.P.C. though the pay fixation as set out by 6th C.P.C. is already in force in other Central Government offices and Undertakings. Prayer has been made in the statement of claim for reinstatement of the disputant workman along with back wages and other financial benefits treating the so-called forcible V.R.S. as illegal and amounting to illegal termination of his service.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9355

3. The Management has resisted the claim of the disputant workman with a written statement that all the allegations raised by the disputant workman are not correct. The maintainability of the reference is also challenged. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Raijibhai Bhikabhai Parmar & Ors. - versus- Reliance Industries Limited and Another reported in 2016 LLR 673. This Tribunal in its order dated 12.1.2017 directed the disputant workman to deposit at least 35% of the amount received towards financial benefits of the alleged V.R.S. on and before 2.3.2017. The disputant workman is yet to comply with the direction of this Tribunal despite the case having suffered four adjournments. On being asked the representative of the disputant workman submitted that the workman is not in a position to make any deposit of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. It is apparent from the pleadings and submissions of the parties that the alleged forceful un-employment of the disputant workman was due to V.R.S. accepted by the disputant workman. Whether such V.R.S. was volunteered or forceful would be determined in the award after taking the pleadings and evidence of the parties into consideration. The said V.R.S. exists in the eye of law till the same is declared illegal and invalid. It cannot be over-sighted that as per the settled principles the voluntary retirement once accepted in terms of the scheme or rules as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn. Further-more having regard to the financial benefits availed by the disputant workman and his unwillingness to make deposit 35% of such benefit despite direction of this Tribunal and keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case under reference I am of the opinion that the disputant workman is not competent to raise the dispute on his V.R.S. Furthermore, no person can blow hot and cold simultaneously i.e. accept the V.R.S. financial benefits and not prepared to refund a part of such benefit to challenge his V.R.S. as illegal and unjustified. In the above premises non-compliance of the order dated 12.1.2017 of this Tribunal amounts to default of the applicant. Hence, the Tribunal has no alternative than to return the reference without any adjudication and the reference is disposed of accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2814.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, अध्यक्ष, ओएसएसपीएआरसी, उड़ीसा एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट

औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 71/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/152/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 71/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chairman, OSSPARC, Orissa and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.11.2017.

[No. L-42012/152/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 71/2014

Date of Passing Award – 27th October, 2017

Between :

The Chairman, Orissa Shrimp Seed Production,9356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Supply and Research Centre (OSSPARC), Gopalpur-on-Sea, Dist. Ganjam, Orissa – 760 001 …1st Party-Management

(And)

Shri Prabhakar Mohanty, S/o. Late Brundaban Mohanty, Brahma Nagar-5, 1st Lane, Brahmapur, Dist. Ganjam, Orissa – 760 001 …2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

Shri U.C. Mohapatra, Project Director     …        For the 1st Party-Management
None                                      …        For the 2nd Party-Workman

ORDER

Authorized representative for the 1st Party-Management is present so also the representative of the disputant workman. It is seen from the record that the case is lingering without any substantial hearing on account of non- compliance of the order dated 12.1.2017 of this Tribunal whereby the disputant workman is directed to deposit the 35% of the amount received by the him towards his V.R.S. It is pertinent to mention here that the present case is registered in the event of receipt of reference made by the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-42012/152/2014 (IR(DU), dated 15.12.2014 in exercise of its power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act and the schedule of the reference is:-

"Whether the claim of the workman Shri Prabhakar Mohanty, Ex-Purchase Assistant for reinstatement of service on the ground of alleged illegal termination w.e.f. 31.3.2010 after receipt of VRS benefits from the employer Orissa Shrimp Seed Production, Supply and Research Centre (OSSPARC) is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to"?

2. On being noticed the disputant workman submitted his statement of claim pleading inter-alia that he was appointed as Work Assistant with effect from 01.01.1994 in the organization of the Management and he was confirmed in the said post with effect from 1.1.1996 vide memorandum dated 20.8.2005 issued by the Management (Annexure-2). He continued in the said post of Work Assistant till 31.3.2010 when he and some others were retrenched in the guise of V.R.S. imposed on them forcibly. It is his further claim that they were not paid with financial benefits of such V.R.S. as per the fixation of pay by 6th C.P.C. though the pay fixation as set out by 6th C.P.C. is already in force in other Central Government offices and Undertakings. Prayer has been made in the statement of claim for reinstatement of the disputant workman along with back wages and other financial benefits treating the so-called forcible V.R.S. as illegal and amounting to illegal termination of his service.

3. The Management has resisted the claim of the disputant workman with a written statement that all the allegations raised by the disputant workman are not correct. The maintainability of the reference is also challenged. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Raijibhai Bhikabhai Parmar & Ors. - versus- Reliance Industries Limited and Another reported in 2016 LLR 673. This Tribunal in its order dated 12.1.2017 directed the disputant workman to deposit at least 35% of the amount received towards financial benefits of the alleged V.R.S. on and before 2.3.2017. The disputant workman is yet to comply with the direction of this Tribunal despite the case having suffered four adjournments. On being asked the representative of the disputant workman submitted that the workman is not in a position to make any deposit of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. It is apparent from the pleadings and submissions of the parties that the alleged forceful un-employment of the disputant workman was due to V.R.S. accepted by the disputant workman. Whether such V.R.S. was volunteered or forceful would be determined in the award after taking the pleadings and evidence of the parties into consideration. The said V.R.S. exists in the eye of law till the same is declared illegal and invalid. It cannot be over-sighted that as per the settled principles the voluntary retirement once accepted in terms of the scheme or rules as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn. Further-more having regard to the financial benefits availed by the disputant workman and his unwillingness to make deposit 35% of such benefit despite direction of this Tribunal and keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case under reference I am of the opinion that the disputant workman is not competent to raise the dispute on his V.R.S. Furthermore, no person can blow hot and cold simultaneously i.e accept the V.R.S. financial benefits and not prepared to refund a part of such benefit to challenge his V.R.S. as illegal and unjustified. In the above premises non-compliance of the order dated 12.1.2017 of this Tribunal amounts to default of the applicant. Hence, the Tribunal has no alternative than to return the reference without any adjudication and the reference is disposed of accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9357

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2815.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, प्रसिपल, रीजनल इंस्टीट्‌यूट ऑपफ एजुकेशन, भुवनेश्वर और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी/संघ के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 28/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/41/2016-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2017

S.O. 2815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 28/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Principal, Regional Institute of Education, Bhubaneswar and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23.11.2017.

[No. L-42011/41/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 28/2016

No. L-42011/41/2016-IR (DU), dated 06.05.2016/25.05.2016

Date of Passing Order – 10th October, 2017

Between:

1. The Principal,

Regional Institute of Education, Po. RIE Campus, Sachivalya Marg, Bhubaneswar (Orissa)-751 022.

2. Prof. Animesh Mohapatra, Warden,

Gopabandhu Hostel, Regional Institute of Education Campus, Po. Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar (Orissa)-751 022

… 1st Party-Managements

(And)

The President, Regional Institute of Education Workers Union, CITU, Odisha State Office, VR-5/1, Unit-3, Kharvela Nagar, Bhubaneswar (Orissa)-751 001

… 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances :

None                          …   For the 1st Party-Managements
None                          …   For the 2nd Party-Union
9358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management Regional Institute of Education and their workman represented through the Union in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their Letter No. L-42011/41/2016-IR(DU), dated 06.05.2016/ 25.05.2016 to this Tribunal for adjudication.

2. It is revealed from the order sheet that the 2nd Party-Union has not appeared a single date before this Tribunal inspite of issue of regd. Notice to it on 5.8.2016. It has sent its statement of claim by post which was received on 13.10.2016 without any documents to substantiate its case. The 2nd Party-Union was als directed to take steps for issue of notice to the Managements for filing of written statement, but it did not take any step.

3. On the other hand, the 1st Party-Management did not file its written statement, though the 2nd Party-workman has served a copy of statement of claim on them through post.

4. It appears from the above acts of the parties that either they have lost their interest in the cae or they might have resolved their disputes amicably out of the Court. In the given circumstances, a no-dispute award is required to be passed and accordingly a no-dispute award is passed in the case.

5. The reference is answered in the above terms.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2816.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 12/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2017

S.O. 2816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 12/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-22013/01/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 11th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 12/2008

Between:

Sri Gulla Ramesh, S/o Odelu, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9359

AND

1. The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam Area-II, Ramagundam. Karimnagar District.

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., GDK-10 Incline, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner        :    M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent        :    M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Gulla Ramesh who worked as Welder (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. RG2/PER/CF/GR/1411 dated 15.6.2006 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Welder on 1.12.1994 and he has been continuing in service without any adverse remarks. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 15.6.2006 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2004, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. It is also stated that the charge sheet was sent to the Petitioner's house which was returned undelivered, and as such a paper advertisement was issued, advising the Petitioner to attend for enquiry, and as the Petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the scheduled date, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. It is stated that the Petitioner was accompanied his father to various hospitals for better medication as his father met with a road accident during the year 2004, and was undergoing treatment in his native village and he was not aware of either issuance of charge sheet or any publication made by the Respondents in the newspapers. The Petitioner could have certainly participated in the enquiry, if really he was in receipt of the charge sheet or notice of paper publication. It is stated that the Petitioner was unable to perform his duties regularly during the year 2004 only on account of his ill-health, father's ill-health and other family problems, for this he could not attend his duties sincerely, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 15.6.2006. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents' management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered about 20 years of continuous service in the Respondents' management. He remained absent from duty only on account of his sickness and family problems which ought not to have been treated as a serious misconduct. The Petitioner made the above stated submissions, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 15.6.2006. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. RG2/PER/CF/GR/1411 dated 15.6.2006 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 1.12.1994 as a Welder. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without sufficient cause on a number of days and attended four days for duty during the calendar year 2004. A charge sheet was sent to his last known home address as per the procedure as he was not attending for duty, which was returned undelivered. Subsequently, the same was published in Vaartha Telugu daily newspaper dated 9.11.2005 advising the Petitioner to attend an enquiry fixed on 17.11.2005. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet nor attended the enquiry, as such an ex-parte enquiry was conducted on 17.11.2005 wherein the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. The9360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving an opportunity to make representation against the findings made in the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record, and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, Respondent No.1 was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition be dismissed in limini.

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 13.7.2010.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support of their claim.

6. In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Gulla Ramesh is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to his father's treatment and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, father's treatment and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 41 years, he is now aged about 50 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for his reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked under the Respondents. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Gulla Ramesh is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Gulla Ramesh is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9361 atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. RG2/PER/CF/GR/1411 dated 15.6.2006 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Gulla Ramesh be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company's hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 11th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2817.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 30/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2017

S.O. 2817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 30/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-22013/01/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer9362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 11th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 30/2008

Between:

Sri Md. Sajjad Ali, S/o Meer Ali, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adialabad District.

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., SK Mine, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adialabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner        :    M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent        :    M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Md.Sajjad Ali who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/774 dated 4.2.2007 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as General mazdoor in the year 1988 and was regular to his duties till the year 2001. During the year 2002 the Petitioner suffered from spinal pain and Lumbergo & infective hepatitis and further, from 1.1.2003 to 13.2.2004 he was unable to perform duties due to severity of spinal card pain and white jaundice. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 19.2/07.03.2002 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2003, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. MMR/PER/D/072/774 dated 4.2.2007. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2003, as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 15 years of continuous service in the Respondents' management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. MMR/PER/D/072/774 dated 4.2.2007 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9363 reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 18.4.1988 as General Mazdoor. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 20.7.2010.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support of their claim.

6. In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Md.Sajjad Ali is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. He was getting treatment in company's area hospital. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, after the death of the father of the Petitioner, due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 45 years, he is now aged about 54 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward at the age of 54 years to work under the Respondents, and in the mean time 9 (Nine) years have elapsed, maximum the Petitioner can work for 4 to 5 years only. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for his reinstatement into service in order to get all his terminal benefits. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for about 15 years9364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Md.Sajjad Ali is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Md.Sajjad Ali is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/774 dated 4.2.2007 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Md.Sajjad Ali be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company's hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 11th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2818.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 37/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9365

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2017

S.O. 2818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 37/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-22013/01/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 13th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 37/2007

Between:

Sri M. Radha Krishna, S/o Posham, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., IK & CHNR Incline, Srirampur, Adilabad District.

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Chennur-2 Incline, Srirampur, Adilabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner        :    M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent        :    Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate

AWARD

Sri M. Radha Krishna who worked as Badli Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. SRP/PER/13.008/5167 dated 11.7.2006 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Badli Filler on 17.5.2002 on compassionate grounds and was regular to his duties, but during the year 2004, the Petitioner suffered with ill-health and other family problems. The Petitioner's sister expired in the year 2004. The Petitioner submitted that his mother was under deep grief on account of death of her daughter and husband within a short span. While the matters stood thus, one charge sheet dated 20.4.2005 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2004 which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to9366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. SRP/PER/13.008/5167 dated 11.7.2006. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the above said period as it was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered two years of continuous service in the Respondents' management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. SRP/PER/13.008/5167 dated 11.7.2006 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc.

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 16.5.2002 as Badli Coal Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates for the enquiry fixed and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 11.8.2011.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support of their claim.

6. In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri M. Radha Krishna is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show-cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9367

After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 31 years, he is now aged about 41 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for two years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri M. Radha Krishna is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri M. Radha Krishna is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. SRP/PER/13.008/5167 dated 11.7.2006 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri M. Radha Krishna be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in case the workman completes the one year probation period successfully he will continue in service till the age of his superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company's hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 13th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL9368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2819.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 45/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2017

S.O. 2819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 45/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-22013/01/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 16th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 45/2009

Between:

Sri K. Narsinga Rao, S/o Narsaiah, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RG-I Area, Godavaridhani, Karimnagar District.

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., GDK-2A Incline, Godavaridhani, Karimnagar District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner        :     M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent        :     Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocates

AWARD

Sri K. Narsinga Rao who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. RG.I/PER/S/46/748 dated 6.2.2006 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9369

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler and later he was promoted as Coal Filler and further he was promoted as Coal Cutter. The Petitioner was regular to his duties till the year 2003. During the year 2004 the Petitioner suffered from gout problem and under gone treatment from company's hospital also. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 16.4.2005 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented from duty during the year 2004, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. RG.I/PER/S/46/748 dated 6.2.2006. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2004, as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 27 years of continuous service in the Respondents' management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. RG.I/PER/S/46/748 dated 6.2.2006 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc.

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 13.3.1977 as Badli Coal Filler and he was promoted as Coal Cutter w.e.f. 19.2.1982. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show-cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner is not interested to pursue the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, and let the case be disposed of on merit basing on the evidence available in the record, vide order dated 3.6.2016, the domestic enquiry conducted in this case was held valid and legal. Bth the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support of their claim.

5. In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri K. Narsinga Rao is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

6. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. He was getting treatment in company's area hospital. Even in his show-cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have9370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

7. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

8. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, after the death of the father of the Petitioner, due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, and has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 35 years, he is now aged about 44 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward at the age of 44 years to work under the Respondents. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service in order to get all his terminal benefits. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for about 27 years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri K. Narsinga Rao is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

9. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri K. Narsinga Rao is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. RG.I/PER/S/46/748 dated 6.2.2006 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri K. Narsinga Rao be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in case the workman completes the probation period of one year he will be allowed to continue in service till the date of his superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company's hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 16th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9371

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2820.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 57/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2017

S.O. 2820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 57/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-22013/01/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 11th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 57/2007

Between:

Sri Kola Satish, S/o Late K. Rama Swamy, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The Project Officer,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalpally, Warangal District.

2. The Dy. General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., KTK-1 Incline, Bhupalpally, Warangal District.

…Respondents9372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner        :    M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent        :    M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Kola Satish who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. RG.I/PER/S/16/5748 dated 3.11.2003 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler on 23.1.2002 and he has been continuing in service without any adverse remarks. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 16.1.2003 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2002, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. It is also stated that the charge sheet was sent to the Petitioner's house which was returned undelivered, and as such a paper advertisement was issued, advising the Petitioner to attend for enquiry, and as the Petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the scheduled date, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. The Petitioner was undergoing treatment in his native village and he was not aware of either issuance of charge sheet or publication of notice made by the Respondents in the newspapers. The Petitioner could have certainly participated in the enquiry, if really he was in receipt of the charge sheet or notice of paper publication. It is stated that the Petitioner was unable to perform his duties regularly during the year 2002 only on account of his ill- health and other family problems, for this he could not attend his duties sincerely, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 3.11.2003. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents' management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered continuous service in the Respondents' management. He remained absent from duty only on account of his sickness and family problems which ought not to have been treated as a serious misconduct. The Petitioner made the above stated submissions, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 3.11.2003. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. RG.I/PER/S/16/5748 dated 3.11.2003 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 23.1.2002 as Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without sufficient cause on a number of days and attended four days for duty during the calendar year 2002. A charge sheet was sent to his last known home address as per the procedure as he was not attending for duty, which was returned undelivered. Subsequently, the same was published in Vaartha Telugu daily newspaper dated 11.4.2003 advising the Petitioner to attend an enquiry fixed on 22.4.2003. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet nor attended the enquiry, as such an ex-parte enquiry was conducted on 22.4.2003 wherein the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving an opportunity to make representation against the findings made in the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record, and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, Respondent No.1 was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition be dismissed in limini.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9373

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 26.6.2009.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support of their claim.

6. In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Kola Satish is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to ill-health and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing severe punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 25 years, he is now aged about 35 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked already under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Kola Satish is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Kola Satish is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. RG.I/PER/S/16/5748 dated 3.11.2003 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Kola Satish be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

9374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company's hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 11th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2821.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 59/2010द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-31011/07/2010-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2010) 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 Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.12.2017.

[No. L-31011/07/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/59 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust, Port House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 038.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9375

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary, Mumbai Port Trust Dock & General Employees Union, Port Trust Kamgar Sadan, Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon Mumbai – 400 010.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER          :  Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN           :  Mr. S.R. Apraj, Representative

Mumbai, dated the 6th September, 2017.

AWARD

1. 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-31011/07/2010 – IR (B-II) dated 08.09.2010. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the demand of Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees Union, Mumbai for grant of Pay

Scale of Rs. 4160-7820 with effect from 0.01.2007 to Shri G.K. Makwana, Laboratory Assistant, Port Trust

Hospital, Medical Department, Mumbai Port Trust is legal, just and proper ? What relief the workman

concerned is entitled to ?"

2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. Matter was fixed for cross examination of WW-1. Today second party Union filed application Ex.16 stating that they may be permitted to withdraw the above reference. Therefore they prayed that the reference is to be disposed off as withdrawn. Accordingly I pass the following order.

ORDER

Reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

Date: 06.09.2017

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2822.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 06/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07.12. 2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/80/2008-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.12.2017.

[No. L-12011/80/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer9376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Reference : No. 06/2009

Employer in relation to the management of Central Bank of India

AND

Their workman

Present : Shri R. K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers      :     Shri R. Ranjan, Advocate
For the workman        :     None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking

Dated- 26/07/2017

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/80/2008-IR(B-II) dated 05/02/2009, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Management of Central Bank of India in not regularizing Sri Nirbhai Kumar is

fair and proper? What relief he is entitled to ?

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2823.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. वेस्टर्न इंडिया शिपयार्ड लि. के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 21/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-36011/7/2006-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2007) 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 M/s. Western India Shipyard Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.12.2017.

[No. L-36011/7/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/21 of 2007

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9377

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

M/S. WESTERN INDIA SHIPYARD LTD.

The Managing Director, M/s. Western India Shipyard Ltd., Mormugao Harbour, Mormugao, Goa – 403 802.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN

The General Secretary, Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union, Velho's Building, 2nd Floor, Opp. Municipal Garden, Panaji, Goa – 403 001.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER          :   Shri Subhas N. Kerkar,  Advocate
FOR THE WORKMAN           :   Shri Suhas Naik, Representative

Camp Goa, dated the 12th September, 2017

AWARD

1. 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-36011/7/2006 – IR (B-II) dated 05.06.2007. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Western India Shipyard Ltd. Goa in dismissing Shri Rajendra

Haldankar, Assistant AVD from employment w.e.f. 16.12.2005 is legal and justified?. If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

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

3. Concerned workman has filed Statement of Claim vide Exhibit-7 contending therein that he was employed in western Shipyard Ltd. as a permanent workman. He has a clean and unblemished past service record.

4. According to the concerned workman he has not committed an act of misconduct. The allegations made against him are totally false. He was undergoing medical treatment at ES I hospital Morgao for skin rash and the medical certificate along with the fitness certificate is submitted by him. But the management did not consider his reply and conducted enquiry against him by violating all the norms of Principles of Natural Justice and then deliberately terminated the services of wef 16/12/2005. The dismissal of his service wef from 16/12/2005 is illegal unjustified and bad in law.

5. According to the concerned workman he has filed detailed reply to the Charge Sheet and denied each and every allegation. However the management did not consider his reply and proceeded to conduct the enquiry by appointing Mr. A.M. Gaikwad as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry conducted by Mr. Gaikwad was a farce and enquiry was conducted in haste without affording him reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer failed to explain the procedure of the enquiry to him. The Enquiry Officer did not allow him to get himself defended by the Defense Representative of his choice. The Enquiry Officer did not allow him to cross examine the management witness. He was forced to file the affidavit by way of Evidence. As such the enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer was in total violation of Principles of Natural Justice without affording him a proper and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. As such the enquiry is not fair and proper.

6. It is also a case of concerned workman that the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer (EO) are totally perverse. The findings are mechanically given in favour of the management which is prepared at the behest by the9378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management and under the influence of management. No charge as mentioned in Charge sheet dt. 13/6/2005 is proved against him. The workman submits that immediately after the dismissal letter he filed a Memo of Appeal before the Managing Director on 20/6/2006. However, said Memorandum of Appeal was not considered by the Managing Director. As such he raised an Industrial Dispute by letter dated 6/3/2006 before Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Government of India, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in the matter of illegal dismissal of services. However, the management failed to attend the conciliating proceedings held by the ALC Central. As matter could not be resolved despite various proposals by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), the matter ended in failure of conciliation on 20/8/2006. Conciliation officer submitted the failure report and the Government of India have referred this dispute to this Tribunal.

7. Second party employer resisted the claim by filing Written Statement Exhibit-13 contending therein that the concerned workman was issued Trainee appointment letter on 19/5/1997 mentioning therein that he has been selected as Trainee Purchase Assistant and he has joined the Company on 1/6/1997. Further company has issued probationary appointment letter dt 1/7/1998 to the concerned workman and was confirmed in the services of the company wef 1/1/1999.

8. It is also a case of the second party that in 2001, company has issued show cause notice dt 16/4/2001 to the concerned workman on the complaint received by the HOD of his department vide his letter dated 14/4/2001 for being absent on duty on 7/4/2001 and 14/4/2001 without prior sanction from the HOD (Head of Department). Company has issued a warning letter dated 18/4/2001 informing concerned workman that the reply submitted by him is not satisfactory and warned him to refrain from such misconduct in future, failing which management shall be constrained to take serious action including termination of his services.

9. Again company has issued notice to the concerned workman vide letter dated 31/8/2001 for the act of misconduct and warned him to refrain from such misconduct in future. In 2004 also company had again issued a show- cause notice dated 4/5/2004 to the concerned workman for remaining absent on 3/5/2004 & 4/5/2004 without information and prior permission of the company. Again company issued a show-cause notice vide dated 15/11/2004 for remaining absent on 8/11/2004, 10/11/2004 and 15/11/2004 without prior sanctioning of leave or any intimation to the concerned authority. In 2005 again company has issued show-cause notice dated 24/4/2005 to the concerned workman for leaving the place of work without permission/information. Company has issued show-cause notice dated 9/5/2005 to concerned workman for reporting late, leaving early and remaining absent, on the respective dates mentioned in the letter. Lastly company has issued show-cause notice vide letter dated 6/6/2005 to the concerned workman for reporting to the work under the influence of alcoholic drink and leaving the place of work without proper permission and official intimation to the concerned officer of the company on 3/6/2005. The letter was issued to the concerned workman on 9/5/2005 informing him that company has decided to hold an enquiry into the charges leveled against him as per the clause 28(26) of the Standing order of the company. It was informed to him that Mr. Gaikwad has appointed as Enquiry Officer and Mr. RakeshBharty has been appointed as Presenting Officer to conduct enquiry.

10. Company has issued Charge sheet vide letter dt 13/6/2005 under clause 28(05), 28(09), 28(26) and 28(51) of the Standing order of the company for drunkenness/riotous/disorderly/indecent behavior within the precincts of the Company for reporting to work under the influence of alcoholic drink, remaining absent from the duty without authorized leave or official intimation, and for the act subversive of discipline. The concerned workman was also informed to bring his witnesses, documentary evidence in his defense.

11. According to the second party employer the concerned workman has admitted his guilt on his own free will and asked for apology. During the enquiry proceedings both the parties were heard and allowed to examine and cross examine the witnesses of either parties. Both the parties had presented their submission before the said enquiry proceedings and enquiry officer has delivered his findings dated 17/10/2005. The concerned workman has fully participated in the inquiry. As such the enquiry proceedings held against the concerned workman is fair and proper by following the Principles of Natural Justice. The concerned workman was allowed to be represented by person of his choice including any co-worker. According to the second party employer having regard to the gravity of misconduct found proved against the workman and considering the past record of the workman and to enforce discipline as per the Standing orders in force service of the concerned workman were dispensed wef 16/12/2005. The charges proved against the workman are such grave and severe, that the action of the management of dismissal is proper and proportionate to the misconducts. Second party has sought the dismissal of the Reference.

12. Concerned workman filed rejoinder Exhibit-15 and reiterated that he never reported the work under influence of alcohol. No Charge sheet issued against him. It is submitted that the enquiry was conducted in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice without giving any opportunity to defend him. He is therefore asking for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity in service and all other consequential benefits.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9379

13. Following issues are framed at Ex.16. I produce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. No. Issues Findings
1. Is enquiry fair and proper? Yes
2. Is finding perverse? No
3. Is punishment proportionate to the charges proved? Yes
4. What Order? As per final order

REASONS

ISSUE NO. 1&2:-

14. It can be seen from the document at Sr No. 1 below list Exhibit-20(Exhibit-33) that the concerned workman was appointed as Trainee Purchase Assistant and subsequently he was confirmed in the services of the company wef 1/1/1999. We have documents to show that Show-cause notice was issued to him for remaining absent from duty without prior sanction of HOD. As a matter of fact warning letter was issued dated 18/4/2001 whereby he was warned to refrain from such misconduct in future, failing which the management shall be constrained to take serious action including termination of his services. Again Show-cause notice was issued to him vide Exhibit-35 asking him the explanation about the act of misconduct while on duty. And again vide Exhibit-36 he was again issued a letter for his absence on duty without prior permission and without information wef 3/5/2004. Exhibit-37 is a letter issued to the concerned workman for his absence on duty without prior sanctioning of leave or any intimation to the concerned authority on 8/11/2004, 10/11/2004 and 15/11/2004. Exhibit-38 is again a letter issued to him for his act of misconduct of leaving the place of work without permission. Exhibit-39 is also a letter issued to him for his misconduct of reporting late and leaving early and remaining absent on duty. From this documentary evidence it can be seen that even the past record the concerned workman was not unblemished and at times, notices and warnings were issued to him for the alleged misconduct as are mentioned in these letters.

15. Even then according to the concerned workman he had worked with the company with unblemished past service record. This sort of the evidence workman does not appear to be acceptable, in view of documents refer to above showing that off and on the notices and Show cause notices were served on him for his alleged misconduct.

16. Again it is a matter of record that the concerned workman was issued letter informing that in respect of his alleged misconduct inquiry will be conducted for which the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. Even the date of inquiry was communicated to him, by informing him that the enquiry into the charge-sheet issued to him dated 9/5/2005 will be conducted on 25/6/2005 at 10.00 am in the Personnel Department, WISL, Mormugao Harbour, Goa and he was also informed to bring his witnesses, documentary evidence etc. in his defence.

17. On-going through the enquiry proceedings it appear that the Charge sheet was issued to him under clause 28(26) for his absence from work during working hours without any information or permission from superiors. This Charge- sheet at Exhibit-41 specifically mentions that Mr. M Gaikwad was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Mr. Rakesh Bhartiya has been appointed as Presenting Officer and then he was informed that during the course of inquiry will be given full opportunity to defend his case and shall be allowed to defend him by any of his co-worker.

18. As per Exhibit-42 the alleged misconduct refers to clause 28(5) with allegation of Drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behavior. It also refers to clause 28(9) for alleged possession or use of alcoholic drink. It also refers to clause 28(26) in respect of his absence from work during working hours without any permission of superiors. It also refers to Clause 28(51) in respect of any act of subversive of discipline. The concerned workman in his evidence has admitted that the enquiry was conducted in the premises of company within two months and he attended the enquiry proceedings. He even admits that he has not raised any objection in writing regarding the appointment of Mr. Gaikwad as Enquiry Officer. As per his own admission he gave letter dated 24/6/2005 praying for apology and also to take lenient view. He also admits that in the past he received warning letters and he replied the same. As per his own admission he was absent on duty on 14/4/2001 and explanation given by him to the effect that he presumed that on that day it was holiday. Even he admits that company has issued letter 31/8/2001 complaining about his outrageous behavior during duty hours. As per his own admission he has filed affidavit by way of evidence in enquiry proceeding. In view of all these admissions it can be gathered that the concerned workman was given opportunity to defend himself. He has attended the enquiry proceedings. He has filed his affidavit by way of evidence. And then he was also present during inquiry proceedings. He admitted the guilt and prayed for apology. Once it has come on record that he was admitted the guilt and prayed for apology now it does not lie in the mouth of workman that the enquiry was not fair and proper and no opportunity was given to him to defend himself. On the contrary when he admits that he has filed9380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] affidavit, he attended the proceedings and signed on enquiry proceedings on the respective dates, then his evidence to the effect that the enquiry was farce and he was not given opportunity to defend himself and enquiry was conducted in haste without affording him opportunity to defend himself is nothing but a lame excuse on his part which is not acceptable.

19. On the contrary witness of the second party employer has proved not only that the past record of workman was unblemished but his evidence is sufficient to come to the conclusion that that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice. The management witnesses were cross examined at length and the concerned workman has also given his evidence in the inquiry and he was allowed to represent by the person of his own choice. It was simply suggested to him in his cross examination that no charge of whatsoever of nature has been proved against the concerned workman. But then the fact remains that his evidence remained unshaken.

20. Even ongoing though the report of the Enquiry Officer. It can be seen that his findings are based on evidence; it appears that he has explained the procedure of enquiry to the concerned workman. Evidence of the concerned workman was also recorded the documents are being taken into consideration and then the signatures of the workman were also obtained on the enquiry proceedings. As such the inquiry report clearly goes to show that the enquiry was conducted by following the Principles of Natural Justice. It also appears that whenever the representative of the union was not present the matter was adjourned and notices were issued in order to give the opportunity to the workman to defend himself. From the enquiry proceedings it can be gathered that the enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner and as such the findings of Enquiry Officer are based on evidence. Issues nos. 1 and 2 are therefore answered accordingly in the affirmative.

Issue No. 3:-

21. In respect of this issue, it can be said that the concerned workman was found drunk on duty. He was allegedly found smelling of alcohol and then refused to go for medical checkup. Besides that there were allegations against him in respect of absenteeism, indiscipline etc. considering that the charges leveled against him are proved which are of serious nature. The punishment of dismissal is imposed which cannot be said to disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. There are no mitigating circumstances on record to prove the innocence of concerned workman and therefore I find that the punishment imposed upon him is proportionate to the alleged misconduct and to the charges leveled against him. This issue is answered in affirmative.

Issue No. 4:-

22. In view of my findings the above issues, this Reference is liable to be rejected.

23. Thus the order:-

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 12/09/2017 Camp:Goa

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2824.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कोरपोरेशन

बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 257/2011द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07.12.2017

को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/16/2008-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 257/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Corporation Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.12.2017.

[No. L-12011/16/2008-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9381

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1: Room No. 38-A (GF) KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, SHAHDRA, DELHI- 32

ID No. 257/2011

Shri Jitender Kumar, S/o Shri Raghubir Singh, Peon, through General Secretary, Delhi Labour Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T.Road, Tis Hazari Delhi – 110054

…Workmen

Vs.

The Management of Corporation Bank, Through Zonal Manager, 16/10, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005 …Management

AWARD

1. This award shall dispose of a reference received from Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, vide order No.L-12011/16/2008-IR (B-II) dated 26.02.2014 under clause (d) of sub-Section (1) and (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short, the Act), for adjudication of an industrial dispute between the parties, terms of which are as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank, New Delhi, in terminating the services of Shri

Jitender Kumar, Son of Shri Raghubir Singh, Peon w.e.f. 06.02.2006 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the workman Jitender Kumar, (in short, the Claimant) joined employment of the management on 10.9.2013 as a Peon. He was lastly posted at Nangloi Jat Branch and was drawing salary of Rs.5,764/- per month. He has been in continuous service of the management since the date of his illegal termination on 06.2.2006. The claimant has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service.

2. It is the case of the claimant that he was refused to do duties after 06.02.2006 on the allegations of theft. Thereafter in the month of February, 2006, he was issued a letter dated 16.2.2006 containing false allegations that he has removed Rs.33,000/- from the bank's strong room. This allegation was only leveled with a view to terminate the service of the claimant malafidely. The action of the management in termination of the service has been alleged to be totally illegal and unjust as no domestic enquiry was conducted against him and the management wanted to get rid of the claimant.

3. The claim was contested by the management, who filed written statement thereto wherein certain preliminary objections were taken. However, in Para 4 of the objections, it is admitted that claimant was engaged as temporary staff at Nangloi Jat Branch of the respondent Bank w.e.f. 17.4.2005 and had worked intermittently till 6.2.2006. He was engaged for a limited period on temporary vacancy caused by absence of permanent staff at Nangloi Jat Branch. He was also paid daily wages for the number of days he has worked. It has been alleged that on 06.02.2006, he left the service on his own since Rs.33,000/- lying in the cash box, which he was taking out of the strong room to the Cashier's cabin, were found missing. On being enquired, the claimant admitted his guilt before the management. He also requested the management not to hand over his case to the police and volunteered to quit the job with immediate effect. On merits, most of other averments have been denied by the management. It has also been denied that claimant was getting salary of Rs.5,764/- per month. It is also denied that he was in the continuous service of the bank and has unblemished record of service.

4. The claimant also filed rejoinder to the written statement and reasserted the stand taken in the statement of claim and denied the allegations made in the written statement.

5. It is apparent from the record of this case that initially reference was received by CGIT Court No.2 and parties filed their pleadings before the said court. The record shows that no specific issue was framed by Ld. Presiding Officer of the said court. Thereafter, this case was transferred to CGIT Court No.1 vide order No.Z-22019/6/2007-IR C-II, dated 30.03.2010, Government of India.

6. The claimant, in order to prove the cause against the management, examined himself as WW-1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW-1/A along with documents Ex.WW-1/1 to WW-1/21.

9382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. The management in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri V.K. Gupta, as MW-1, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He has also tendered in evidence certain documents.

8. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, Ld A/R for the claimant and Ms.Rama Arora, Ld. A/R for the management.

9. Now, the issue for determination before this Tribunal is whether the termination of claimant is just and fair. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence adduced by the parties in support of their stand taken in their respective pleadings. The case of the claimant as set forth in the statement of claim as well as in his affidavit is that he was engaged as Peon on 10.09.2003 by the management. As per the pleadings, he served uninterruptedly till 06.02.2006. The engagement of claimant as a Peon has not been denied by the management in the written statement. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to Para 4 of the written statement wherein it is mentioned that claimant was engaged as temporary sub-staff at Nangloi Jat Branch of the Bank w.e.f. 17.06.2005. Further, it is admitted case of the parties that service of the claimant was terminated on account of alleged theft committed by the claimant as a result of which claimant is alleged to have confessed his guilt and thus quit the service on 06.02.2006.

10. Ld. A/R for the claimant argued that in the present case, claimant has never admitted his guilt nor any show cause notice was served upon him nor domestic enquiry was conducted against the claimant before his termination. Ld. A/R for the claimant urged that there is total violation of Section 25F of the Act. Reliance wad placed upon certain rulings to show that conducting of inquiry is mandatory under the law against the workman who has completed 240 days preceding his termination. Ld. A/R for the workman further urged that even otherwise violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act render to action to the management against the violation under the law. On the other hand, Ld. A/R for the management urged that claimant has admitted his guilt before the management as such there was no necessity to conduct inquiry against the workman. Moreover, the workman was not regularly performing his duty and in view of the confessional statement made by the workman Ex.WW1/M1, there was no need of any inquiry against a casual workman who has virtually quit his job in view of the confession made by the claimant.

11. After hearing Ld. A/R for both the parties and perusal of the entire record, I am of the opinion that there is considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the claimant.

12. Though the management in para 4 of the written statement averred that claimant was engaged as temporary sub staff at Nangloi Branch of the bank w.e.f. 17.06.2005 and worked intermittently till 06.02.2006 yet MW1 Shri V.K. Gupta, in the first line of his cross examination, admitted that claimant was engaged on 10.09.2003 as a Peon. He has also stated that his presence was marked in the attendance register of the bank and the said register is in the custody of the bank. He admitted that he has not seen the attendance register relating to the claimant herein. He further admitted that attendance register is authenticated record to show the attendance of an employee on a particular day and time. He admitted that he can produce the said register before this court. However, the record shows that several opportunities were granted and the said register was not produced by MW-1. He has further stated that attendance register for the financial year 2005-06 is not available. He has not read the bipartite settlement between the employee and the management. He has admitted that job of the Peon is perennial in nature. This witness has not stated anything regarding the theft committed by the claimant as he was posted in the concerned branch of the bank on 16.2.2006 whereas the service of the claimant has been terminated on 06.02.2006. Therefore, the statement of this witness regarding theft or confession etc. is not of any value. He has fairly conceded that workman was not issued any notice nor notice pay nor service compensation before his termination. He has clarified that he was a temporary employee and he himself has resigned.

13. During the course of arguments, it was admitted fairly by both the parties that claimant was a daily wager or a temporary employee within the definition of 'Workman' as defined under section 2(s) of the Act.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 S.C. 2532, while dealing with the definition of 'workman' has held as under :

"The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of

employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all

relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)of the

Act.

The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee

or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from

which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing

whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed

wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman."

15. The claimant has clearly stated in his statement that he was continuously working since the time of his engagement on 10.09.2003 till his termination on 06.02.2006. This fact has duly been admitted by MW-1[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9383 Shri V.K. Gupta. In such circumstances, it is clear that claimant has also completed requisite period of 240 days so as to claim his benefit of provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

16. The main contention of the management is to the effect that claimant has committed theft of Rs.33,000/- and later on, made a confessional statement before the manager also. The attention of the court was invited to document Ex.WW1/M1 which is alleged to be written by claimant Jitender Kumar to the then Manager of the bank. A bare perusal of the above letter would show that claimant is voluntarily seeking retirement from the job and it is further mentioned that he is not doing so under any kind of pressure. Below the letter Ex.WW1/M1 it is mentioned as under :

"Mujh se galti ho gyi hai iss liye mai naukri chhod raha hu. Mujhe aur naukri kahin mil gyi hai."

17. Above the aforesaid statement, there is also signature of one witness, who admittedly has not been examined by the management. To my mind, it was incumbent upon the management in order to prove the so called confessional statement, to examine the Manager to whom claimant has addressed this letter Ex.WW1/M1. The examination of this witness, is also mandatory, who was also allegedly present at the time of making said statement.

18. The aforesaid confessional statement as relied upon by the management Ex.WW1/M1 is not of any help to the management as it appears to be an act of manipulation for the reason that show cause notice regarding the above fact was served upon the claimant on 16.2.2006 after tendering of his alleged resignation on 06.02.2006 whereas it is clear from the record that claimant has already resigned or terminated from his service on 06.02.2006. If the claimant has voluntarily tendered his resignation on 06.02.2006 as per the stand taken by the management, in that eventuality, there was no need to serve show cause notice dated 16.2.2006 Ex.WW1/10 upon the claimant by the Chief Manager. The Chief Manager has sought explanation within seven days of receipt of the letter as to why the action should not be taken against him, failing which it will be construed that he has no explanation to submit to the management. Ld. A/R for the management could not explain about the issuance of show cause notice Ex.WW1/10 on 16.2.2006 to the claimant, who as per the case of management, has already voluntarily resigned from the job on 06.02.2006. This clearly shows that the confessional statement regarding admission of theft, Ex.WW1/M1 is an act of manipulation or the same appears to have been obtained from the claimant in a clandestine manner. The claimant has also served notice upon the management vide Ex.WW1/11 wherein he admitted that he is not being allowed to join his duty with the management as he has not committed any offence. It is also clear from the salary receipt vouchers Ex.WW1/12 to Ex.WW1/18 that claimant has worked with the management during the year 2005. The management has not filed the extracts of the attendance register for the remaining period despite an opportunity was given to the management to file the entire record of attendance as well as salary. In such circumstances, the court is bound to draw an adverse inference against the management for withholding the documents intentionally as production of the same would have gone against the management. It is thus held that claimant was in continuous service of the management w.e.f. 10.9.2003 till his termination i.e. 06.02.2006.

19. Admittedly, in the present case no domestic inquiry was conducted against the claimant, no retrenchment compensation or one month notice in terms of Section 25 F of the Act was given to the claimant. It is well settled preposition of law that violation of Section 25 F of the Act would render action of the management to be illegal as well as unjustified under the law.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that termination of the service of the claimant by the management is totally illegal and against the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act.

21. Now the residual question before this court is whether the claimant is liable to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits. Admittedly, clamant is not serving with the management after his termination on 06.02.2006 and more than the period of 11 years has elapsed since the date of his termination. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in number of cases that if the termination of workman is illegal, rule of reinstatement with back wages would follow. However, in recent past, there is a change in this trend and now in most of the cases, view has been taken that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even though the termination of the workman is in contravention of the prescribed proceedings. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether reasonable compensation instead of reinstatement is to be paid.

22. The Hon'be Apex Court in several cases while dealing with the question of reinstatement where termination of job of a workman has been held to be illegal and void under the law articulated the view that normally a workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages when the action of the management is totally against the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as well as principles of natural justice. This view was reiterated in Deepali Gundu Survase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013 AIR SCW 5330). However, in the recent past, there is a change in this trend and now in several cases, a view has been taken that relief by way of reinstatement alongwith back wages is not automatic as it would depend upon the given facts of fact situation of the case. There are number of factors which are to be kept in mind by the court while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages or payment of reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement. A perusal of the various authorities would show that the relevant9384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] factors to be considered are nature of the post, mode of recruitment, duration of engagement, delay in raising industrial dispute as well as the time which has elapsed from the time of termination. In this regard specific mention can be made to the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India & Anr. (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 190. Bearing the aforesaid factors in mind and having regard to the fact situation of the case in hand, the period of more than 11 years has elapsed since the termination of the workmen who was not holding any permanent post, as such an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lac) as compensation appears to be just and reasonable to which the claimant is entitled from the management. The action of management in termination of service of the claimant is held to be unjust, unfair and not legal under the law and claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) payable by the management.

23. As a sequel to the above, it is held hat claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lac). In case this amount is not paid within one month of publication of Award, in that eventuality claimant shall be entitled for 9% per annum interest from the date of publication of Award. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2825.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक

के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 09/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07.12.2017 को प्राप्त

हुआ था।

[सं. एल-39025/01/2010-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2017

S.O. 2825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.12.2017.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 17th November, 2017

PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 09/2016

I Party

II Party

Sh. Vasanth Kumar, The Deputy Manager & S/o D. Yamunappa, Disciplinary Authority, MIG 1, No. 427, IInd Main, Vijaya Bank, Head Office, 5th Cross, Kuvempu Nagar, Bangalore Bellary.

(Represented by Mr. B. M. Madhava)

AWARD

1. Brief details mentioned in the claim statement are as follows:-

The I Party has served as a Clerk at Vijaya Bank, Thoranagal Branch. A charge sheet bearing No. PER/IRD/HBL/VIG/CS/10/2015 dated 24.01.2015 has been issued for certain alleged misconduct. Based on the biased findings the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a punishment of Dismissal on 25.01.2016. Since, the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9385 conciliation failed, a Certificate has been issued under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act -2010. The I Party has been suspended from Vijaya Bank, as per the order bearing No. PER: IRD:HBL:404:2014 dated 20.02.201. The II Party has issued a charge sheet bearing No. PER/IRD/HBL/VIG/ CS/10/2015 dated 24.01.2015 against the I Party with some allegation of misconducts, after a gap of about 11 months of suspension. The II Party, basing on the biased findings, imposed a punishment of Dismissal on 25.01.2016. Further, the appeal preferred by the I Party on 12.02.2016, copy enclosed as Annexure-5, has been disposed of, after a gap of 8 months, The delay in issuing the charge sheet, delay in conducting the enquiry, delay in disposing of the appeal etc., have been nothing but an effort by the II Party to deny the justice. Further, in spite of the objections made by the Defence representative, neither the staff members nor the customers, who have given the statements, have appeared as management witness to confirm their statements. In view of the same, the above statements lost its evidentiary value and hence liable to be rejected. Therefore, it is illegal to put an allegation against the I Party in respect of misuse of passwords of the Branch Manager/Asst. Branch Manager. Therefore, the I Party prays this Court to pass an award in favour of I Party by holding that, the II Party/Management is not justified in imposing a capital punishment of Dismissal against the I Party and to direct the II Party to reinstate the I Party with all the back wages.

2. The pertinent point that arises for consideration in the present matter is:-

"Whether the I Party is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the Claim Statement for the reasons and grounds stated in the Claim Statement.

3. Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point:-

The I Party has specifically stated in the Claim Statement as well as in the evidence that, the premature closure of all the six term deposits mentioned in the charge sheet have been closed by Sri. Manjunatha N Officer and authorized by the Branch Manager Sri Aravind N Vaidya as per the evidence produced in the enquiry. Further, the issuing the INSTA cards to the customers are the duties of the officers/manager. The said cards has been always in the custody of the key holders and I Party has no access to the same. Further, the I Party has stated that, the authorization of manager is required to convert an inoperative savings bank account into operative and I Party has to carry out only the instructions of the branch manager or his superiors and I Party has no role except to do the clerical work as per the instructions of his superiors. Further, the I Party has stated that, the enquiry officer has made biased findings against him, and the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a punishment of Dismissal on 25.01.2016 and the Appellant Authority has not taken any decision in the matter even after 8 months after filing the appeal. Further, as per Ex W-1, the Learned Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bellary has issued certificate to the effect that, the matter is not settled in the conciliation and Ex W-2, is the Suspension Order issued to the I Party by the II Party, Ex W-3 is the charge sheet issued to I Party, Ex W-4 is the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority and Ex W-5 is the appeal filed by the I Party before the Appellate Authority.

4. The II Party has not appeared before this Court, to establish that, the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority has been passed by the II Party as per the principles of natural justice and the allegations made as against the I Party has been proved as per the principles of preponderance of probability. Further, the I Party as clearly pointed out in the claim statement as well as in the evidence before this Court that, he has not committed any mistake as alleged by the II Party and II Party has adopted the unfair labour practice and victimized the I Party without any valid reasons.

5. On a careful perusal of entire materials on record it is seen that, the I Party has established the various details mentioned in the claim statement by way of producing relevant records and evidence. On the other hand, II Party has miserably failed to establish that, the I Party has committed the mistake as alleged in the charge sheet. In fact, after the receipt of the RPAD notices the II Party remained absent. Further, the I Party has established that, he is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim statement. On a careful scrutiny of entire materials it is found that, I Party has established grounds and reasons, to get relief, as prayed for in the claim statement and the II Party has not disproved the same in any manner. Accordingly, the I Party is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the claim statement, without cost for the above mentioned facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the following award is passed.

AWARD

The II Party is not justified in Dismissing the service of I party/Vasanth Kumar w.e.f 25.01.2016 and II Party is directed to reinstate the I Party with continuity of service, and with payment of full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of dismissal, namely, 25.01.2016 till providing employment as per the service records maintained by the II Party and award is passed accordingly, without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 17th November, 2017)

V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer9386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

List of Witness on the side of I Party:

WW 1 Sh. Vasanth Kumar, I Party/workman

Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:

Exhibits Date Description of Document
Ex W-1 20.10.2016 Certificate issued by RLC (C) Bellary
Ex W-2 20.02.2014 Suspension Order issued to I Party
Ex W-3 24.01.2015 Charge sheet issued to I Party
Ex W-4 25.01.2016 Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority
Ex W-5 12.02.2016 Appeal filed before the Appellate Authority by the I Party

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2826.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, मैसर्स रिचर्डसन एंड क्रुडास ;1972द्ध लिमिटेड, चेन्नई और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 01/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/220/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 01/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd., Chennai & others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21.08.2017.

[No. L-42012/220/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 10th day of July, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 01/2016

Between:

Sri B. Sathyanarayana, H.No.5-3, Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal, Medak District, Telengana – 502110

…Petitioner AND

1. M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd.,

69-D, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9387

2. M/s. Tata Basava Sankara Rao,

Shop No.1, BHEL Town Ship, R.C. Puram, Hyderabad – 500 032

…Respondents Appearances :

For the Petitioner        :    Party in person.
For the Respondent        :    Sri Thata Singaiah Goud, Advocate for R1 & R2

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 42012/220/2015-IR(DU) dated 15.12.2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/ Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd., a contractor of M/s BHEL, Hyderabad in terminating the service of the workman Shri B. Sathyanarayana is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 1/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner.

3. In spite of service of notices to the address given in the reference order, the Petitioner did not turn up. Several opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to attend the court to prosecute his case. But the Petitioner failed to attend this Tribunal which clearly indicates that the dispute of the Petitioner has already been settled and the Petitioner has nothing to claim. Hence, a 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 10th day of July, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2827.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुख्य कार्यकारी, परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग, हैदराबाद एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 98/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/207/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 98/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the9388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/207/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 9th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 98/2015

Between:

Sri M. Narsingh Rao, S/o M. Pochaiah, R/o 3-5-24/49/A, Rajeev Nagar, Meerpet, Hyderabad – 500076

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad – 500 062

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner      :      Representative
For the Respondent      :      Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/207/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Sh. M. Narsingh Rao, S/o Late M. Pochaiah, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 98/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9389

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2828.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुख्य कार्यकारी, परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग, हैदराबाद एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में

निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 96/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/205/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 96/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/205/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 9th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 96/2015

Between:

Sri G. Mohan, S/o Chandu, R/o 1-10-1/71/25, Krishna Reddy Nagar Colony, Kushaiguda, Keesara, Hyderabad – 500076

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad – 500 062

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner      :      Representative
For the Respondent      :      Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/205/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Sh. G. Mohan S/o Chandu, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 96/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

9390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2829.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुख्य कार्यकारी, परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग, हैदराबाद एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 101/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/210/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 101/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/210/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 9th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 101/2015

Between:

Sri C. Mallikarjuna, S/o Balaiah, R/o 30-48/1, Old Safilguda, Ramakrishna Puram, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad – 500076

…Petitioner AND[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9391 The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad – 500 062

…Respondent Appearances :

For the Petitioner      :      Representative
For the Respondent      :      Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/210/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Sh. C. Mallikarjuna S/o Balaiah, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 101/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2830.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुख्य कार्यकारी, परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग, हैदराबाद एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 100/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/209/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 100/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-9392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/209/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 9th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 100/2015

Between:

Smt. G. Rukmini, W/o G. Sukkaiah, R/o 18-1-1020, Ambedkar Nagar, Uppal Mandal, Hyderabad – 500076

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad – 500 062

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner     :      M/s. G. Ravi Mohan & Vikas Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent     :      Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/209/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Smt. Rukmini, W/o G. Sukkaiah, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 100/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9393

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2831.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुख्य कार्यकारी, परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग, हैदराबाद एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 103/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/212/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2831.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 103/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/212/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 9th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 103/2015

Between:

Smt. Prameela W/o Mallesh, R/o 3-27, Yamnvempet, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad – 500037

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad – 500 062

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner     :      M/s. G. Ravi Mohan & Vikas Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent     :      Representative
9394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/212/2015-IR(DU) dated 7.12.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Smt. Prameela, W/o Mallesh, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 103/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2832.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबंध्क, अनुसंधन एवं विकास प्रभाग, भेल, हैदराबाद एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 17/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/107/2013-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2832.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 17/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Research & Development Division, BHEL, Hyderabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 06.12.2017.

[No. L-42011/107/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9395

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 8th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 17/2014

Between:

The Joint Secretary, BHEL, R&D Staff and Workers Union (B-1451), Vikasnagar, Hyderabad

…Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager, (HR), BHEL Research & Development Division, Vikas Nagar, Hyderabad

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner     :      Sri K. Pardha Saradhi, Advocate
For the Respondent     :      M/s. S. Ravindranath, Ambuja Mane & K. Bhagavanth Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/107/2013-IR(DU), dated 16.1.2014 referred the following dispute between the management of Research & Development Division and their workmen under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of BHEL (R&D) Hyderabad in denial of payment of encashment of Earned Leave for 30 days instead of 26 days as per the guidelines of the D P E, New Delhi is justified? To what relief the employees of BHEL (R&D), Hyderabad is entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 17/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for evidence of the Petitioner union. But, no representation was made on behalf of the union. Non-appearance of the Parties in the court on the date of hearing clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner union has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner union is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 8th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL9396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2833.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुख्य कार्यकारी, परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग, हैदराबाद एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में

निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 95/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/204/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 95/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Executive, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/204/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 8th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 95/2015

Between:

Smt. Sampoorna, W/o Mooses, R/o 6-24/11, Subhash Nagar, Mallapur, Nacharam, Uppal Mandal, Hyderabad – 500076

…Petitioner

AND

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad – 500 062

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner     :      M/s. G. Ravi Mohan & Vikas Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent     :      Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/204/2015-IR(DU), dated 7.12.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad by terminating the services of the workman Smt. Sampoorna W/o Mooses, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 95/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9397

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 8th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2834.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबंध्क, सुरक्षा प्रटग एंड मटग कार्पोरेशन ऑपफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, हैदराबाद एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 67/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-16011/01/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 67/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Security Printing & Minting Corp. of India Ltd., Hyderabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-16011/01/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 10th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 67/2015

Between:

Sri Mohd. Abdul Wahid, Vice President, Security Printing Press Employees Union, Mint Compound, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004

…Petitioner Union AND9398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The General Manager, Security Printing & Minting Corp. of India Ltd., Mint Compound, Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004

…Respondent Appearances :

For the Petitioner      :      None
For the Respondent      :      Sri P. Bhakthavatsal, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-16011/ 01/2015-IR(DU), dated 21.8.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of Security Printing & Minting Corp. of India Ltd., and their workmen under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Security Printing & Minting Corp. of India Ltd., Mint Compound, Saifabad, Hyderabad in withdrawing customary benefit of OT allowance in respect of Shri Md. Abdul Wahid during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer and ALC(C)-I, Hyderabad is justified? If not, the workmen is entitled to what relief?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 67/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement of the Petitioner union. But, no representation was made on behalf of the workman or of the union. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner union has settled the dispute with the Respondent and there is no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner union is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 10th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2835.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स मुनिमोहन एंटरप्राइज ;नेल्लोरद्ध के प्रबंध्न और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 70/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/131/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 70/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9399 Management of M/s. Munimohan Enterprises, Nellore and others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-42012/131/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 10th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 70/2015

Between:

Sri Mudda Subramanyam, No.7-05, Palavellivari Veedhi, Sullurupeta, SPSR, Nellore – 524121 …Petitioner Union

AND

1. M/s. Munimohan Enterprises,

No.7/447, Netaji Street, Raghavaiahpet, Sullurupeta, SPSR, Nellore-524121.

2. M/s. Premier Explosives Ltd.,

SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota, SPSR, Nellore – 524124.

3. The Controller,

SDSC, SHAR, Sriharikota, SPSR Nellore – 524124

…Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner     :      None
For the Respondent     :      None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/131/2015-IR(DU), dated 2.9.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Munimohan Enterprises and their workmen under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. MM Enterprises Sub-Contractor of M/s Premier Explosives Limited, Contractors of SDSC, SHAR, Sriharikota in terminating the services of Shri M.Subramanyam is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 70/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement by the Petitioner. But, no representation was made on behalf of the workman. Non-appearance of the Petitioner clearly indicates that perhaps the Petitioner has settled the dispute with the Respondent and the Petitioner has no claim to raise. Hence, there is no need to linger the case to any other date. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner is closed as against the present Respondent and 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 10th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer9400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2836.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग प्राध्किरण और अन्य लोगों के प्रबंध्न एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 48/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/58/2015-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 48/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Natioanal Highway Authority of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-42011/58/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 10th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 48/2015

Between:

The General Secretary, Sheelanagar NHAI Port Road Toll Plaza Contractor Workmen's Union., (Affiliated to CITU) Sheelanagar, Visakhapatnam – 530040 …Petitioner Union AND

1. The Project Director,

National Highway Authority of India, Hanumanthawaka, Visakhapatnam – 530 040.

2. The Proprietor,

M/s. MD. Usman, Contractor, Sheela Nagar Port Roal Toll Plaza, Port Road, Sheelanagar, Visakhapatnam – 530 040.

3. Sri C.P. Rama Rao,

Contractor, Sheelanagar Port Road Toll Plaza,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9401 (Contractor of NHAI) Port Road, Sheelanagar, Visakhapatnam – 530 040 …Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner      :      Party in person
For the Respondent      :      None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/58/2015-IR(DU) dated 18.6.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of National Highway Authority of India and their workmen under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. MD. Usman, contractor of National Highway Authority of India, Visakhapatnam engaged in Sheela Nagar Port Road Toll Plaza of National Highway Authority of India, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of S/Shri P. Sekhar and 12 other contract workers (As per list enclosed) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 48/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement of the Petitioner union. In spite of availing several opportunities, the Petitioner union remained absent. Further, the Petitioner has failed to furnish the correct address of the Respondent and there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner union. In the circumstances stated above, the case of the Petitioner union is dismissed as against the present Respondent.

Nil Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 10th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2837.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैनेजमेंट ऑपफ एमसीडी, दिल्ली एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 38/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/11/2010-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 38/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of MCD, Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14.11.2017.

[No. L-42012/11/2010-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director9402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1: ROOM No.38-A (GF) KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, SHAHDRA, DELHI- 32

ID NO. 38/2012

Shri Satender & 5 others, Nala Beldar, who were working in (Drainage Department) M.C.D.and lastly posted at Ward No.114, Division M-3, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Vishal Enclave,New Delhi, Through Municipal Employees' Union, Agarwal Bhawan G.T.Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi – 110054 …Workmen

Vs.

The Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, through its' Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006

…Respondent/Management

AWARD

1. This is a reference received from the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947, ( in short, the Act) vide Order bearing No. L-42012/11/2010-IR (DU) dated 10.2.2012 for adjudication of an industrial dispute between the parties, terms of which are as under :

'Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi in

terminating the services of S/Sh. Satender, Mahadev, Yogesh, Sandeep, Harveer and Babu Lal, all Nala

Beldars, Drainage Department, MCD, is just and legal? What relief, these workmen are entitled to?'

2. After receipt of the above reference, both the parties were put to notice and workmen herein filed statement of claim giving particulars of their employment which is as under:

Sl.No. Name & father's name Date of appointment Date of termination place of posting
1. Shri Satender s/o Sh. Bansi Mal 14.07.2005 15.08.2008 Ward No.114, Division M-3, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Mahadev s/o Sh. Ram Avtar Verma 01.07.2004 15.08.2008 Ward No.114, Division M-3, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi.
3. Sh.Yogesh son of Sh. Ganga Saran 01.07.2004 15.08.2008 Ward No.114, Division M-3, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi.
4. Sh.Sandeep son of Shri Inderaj September, 2005 15.08.2008 Ward No.114, Division M-3, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi.
5. Sh.Harveer Singh son of Sh. Bal Kishan 26.03.2004 15.08.2008 Ward No.114, Division M-3, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi.
6. Sh.Babu Lal son of Sh. Piyare Lal 01.07.2004 15.08.2008 Ward No.114, Division M-3, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi.

3. It is also alleged in the statement of claim that workmen were performing their duties as "nala beldars' and they were being treated as daily rated/casual/muster roll workers and were being paid wages as fixed and revised from time[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9403 to time under the Minimum Wages Act. However, their counterparts doing the identical work were being paid proper salary as well as allowances and they were also getting other facilities like uniform, EL, CL, Gazetted/Festival/ Restricted holidays, which were completely denied to the workmen herein.

4. It is also alleged by the workmen that with the passage of time, their services should have been regularized but management instead of this, terminated their services w.e.f. 15.08.2008 by way of refusal of duties without assigning any reason. This action of the management has been challenged by the workmen as the same is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. It is also alleged that non-regularization of services and denial of wages at par with their counterparts is also in violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work etc. The workmen have completed 240 days in a calendar year and they were liable to be regularized like their counterparts. The workmen herein served a demand notice on the management vide letter dated 23.02.2009 but no reply was received thereto.

5. The claim of the workmen was resisted by the management by filing written statement and various preliminary objections have been taken like espousal and non-service of demand notice and reference having been made without application of mind as well as reference being non maintainable because of delay etc. It has also been alleged that present dispute is not an industrial dispute in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ajay Kumar vs. M.C.D. The management denied most of the averments made in the statement of claim. However, it is admitted that workmen were temporarily engaged on the muster roll for cleaning the storm water drain for 89 days only as regular staff was not sufficient to cope with the work. Their engagement was for a short period subject to requirement from time to time.

6. Vide order dated June 8, 2012, my ld. predecessor observed that from the pleadings of the parties it came out that no issue other than those referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication is made out. Thereafter evidence of the claimant was recorded.

7. The workmen in order to prove the cause against the management, examined six witnesses in all. WW-1 is Shri Satender, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW-1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW-1/1 to WW-1/17. WW-2 is Shri Mahavir, whose affidavit is Ex.WW-2/A. He has also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW-1/1 to WW-1/17. Shri Harveer has been examined as WW-3, whose affidavit is Ex.WW-3/A, who has also tendered in evidence similar documents. Shri Babu Lal has been examined as WW-4 whose affidavit is Ex.WW4/A. Shri Yogesh has been examined as WW-5, whose affidavit is Ex.WW5/A and Shri Sandeep has been examined as WW-6, whose affidavit is Ex.WW-6/A. All these witnesses have relied upon the similar documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/17.

8. The management in order to rebut the case of workmen examined Shri Ajay Joshi as MW-1 and his affidavit is Ex.MW-1/A. He has also tendered in evidence certain documents.

9. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, ld. A/R for the workmen and Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, ld. A/R for the management and have also carefully perused the entire record.

10. It was strongly urged on behalf of the workmen that all the workmen herein fall within the definition of 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act and they have completed more than 240 days in a calendar year before the date of their termination. The attention of the court was invited to oral as well as documentary evidence so as to show that management has not followed any procedure while terminating the service of the workmen. No show cause notice was issued to the workmen nor one month salary in lieu of such notice was offered or given to the workmen.

11. It was also urged that the work of nala beldar is not temporary or seasonal work as their duty is of permanent in nature. There is always shortage of such workers before the Corporation and they are being engaged to cope up with the work.

12. Lastly, Ld. A/R for the workmen proceeded to argue that since the termination of the service of the workmen herein is totally illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as such workmen are entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages including all consequential benefits.

13. It was urged on behalf of the management that workmen were performing the work of nala beldar and they were casually and temporarily engaged for the said work on muster roll for cleaning the stormed water from the drainage from time to time and their engagement was hardly for 89 days and not regular in nature. Ld. A/R for both the parties placed reliance upon certain rulings in respect of the stand taken in their respective pleadings. However, I would refer the said rulings at a later stage.

12. It is clear from the matrix of the case that workmen herein were engaged by the management as daily wager/casual workers for cleaning of the drainage. It has also been admitted in Para 4 of the preliminary objections of Written Statement that such workers were not entitled for holidays and other benefits etc.

13. During the course of arguments, it was not even denied by A/R for the management that even daily rated or muster roll workers for the purpose of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are 'workmen' within the definition of section 2(s)9404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of the Act. In this regard, reference would be made to the case of Devender Singh Vs. MC Sanaur, AIR 2011 SCC 2532, wherein while examining the ambit and scope of expression 'workman' as used in section 2(s) of the Act, it was observed, as under:

'The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)of the Act.

The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.

14. The other submission raised on behalf of the management that MCD does not fall within the definition of 'Industry' is without any merit and the same is liable to be rejected for the reason that there are hundreds of cases where industrial dispute against the MCD has been raised by the workers working in such MCDs and in none of cases there is even remotely observation to the effect that office of MCD does not fall within the definition of 'industry' as defined under section 2(j) of the Act. The nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewage Board vs. A Rajappan & Ors, 1978(36) FLR 266 (SC), have been pleased to consider the scope of the expression 'industry' as defined in section 2(j) of the Act. After taking the entire spectrum of the case law on the subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has amplified the scope of the expression industry as defined in the Act and even of hospital, school, educational institutions, MCDs etc has been held to be an industry as defined in section 2(j) of the Act.

15. Now, the main issue before this Tribunal is whether the workmen herein were engaged for seasonal or temporary work by the management for cleaning of the drainage during rainy season. There is no clear evidence on the record to show that and rather the evidence adduced by the workmen is very conclusive that they have been doing the work of nala beldar. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the statement of WW1, WW2, WW-3, WW-4, WW-5 and WW-6. Perusal of their statement shows that they joined the employment with the management on 26.3.2004 and their service was terminated on 15.8.2008 and they were not allowed to perform the duties by the management. All the workmen have specifically made reference to a vital fact that they are performing the work of regular nature and even regular employees are performing similar job. The workmen have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but there is hardly anything in their cross-examination so as to help the stand of the management. No doubt, some of the workmen have admitted that their salary was to be paid for the actual working days and they were told that their job was casual or temporary in nature. However, from the ratio of law enunciated in Devender Singh's case (Supra), it is clear that all such casual workers fall within the definition of 'workman' as defined in Section 25(s) of the Act.

16. The evidence adduced by the management do not suggest in any manner that workmen were not engaged in the year 2004 or were not performing the job of regular nature. The workmen have also filed copy of the muster roll which contained their names as well as parentage as is clear from Ex.WW1/1, WW-2/1, WW3/1, WW4/1, WW5/1 and WW6/1. These documents further show that the workmen were in the employment of the management. They have also stated having worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year since workmen herein were engaged as casual/ muster roll workers as is clear from the stand taken by the management in the written statement as such it was also incumbent upon the management to have filed the complete records pertaining to their employment and particularly the attendance roll/register so as to show that workmen have worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year.

17. Shri Ajay Joshi, MW-1 has admitted that attendance of the workmen herein were recorded on muster rolls and he had brought some of the muster rolls which were traceable in the office. He further admitted that workman Satender worked from 26.6.2007 to 25.7.2007, Mahadev, Yogesh, Sandeep, Harvir Singh and Babu Lal also worked for 26 days and thereafter, Satender also worked from 26.7.2007 to 25.8.2007. He stated that he has not brought muster rolls for the period 26.11.2007 to 14.12.2007 as the same were not traceable. But merely stating that these documents were not traceable does not absolve the management from its obligation.

18. During the course of arguments, Ld. A/R for the workmen also urged that in order to compute 240 days in a calendar year, number of gazetted holidays, national holidays as well as Sundays in a year, are to be included. In this regard, reliance was placed on cases Indian Council of Agriculture Research & Anr vs. Shri Faiyaz; MANU/DE/1935/2013; WP(C)13021-22/2006; as well as American Express International Banking Corpn. Vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corpn.; MANU/SC/0237/1985; (1985) 4 SCC 71 wherein it has been held that while computing 240 days for the purpose of Section 25-B of the Act paid holidays including Sundays etc. are to be included in the list of 240 days.

19. No doubt, the initial onus is always upon the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year and in the case of casual or muster roll workman such a burden would normally be discharged when the workman[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9405 has entered into the witness box and categorically deposed that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year with the management. This plea has been taken in Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibai Chavda, MANU/SC/1810/2009 ; (2010) ILLJ3SC; as well as A.I.M.S. New Delhi vs. Uddal & Ors. MANU/DE/1005/2014; 2014 (142) DRJ 569. In the above two cases, it was observed by the court that normally in a case of daily wagers there is no issuance of letter of appointment and all the material documents, i.e. attendance register, muster roll, salary slips etc. are in the possession of the management. It is expected from the management to produce all the documents so as to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective.

20. I am not at all in agreement with the submission raised by the management that workmen herein are seasonal workers for a specific period as such they are covered by the definition of retrenchment as given in Section 2(oo). I fail to understand how the work of nala beldar can be seasonal in nature as regular employees are facing difficulty to cope with the work in as much as extra labour is being engaged on daily wages or muster roll basis, every year. The oral evidence on record adduced by the parties clearly shows that all the workmen herein were performing their duties as nala beldar since the time of their engagement with the management. The law is very clear that it is for the employer to prove that case of the workmen is not covered by the definition of retrenchment so as to attract the applicability of section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act.

21. In Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibai Chavda, MANU/SC/1810/2009; (2010) 1 SCC 47, similar contention was raised that workman was engaged for seasonal work for a temporary period, as such when the such project of work is over, they would stand retrenched automatically and provisions of section 25-F would have no applicability. This contention was rejected by Hon'ble Apex Court as there is no specific document or agreement on record to show that they were engaged for a specific period i.e. 89 days as is stand taken in written statement by the management. There is nothing in the statement of MW-1 Shri Ajay Joshi that work of nala beldar is purely of seasonal or temporary nature when management has engaged regular workman for the same, more so, when regular workmen are performing similar nature of work which the workmen herein are performing.

22. The net result of the above discussion is that workmen herein are within the definition of 'workman' and they have completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding their termination. The management has admitted having not served them with show cause notice nor paid one month salary in lieu thereof to the workmen before ordering their termination. It is well settled position in law that in case service of workman is terminated without serving any notice in terms of section 25-F, non-payment of retrenchment compensation or one month salary in lieu of such notice, would be termed as totally illegal.

23. Having said so, now, the other question is as to what relief the workmen are entitled. Since the termination of the job of the workmen herein is totally illegal and in violation of section 25-F of the Act, as such the workmen herein are liable to be reinstated in service with full back wages as there is no evidence on record to suggest that during the period of their termination, they were gainfully employed with any other management.

24. Now the residual question before this court is whether the workmen are liable to be reinstated in service. Admittedly, the workmen are not serving with any other management after their termination since 15.8.2008 It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in number of cases that if the termination of workman is illegal, rule of reinstatement with back wages would follow. However, in the recent past, there is a change in this term and now in most of the cases, view has been taken that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even though the termination of the workman is in contravention of the prescribed proceedings. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether reasonable compensation instead of reinstatement is to be paid.

25. While dealing with reinstatement, the court has to take in mind the nature of the post, duration of the engagement, nature of appointment, availability of the post, delay in raising industrial dispute and whether the appointment was in accordance with rules or not. The workmen herein were admittedly holding temporary posts of daily wager. They have worked with the management for less than three years. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that instead of full back wages, an amount of 50% back wages appears to be just and reasonable.

26. Though it has been averred by the workmen in their affidavits as well as statement of claim that they are not gainfully employed with any other management yet this court has to keep in mind that they were not regular employees of the management nor they have vested right to continue in said employment. The ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wager worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect namely in violation of Section 25-F reinstatement with back wages is not to be automatic. Instead the workman would be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F even after reinstatement, it is always open to9406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization.

27. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that claimants are entitled to 50% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Dated : 1.11.2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2838.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय का प्रबंध्न एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 32/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/183/2013-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 32/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of University of Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14.11.2017.

[No. L-42012/183/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 38-A (GF) KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, SHAHDRA, DELHI- 32

ID NO. 32/2014

Shri Balesh Chand Jain, S/o Shri Deep Chand Jain, (Retired), Lastly posted at University Press, Delhi, Through General Secretary, Delhi Labour Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T.Road, Tis Hazari Delhi- 110054

…Workmen

Vs.

The Management of University of Delhi, through its Registrar, Delhi University Campus, Delhi-110017

… Management

AWARD

1. This award shall dispose of a reference received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide order No. L-42012/183/2013-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2014 under clause (d) of sub-Section (1) and (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short, the Act), for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under :

"Whether the action of the management of University of Delhi in not paying Shri Balesh Chand Jain his full salary till his actual date of discharge from duty i.e.04.04.2008 and deduction of Rs.50,967/- from gratuity as adjustment and not allowing him pension is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. It is the case of Balesh Chand Jain, (in short, the Claimant) that he was taken into the employment of the management w.e.f. 16.1.1975 as Compositor and his services were terminated by the management w.e.f. 25.01.1976[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9407 without assigning any reason. The said order of termination was challenged by the claimant by raising an industrial dispute which was decided in favour of the claimant by the court of Shri G.P.Mittal, the then Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VII, Delhi, vide Award dated 23.1.1990 in I.D. No.562/86. As per the above Award, the claimant was held entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages.

2. Thereafter, Writ petition was filed against the said Award in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at the instance of the management but the same was dismissed on 23.7.1990 on merits. Despite that, management did not implement the said Award and ultimately he was finally reinstated w.e.f. 31.12.1990 but arrears of back wages were not paid to him. Consequently, another Writ Petition was filed and in the said petition, vide order dated 13.11.1992, management was directed to make payment of arrears of wages to the claimant within two months from the date of passing of order.

3. Thereafter, claimant herein raised another industrial dispute vide I.D. No.24/2009 regarding regularization of his service which is still pending before the Industrial Tribunal Karkardooma Courts. About two years back, an office order dated 06.5.2008 had been passed by the management whereby claimant had been retired from services with retrospective effect i.e. 30.9.2007, though he has discharged his duties regularly till 04.04.2008. It is also alleged that claimant was paid wages/salary till 04.04.2008 but on retirement, an amount of Rs.50,967/- has been deducted from his gratuity illegally on account of salary paid to the claimant. The claimant has not been paid pension till date. The action of the management has been totally illegal and malafide. It is further alleged by the claimant that his co-employee, namely, Shri Sheesh Ram, who retired on 30.6.2004 as temporary workman was paid full pension, however, pension has been wrongly denied to the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant has served demand notice upon the management but no reply was filed.

4. The claim was contested by the management, who filed written statement thereto and it was alleged that para 1 to 4 are matter of judicial records and as such no specific reply was given to the said paras. It is not denied that claimant attained the age of superannuation on 07.09.2007 (A/N) and consequently, he stood retired from the service on 30.09.2007 (A/N) vide office order dated 06.05.2008. However, claimant herein continued in the employment and was paid wages/salary as before even after 30.9.2007 on account of mistake in his date of birth, as his date of birth was mistakenly recorded as 08.09.1949 instead of 08.09.1947 in the seniority list prepared from time to time and said mistake came to light only on 3rd/4th April, 2008 when his case was being processed for his annual increment. Since the claimant could not be said to be in the employment of the management after attaining the age of superannuation and yet he had worked till 04.04.2008, so he was treated to be in engagement of contractual daily wage basis during the said period. Management denied the other averments made in the statement of claim. It is admitted that the amount of Rs.50,967/- is excess payment made to the claimant, which was deduced from the gratuity amount of Rs.1,41,038/-.

4.. Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 15.01.2005, framed the following issue.

(i) Whether the action of the management of University of Delhi is not paying Shri Balesh Chand Jain his full salary till his actual date of discharge from duty i.e.04.04.2008 and deduction of Rs.50,967/- from gratuity as adjustment and not allowing him pension is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

6. The claimant, in order to prove the cause against the management, examined himself as WW-1 and Shri Surinder Bhardwaj as WW-2 and also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW-1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW- 1/1 to WW-1/13.

7. The management in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Ms.Madhu Bala Jain, as MW-1.

8. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, Ld A/R for the claimant and Shri Shiv Ram Singh, Ld. A/R for the management.

Findings:

Issue No.1.

9. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that claimant has come up with the plea that he was engaged by management on 16.1.1975 as Compositor and he was paid wages under the Minimum Wages Act. During the course of arguments, it was not denied by ld. A/R for the respective parties that previous termination was challenged by raising the industrial dispute by the claimant vide I.D. No.562/86 which was decided by Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VII, Delhi, vide Award dated 23.01.1990. Further, this order of the Labour Court was challenged by the management before Hon'ble High Court and Writ Petition was also dismissed by Hon'ble High Court on 23.07.1990. It is further pleaded that claimant was reinstated in service on 31.12.1990.

10. It is also clear from the perusal of the demand notice Ex.WW-1/1 that same was served upon the Registrar, University of Delhi, which is almost on the similar lines as stated in statement of claim. Ex.WW1/2 is receipt of the9408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] said notice. The claimant has also proved in evidence the pension bill Ex.WW1/3 as well as office order Ex.WW1/4. Both these documents have been admitted by MW-1 Ms.Madhu Bala Jain in her cross-examination. She has stated that Ex.WW1/4, WW1/6 and WW1/8 are issued by the management. Her deposition further shows that Shri Bhupender Prakash and Shri Sheesh Ram initially joined service in 1975 alongwith the claimant. She has also deposed regarding the termination of claimant alongwith other co-workers on 25.1.1976 and thereafter an Award was passed by the Labour Court on 23.1.1990 in favour of the claimant. She has made a vital admission that as per record, no notice had been issued to the claimant before deduction of Rs.50,967/- for excess payment. However, she has clarified that claimant was intimated regarding deduction vide letter dated 04.04.2008 Ex.MW1/W1. Said letter does not bear signature of the claimant and it is highly doubtful whether the said letter was served upon the claimant or not. She has made another admission that both Bhupender Parkash and Sheesh Ram were daily wagers working on temporary basis with the management and Sheesh Ram retired from service on 30.06.2007. She has claimed ignorance about the fact whether both these workers were being paid pension by the management, during the course of her cross examination, on being enquired about the fact whether pension was being paid to both these officials. She has made vital admission that claimant worked regularly with the management w.e.f. 30.09.2007 to 04.04.2009.

11. Now, the vital question before this court is whether in the factual background of the circumstances discussed above, is it legally permissible for the management to make deduction of Rs.50,967/- from the gratuity amount of the claimant when he has regularly worked with the management from 30.9.2007 to 04.04.2009?

12. During the course of arguments, attention of this Tribunal was also invited by Ld. A/R for the respective parties to Ex.MW1/W1 which reads as under :

'As per record your date of birth is 08.09.1947 and you were to retire on 30.09.2007 (A/N) but for mistake

in the records you continued to work till date. You seize to work with immediate effect. Your account and

other dues will be settled in due course of time as per the university rules.'

13. The Claimant has also examined WW-2 Sh.Surinder Bhardwaj, who has tried to prove that claimant belonged to the union. He further deposed that claimant gave a written complaint to the union before raising the present dispute. He further admitted that service of the claimant was not regularized by management till date and the claimant has filed another industrial dispute for regularization of his services.

14. In the present case, perusal of the documents Ex.WW1/6 and WW1/8 shows that Bhupender Parkash and Sheesh Ram both are being paid pension by the management as perusal of both these letters shows that arrears of pension have been paid to both these workmen from 1.10.2004 to 31.01.2005 and 1.07.2004 to 30.09.2004 respectively.

15. Now, the question which arises for consideration is whether denial of pension to the claimant herein is legally justified when admittedly his colleagues/co-workers, namely, Bhupender Parkash and Sheesh Ram, who were also daily wagers have been granted pension, or whether the deduction of amount of Rs.50,967/- made by the management is legally justified when claimant has admittedly worked during the period 30.9.2007 to 04.04.2008. To my mind, it does not lie in the mouth of management to say that claimant is not entitled for full salary on account of the reason that his date of retirement was much earlier as his date of birth is actually 08.9.1947 instead of 08.9.1949 and in the ordinary course, he would have retired on 30.9.2007 particularly, when claimant has worked beyond 30.09.2007 till the date of his retirement 04.04.2008. All these facts were on record and seen and examined by the administration while claimant was in service. After the retirement, deduction of amount of Rs.50,967/- by the management from the gratuity etc. is neither legally permissible nor justified under the law. The A/R for the management could not file any authority so as to show that deduction of Rs.50,967/- from the gratuity of claimant is legally permissible when claimant has actually worked with the management. Similarly denial of pension to the claimant is also against the rule of law when his colleagues/co-workers have been granted pension by the management as is clear from Ex.WW1/6 and WW1/8.The law is fairly settled that all those persons or employees, who are similarly placed on equal posts are entitled to uniform term and there cannot be any discrimination against such employee in grant of pension and other benefits otherwise this may amount to violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India which prescribes equality of treatment to all those who are similarly placed.

16. As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that action of the management in not paying full salary to the claimant till his actual date 04.04.2008 and making deduction of Rs.50,967/- from his gratuity is legally unjustified and not permissible under the law. It is held that claimant is also entitled to pension like his other counterparts namely, Shri Bhupender Prakash and Sheesh Ram. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under section 17 of the Act.

Dated : 1.11.2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9409

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2839.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार अध्ीक्षक अभियंता, समन्वय मंडल ;विद्युतद्ध सीपीडब्ल्यूडी, नई दिल्ली एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 31/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/160/2013-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2017

S.O. 2839.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. Case No. 31/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Superintendent Engineer, Coordination Circle (Elect.) CPWD, New Delhi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14.11.2017.

[No. L-42011/160/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1: ROOM No.38-A (GF) KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, SHAHDRA, DELHI- 32

ID NO. 31/2014

Shri Naresh Kumar, Beldar, S/o Shri Hukam Singh, As represented by All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Shangathan (Regd), House No.4823, Gali No.13, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi – 110032 …Workmen

Vs.

The Superintending Engineer, Coordination Circle (Electrical) CPWD, East Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi

…Respondent/Management

AWARD

1. In the present case, a reference was received from Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, under Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Tribunal Act ( in short the Act) vided Order No. L-42011/160/2013-IR (DU) dated 24.2.2014 for adjudication of an industrial dispute terms of which are as under :

'Whether regularization of services of the workman Sh.Naresh Kumar w.e.f.11.12.2006 instead of 1.1.93

is legal? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?'

2. Both the parties were put to notice and it is stated in the statement of claim filed by Naresh Kumar (in short, the claimant), that he was appointed as Beldar on muster roll basis w.e.f. 12.12.85 through employment exchange after fulfilling all conditions of recruitment rules for the post of Beldar in CPWD. He has completed 240 days of each calendar year since the time of his initial appointment and his service was regularized by the management on 11.12.2006 vide letter dated 11.7.2011.

3. It is the case of claimant that services of the junior workmen were regularized w.e.f. 5.8.2002 as is clear from Annexure 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 17.1.86 issued directions for regularization of all casual workmen of CPWD who had completed six months of regular service on muster roll basis. Thereafter, management framed a scheme for regularization of all daily rated workmen of CPWD and also created 8982 posts under different categories including Beldar after getting approval from Ministry of Finance. As per seniority list prepared by the management vide letter dated 9.4.2003, name of the claimant Naresh Kumar was mentioned at Serial No.33 and name of Ram Prasad, who is junior to him, is mentioned at Sl.No.157, whose services had been regularized on 5.8.2002 as is clear9410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] from Annexure 4. Claimant Naresh Kumar was granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.9.93 and ads per temporary status order issued by the department, 50% of the services of the workman is to be counted for the purpose of granting pensionery/terminal benefits. As a result of promotion of the junior workmen, they have become eligible for sitting in the trade test for the purpose of the purpose of promotions/grant of ACP benefits. Due to non-regularization of services of the claimant before his juniors, the whole service conditions of the workman will get affected and he will not be entitled for old pension benefits. This has been unfair labour practice by the management. The claim petition is supported by affidavit.

4. The claim was contested by the management who filed W.S. thereto and took preliminary objections of maintainability and no cause of action. It is alleged on merits that services of Randhir Singh and Ram Prasad Tiwari have been regularized vide order dated 22.2.2001 in O.A.No.2569/99 passed by the Hon'ble CAT and Directorate General letter No.19/150/99-EC-10 dated 8.7.2002. There is also reference of case State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has given directions for regularization of services of irregular workmen as one time measure and it was on the basis of above order of Hon'ble Apex Court w.e.f. 11.12.2006 that it has been decided to regularize the services of said workmen. Management has denied the other averments made in the statement of claim.

5. The claimant filed rejoinder to the W.S. filed by management and reiterated the stand taken in the statement of claim.

6. On the basis of these facts, this Tribunal vide order dated 08.6.2015 framed the following issues.

(1) Whether regularization of services of the workman, Shri Naresh Kumar with effect from 11.12.2006 instead of 01.01.1993 is legal. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

(2) Whether the claim filed by the claimant is legally maintainable, as alleged?

7. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their stand taken in their respective pleadings.

8. The claimant in order to prove the case against the management examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/6. The management in order to rebut the case of claimant examined Sudhir Kumar, Executive Engineer, as MW1 and his affidavit is Ex.MW1/A.

Issue No.1:

9. It is the case of claimant herein that he was appointed as Beldar on muster roll w.e.f. 12.12.85 in CPWD through employment exchange. This fact is also supported from the documents Ex.WW1/1 which clearly shows that claimant Naresh Kumar had joined the service as a Beldar with the management on 12.12.85. In para 9 of this document, there is mention of working days of muster roll for the year 1985 to 1990 of the claimant. The claimant has also filed the office order E.WW1/2 which shows that one Randhir Singh was also engaged as Beldar/muster roll/daily wager on 11.11.86 and his service was regularized from 5.8.2002. Similarly Ram Prasad Tiwari was engaged on 10.1.91 as Beldar and his service was regularized on 5.8.2002. The claimant has also filed document Ex.WW1/3 dated 25.8.88 issued by the management in which there is reference to the Writ Petition – Surinder Singh Vs. State (PWD) which was decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 17.1.1986. It is further clear from the perusal of this office letter that muster roll workers beldars who have put six years of regular service are to be regularized on or before 7.12.88. The management has also written to the subordinate officials to furnish service record of said beldar/muster roll workers. Since Hon'ble Apex Court gave directions in Surinder Singh's case (Supra), 8982 posts in various categories of workcharged Establishment and regular classified establishment were created. There is list of various posts annexed with his letter. The claimant has also file list of posts of various categories including that of beldar with this letter. Later on, department had issued office order dated 26.4.2010 which deals with the abolition of the posts pertaining to workcharged establishment.

10. It was strongly argued on behalf of workman hat when 8982 posts were created after taking necessary approval from the Central Government consequent to the case Surinder Singh Case (Supra) in that eventuality it was incumbent upon the management to have regularized the services of the claimant as per the said judgment. The claimant also made reference during the course of argument though office memorandum Ex.WW1/5 which deals with the grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers, this letter clearly clarifies as per office memorandum No.51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10.9.93 letter issued by the Directorate is applicable of the daily rated workers also. During the course of arguments, attention of this Tribunal was also invited to the workcharged establishment Manual 2000 which contained complete guidelines for grant of temporary status of temporary labours/ beldars. This establishment manual clearly provides that temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who have completed continued service of at least one year and this confirmation would be without reference to regular group D posts. Admittedly, claimant herein was working in group D post. Clauses 8 of the said manual deals with procedure of filling of group D posts. Ex.WW1/6 is statement of claim filed before the ALC.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9411

11. Now the vital question before this Tribunal is whether the claimant herein is entitled for regularization of his service w.e.f. 1.1.93 or from the date his junior wad promoted in stead of 11.12.2006. The only contention raised on behalf of management that service of workmen Randhir Singh and Ram Prasad was regularized in view of the order of Hon'ble CAT in OA No.96/99 and subsequent letter of Directorate General dated 8.7.00. It is further clear from the record that Randhir Singh Beldar was appointed on 11.11.86 whereas Ram Prasad was engaged on 10.10.91. Service of both these workers were regularized on 5.8.02. Admittedly, both these were junior to the claimants the claimant was engaged as muster roll beldar on 12.12.85. In such circumstances, the claimant herein was entitled for regularized much before his co-workers Randhir Singh and Ram Prasad. The claimant had made detailed statement in affidavit Ex.WW1/A in his regard and he has been subjected to cross examination wherein he has stated that he was regularized w.e.f.11.12.2006. He has further clarified that he was not a party to a case filed by co workers Randhir Singh and Ram Prasad before Hon'ble CAT.

12. Now, the other important question is whether the claimant herein can be denied the benefit of regularization of service solely for the reason that he was not a party to the Writ Petition filed by above two co-workers of the claimant herein. Sudhir Kumar Tiwari while appearing as MW1 has also stated in his affidavit Ex.MW1/A that services of Randhir Singh and Ram Prasad were regularized vide order OA No.2569/99 of Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi and Directorate General letter dated 8.7.2002. He has admitted in his cross examination while appearing as MW1 that claimant herein was granted temporary status from 1.9.1993 whereas his service was regularized on 11.12.2006. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sate of U.P. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 while considering the question of grant of equal and similar benefits to similar set of employees who were not party, observed as under :

"The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."

13. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above judgment that when the Hon'ble court has decided the question of law regarding upscaling of seniority etc and when the particular set of employees is given a relief by the court all other similar set of employees are to be treated alike by extending said benefits. Otherwise it will be non qua discrimination and the said action would be in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Therefore, denial of benefit of seniority to the claimant from the date since when he is to be promoted would be against the rule of law. Accordingly, it is held that claimant herein is entitled for regularization of service from 1.1.93 when he became legible for regularization.

14. The contention of the management that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Wati, relief could not have been granted to the claimant herein, is without any substance and the same is liable to be rejected. The engagement of the claimant herein is muster roll beldar and was not irregular as he was engaged in due course and in accordance with selection procedure. In fact, his name was sponsored by employment exchange.

9412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Umadevi's judgment , in fact, deals with legal as well as irregular employment and suggested guidelines were issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court restraining the State in future from making back door entry. However, one time realization was also given to the State to consider such irregular appointments. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union & Ors. 2015, Labour Industrial cases, 2483 held as under :

"32. The power given to the Industrial and Labour Courts under section 30 is very wide and he

affirmative action mentioned therein is inclusive and not exhaustive. Employing badlis, casuals or

temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and

privileges of permanent employees in an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item

6 of Schedule IV. Once such unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is established in the

complaint, the Industrial and Labour Courts are empowered to issue preventive as well as positive

direction to an erring employer.

33. The provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act and the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts

provided therein were not at all under consideration in Umadevi. As a matter of fact, the issue like the

present one pertaining to unfair labour practice was not at all referred to, considered or decided in

Umadevi. Unfair labour practice on the part of the employer in engaging employees as badlis, casuals or

temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and

privileges of permanent employees as provided in Item 6 of Schedule IV and the power of the Industrial

and Labour Courts under Section 30 of the Act did not fall for adjudication or consideration before the

Constitution Bench.

36. Umadevi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section

30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have

been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where

the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi cannot be held to have overridden the

powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the

MRTU and the PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of

Schedule IV is established."

15. In view of the above legal position, it is held that Uma Devi's case discussed above, does not stand in the way of regularization of service of workman.

Issue No.2

16. It is clear from the evidence on record that management vide Office Memorandum Ex.WW1/5 has clarified that orders contained in D.P.& T. Office Memorandum dated 10.9.93 are applicable to all daily rated workers engaged in C.P.W.D. either on Muster Roll or otherwise. Since claimant herein is working as Beldar on Muster Roll since 1985 as such he is liable to be regularized from 1.1.93, when services of his counterparts or junior to him were regularized. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of workman.

17. No specific evidence was adduced by the management. Even otherwise the claim filed by the claimant herein is legally maintainable in as much as claimant falls within the definition of a workman and management of CPWD also falls within the definition of industry. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 S.C. 2532, that definition of workman as given in the Industrial Disputes Act is very comprehensive and include every type of workman. The relevant part of the judgment is as under :

"The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of

employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all

relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)of the

Act.

The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee

or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from

which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing

whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed

wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.

15. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability of industrial dispute on the ground that the

employee is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour

Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for

hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an

industry. Once the test of employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is

satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of `workman'."

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9413

18. As a sequel to my above discussion, it is held that service of claimant Naresh Kumar is liable to be regularized from 1.1.93 when services of his counterparts or juniors were regularized. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : 2.11.2017

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2840.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 15/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30.11.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/88/2014-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 13th December, 2017

S.O. 2840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30.11.2017.

[No. L-22012/88/2014-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 9th day of October, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 15/2015

Between:

The President, (Sri Bandari Satyanarayana), Telengana Trade Union Council, Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road, Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial - 504208 Adilabad District

…Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur(P.O.)-504 303 Adilabad District

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner          :    Party in person
For the Respondent          :    Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/ 88/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 23.1.2015 referred the following dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,9414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Nalaveti Rajeshan, Ex-Lineman, SRP-I Incl., Sreerampur Area with effect from 31.10.2003 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 15/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The case was posted for filing of claim statement of the Petitioner union. Inspite of availing several opportunities, the Petitioner union and the Respondent remained absent and no representation was made on behalf of the Petitioner union which clearly indicates that perhaps the dispute of the Petitioner union has already been settled. In the circumstances stated above, it is felt that the Petitioner union is not interested in pursuing the dispute. Thus, 'No dispute' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 9th day of October, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2841.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 20/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 13th December, 2017

S.O. 2841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 20/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.12.2017.

[No. L-22013/01/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 7th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 20/2008

Between:

Sri Kosana Srinivas, S/o Late Babu Rao,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9415 C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District.

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., KK-5 Incline, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. …Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner        :    M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent        :    Sri M.V. Hanumanatha Rao,  Advocate

AWARD

Sri Kosana Srinivas who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/3974 dated 10.7.2004 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler on 23.2.1997. The Petitioner was regular to his duties till the year 2000. During the year 2001 the Petitioner suffered from ill-health and other family problems and the Petitioner could not be regular to his duties during the year 2001. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 19.2/07.03/2002 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the year 2001, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. MMR/PER/D/072/3974 dated 10.7.2004. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 2001, as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 4 years of continuous service in the Respondents' management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. MMR/PER/D/072/3974 dated 10.7.2004 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 13.3.1999 as Badli Coal Filler but not on 23.2.1997. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause9416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 30.3.2010.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments U/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support of their claim.

6. In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Kosana Srinivas is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No. I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. He was getting treatment in company's area hospital. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment. But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, after the death of the father of the Petitioner, due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 27 years, he is now aged about 36 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward at the age of 36 years to work under the Respondents. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service in order to get all his terminal benefits. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for about 4 years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Kosana Srinivas is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Kosana Srinivas is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9417 opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. MMR/PER/D/072/3974 dated 10.7.2004 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Kosana Srinivas be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of three months. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company's hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 7th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2842.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 48/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 13th December, 2017

S.O. 2842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 48/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.12.2017.

[No. L-22013/01/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer9418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 7th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 48/2008

Between:

Sri Bejjanki Narsimha Chary, S/o Venkataratnam, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Post : Kalyankhani, Adilabad District.

2. The Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RK-1A Incline, Mandamarri, Adilabad District.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner        :     M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent        :     Sri S.M. Subhani,  Advocate

AWARD

Sri Bejjanki Narsimha Chary who worked as Badli Coal filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring proceeding No. P/RKP/16/01/4870 dated 4.12.2001 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows :

On 15.5.1996 the Petitioner was initially appointed as Badli Coal Filler under compassionate grounds and he has been continuing in service without any adverse remarks. While the matters stood thus, a proceeding bearing No. P/RKP/16/01/4870 dated 4.12.2001 was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty during the period from January, 2000 to April, 2000, which amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No.25.25. It is also stated that charge sheet dated 21.1.2001 was sent to the Petitioner's house which was returned undelivered, and as such a paper advertisement was issued, advising the Petitioner to attend for enquiry, and as the Petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the scheduled date, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. It is stated that the Petitioner was undergoing treatment in his native village and he was not aware of either issuance of charge sheet or any publication made by the Respondents in the newspapers. The Petitioner could have certainly participated in the enquiry, if really he was in receipt of the charge sheet or notice of paper publication. It is stated that the Petitioner was unable to perform his duties regularly during the year 2000 only on account of his ill-health and other family problems, for this he could not attend his duties sincerely, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 4.12.2001. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents' management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered continuous service in the Respondents' management. He remained absent from duty only on account of his sickness and family problems which[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9419 ought not to have been treated as a serious misconduct. The Petitioner made the above stated submissions, but without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 4.12.2001. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. P/RKP/16/01/4870 dated 4.12.2001 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 15.5.1996 as Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without sufficient cause on a number of days and attended 01 day for duty during the calendar year 2000. A charge sheet was sent to his last known home address as per the procedure as he was not attending for duty, which was returned undelivered. Subsequently, the same was published in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper dated 20.7.2001 advising the Petitioner to attend an enquiry fixed on 26.7.2001. The Petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the charge sheet nor attended the enquiry, as such an ex-parte enquiry was conducted wherein the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving an opportunity to make representation against the findings made in the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record, and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, Respondent No.1 was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition be dismissed in limini.

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 16.6.2010.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support of their claim.

6. In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Bejjanki Narsimha Chary is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to his treatment owing to ill-health and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and treatment and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry.

9420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 40 years, no penalty has been imposed upon him previously, he is now aged about 49 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for his reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has worked under the Respondents. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Bejjanki Narsimha Chary is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Bejjanki Narsimha Chary is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. P/RKP/16/01/4870 dated 4.12.2001 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Bejjanki Narsimha Chary be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company's hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 7th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9421

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2017

का.आ. 2843.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या एलसी 108/2006द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/01/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 13th December, 2017

S.O. 2843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC 108/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.12.2017.

[No. L-22013/01/2017-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated : the 7th day of November, 2017

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 108/2006

Between:

Sri Gandam Banaiah, S/o Laxmaiah, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate, Flat No.G7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls, Kachiguda, Hyderabad

…Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District.

2. The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., KK-5 Incline, Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. …Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner        :    M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent        :    M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Gandam Banaiah who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. P.RG.I/32A/99/6451 dated 10.10.99 issued by Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as badli filler in the year 1989 and thereafter his services have been regularized as coal filler. While the matters stood thus, two charge sheets dated 25.11.98 and 19.2.99 were issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents alleging that the Petitioner absented for duty which amounts to misconduct under9422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] company's Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. MMR/PER/D/072/381 dated 2.1.2004. It is stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly during the year 1999 as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondent management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has rendered 15 years of continuous service in the Respondents' management. The Petitioner approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order No. MMR/PER/D/072/381 dated 2.1.2004 issued by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondents while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was appointed in the Respondents' company on 8.11.1989 as Badli Filler and confirmed as coal filler with effect from 1.1.1996. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has attended for the enquiry on the dates fixed and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. In view of the memo filed by the Counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 29.4.2009.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in support of their claim.

6. In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Gandam Banaiah is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

7. Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that due to ill-health and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing severe punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has given capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company's Standing Orders.

8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the Respondents' company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated into service.

9. Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his illness and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 16, 2017/अग्रहायण 25, 1939 9423

After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 40 years, no penalty has been imposed upon him previously, he is now aged about 50 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under the Respondents, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of punishment are enumerated in company's Standing Orders. The Petitioner is a first offender and has already worked 10 years under the Respondent. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondents for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Gandam Banaiah is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10. Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Gandam Banaiah is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondents' management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondents' management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

Proceeding No. P.RG.I/32A/99/6451 dated 10.10.99 issued by Respondent No.1 is declared as illegal and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman Sri Gandam Banaiah be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 180 musters in a year and the management shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman will not be terminated and he will be cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company's hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 7th day of November, 2017.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

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.

Cite this issue. Weekly Gazette of India, Government of India, 16 December 2017. Indian Gazettes, https://egazette.servantsofknowledge.in/details/in.gazette.central.w.2017-12-16.182100/. Archive identifier in.gazette.central.w.2017-12-16.182100.