7016 GI/2017
(9195)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 50]
ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 10—fnlEcj 16] 2017] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 19—vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
No. 50]
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 10—DECEMBER 16, 2017, SATURDAY/ AGRAHAYANA 19—AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;
(dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2789.—dsUnz ljdkj] dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx dh fnUkkad 15-11-2017 dh iwoZ vf/lwpuk la- 228@49@
2017&,ohMh&II dk vf/Øe.k djrs gq, rFkk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6 ds lkFk
ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi /kjk (1) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, NRrhlx<+ jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx (lh&lsD'ku) dh fnukad
29-11-2017 dh vf/lwpuk la- ,iQ&131@x`g&lh@2017 }kjk tkjh dh xbZ lgefr ls iqfyl LVs'ku ikaMªh] jk;iqj] NRrhlx<+ esa Hkkjrh;
naM lafgrk] 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 384] 506 ds v/hr ntZ izkFkfedh la- 340@17 ds varxZr ekeys esa rFkk
iqfyl Fkkuk flfoy ykbal] jk;iqj] NRrhlx<+ esa lwpuk izkSn~;ksfxdh vf/fu;e] 2000 dh /kjk 67 (d) ds varxZr izkFkfedh la-
665@2017 ds varxZr ekeys esa ntZ vijk/ksa rFkk mDr ekeyksa esa fd, x, vijk/ksa vkSj mDr vijk/ksa dks djus ds Øe esa fd, x,
vFkok leku rF;ksa ls mRiUu gksus okys vU; vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa vFkok muls tqMs+ iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kksa rFkk "kM;a=kksa dk vUos"k.k djus vkSj
iwNrkN djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj U;k;kf/dkj {ks=k dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ NRrhlx<+ jkT; ij
djrh gSA
[iQk-la- 228@49@2017&,ohMh&II]
,l- ih- vkj- f=kikBh] voj lfpo
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.
िव त
िव त
िव त
िव त मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(राज व
(राज व
(राज व
(राज व िवभाग)
िवभाग)
िवभाग)
िवभाग)
नई द ली, 5 दस बर, 2017
सं. 2/2017
सं. 2/2017
सं. 2/2017
सं. 2/2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2790
2790
2790
2790.—जबक क सरकार ने फा. सं. ए. 12026/7/2017-शा. I, के दनांक 10 अ तूबर, 2017 के का. आ. सं.
306/2017 ारा सु ी अन या रे, भारतीय राज! व सेवा (सी. शु. एवं के. उ. शु.: 1980) (सेवािनवृ' त) को त! कर एवं िवदेशी मुा
छलसाधक (स पि. समप/ण) अिधिनयम, 1976 के तहत ! थािपत अपीलीय अिधकरण के सद! य के 3प म पद का भार 4हण करने
क5 तारीख से तीन वष8 क5 अविध के िलए अथवा 62 वष8 क5 आयु तक अथवा अगले आदेश= तक, जो भी पहले हो, िनयु त कया है।
और जबक, सु ी अन या रे ने 23 अ तूबर, 2017 के पूवा8Aन से उ त अिधकरण के सद! य के काया8लय का भार संभाला है।
अब, अिधकरण, अपीलीय अिधकरण एवं अ य ािधकरण (सद! य= क5 अह8ताC, अनुभव और सेवा क5 अ य शतD) िनयमावली,
2017 के साथ पEठत त! कर एवं िवदेशी मुा छलसाधक (स पि. समप/ण) अिधिनयम, 1976 (1976 का 13) क5 धारा 12 क5
उपधारा (1) ारा द' त शिGय= का योग करते Hए क सरकार सु ी अन या रे को उ त अिधकरण के सद! य के 3प म िनयुिG को
अिधसूिचत करती है।
सु ी अन या रे काया8लय का भार 23 अ तूबर, 2017 के पूवा8Aन से तीन वषI क5 अविध के िलए अथवा बासठ वष8 क5 आयु पूरी
करने तक अथवा अगले आदेश= तक, जो भी पहले हो, धाEरत करगी।
[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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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.
fons'k ea=kky;
(lhihoh izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 4 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2791-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 41) dh /kjk 2 ds
[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa dsaæ ljdkj Jh lat; dqekj ,oa Jh mTToy tkbLoy] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad 4 fnlEcj]
2017 ls Hkkjr ds jktnwrkokl] gokuk esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A
¹la- Vh&4330@01@2015º
izdk'k pUn] funs'kd (dksalqyj)
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.)
उपभो ता
उपभो ता
उपभो ता
उपभो ता मामले
मामले
मामले
मामले, , , , खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
(उपभो ता
उपभो ता
उपभो ता
उपभो ता मामले िवभाग
मामले िवभाग
मामले िवभाग
मामले िवभाग)
(भारतीय मानक यू
भारतीय मानक यू
भारतीय मानक यू
भारतीय मानक यूरो
रोरो
रो)
नई द ली, 7 दस बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2793
2793
2793
2793.—भारतीय मानक J यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक J यूरो एतद्ारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइसस= के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म दए गए हM, वे ! वीकृत कर दए
गए हM:-
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
Oम
संP या
लाइसस संP या
! वीकृत करने
क5 ितिथ
लाइससधारी का नाम
व प.ा
भारतीय मानक का
शीष8क
भा मा
भाग
अनु
वष8
1.
एल-
9512382717
02.06.2017
मै0 दनेश फैिRकेशनस,
धानी फोगट रोड, चरखी
दादरी,
िजला िभवानी,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9199
2.
एल-
9512383323
02.06.2017
मै0 सर! वती कं! V शनस,
िह୍सार रोड, तोशाम,
िजला िभवानी,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
3.
एल-
9512383222
05.06.2017
मै0 पायनीयर पैनल
ोड टस,
वीपीओ इसमािलया II-बी,
कुलटाना बैरी रोड,
तहसील सांपला,
िजला रोहतक – 124501,
हEरयाणा
मX यम धन' व के पूव8-
लेिमनेEटड फाबर बोड8
14587
-
-
1998
4.
एल-
9512383424
07.06.2017
मै0 जांगरा िबYडग
मैटीEरयल सZ लायर,
ग[व 3Eरयावास,
िजला झ] जर – 124106,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
5.
एल-
9512382818
08.06.2017
मै0 . नु टाइ स फै टरी,
दादरी रोड, वीपीओ
हलुवास,
िजला िभवानी - 127021,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
6.
एल-
9512382919
08.06.2017
मै0 आद इ टराइिसस,
वी. पी. ओ. पनहेड़ा खुद8,
ब लभगढ़,
िजला फरीदाबाद -
121004,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
7.
एल-
9512383121
08.06.2017
मै0 अजय कंO5ट उ`ोग,
िपलानी रोड, बीआरसीएम
कालेज के नज़दीक, बीहाल,
तहसील लोहा3,
िजला िभवानी – 127028,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
8.
एल-
9512383020
10.06.2017
मै0 जय बाबा दयादास
कंO5ट उ`ोग,
वी. पी. ओ. धनाना,
िजला िभवानी – 127031,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
9.
एल-
9512383517
12.06.2017
मै0 कुबेर जी एa ड
एसोिसएटस,
रेलवे लाइन, मुनकटी से
मरैली रोड,
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
9200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
दकोरा,
िजला पलवल,
हEरयाणा
10.
एल-
9512383618
15.06.2017
मै0 सोरौट टाइ स उ`ोग,
पु हाना रोड, होडल,
िजला पलवल,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
11.
एल-
9590000917
15.06.2017
मै0 सै को गो ड िलo,
मेघा िसटी मॉल, जी.एफ.
शॉप नं 2,
एम. जी. रोड,
िजला गुड़ग[व – 122002,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िश प व! तुC
–
महीनता एवं मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
12.
एल-
9512383820
19.06.2017
मै0 नीरज इ टरलोdकग
टाइ स उ`ोग,
बस ! टैa ड के नज़दीक,
वी. पी. ओ. - च[दी,
िजला रोहतक – 124514,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
13.
एल-
9512384418
19.06.2017
मै0 अनमोल रतना
इ टरलोdकग टाइ स फै टरी,
ग[व दरौली, तहसील
कोसली,
िजला रेवाड़ी – 123411,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
14.
एल-
9512383921
20.06.2017
मै0 नाइस इ टराइिसस,
वाड8 नंo 8, बाबा राइस िमल
के सामने,
होडल,
िजला पलवल – 121106,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
15.
एल-
9512384620
20.06.2017
मै0 केपीसी फलै सी टयूबस
ाo िलo,
Z लॉट नंo 7ए, 13/3, मथुरा
रोड,
िजला फरीदाबाद –
121003,
हEरयाणा
िचनाई और कंO5ट
वाले ब[ध= म योग म
आने वाले अनु! थ
संकोच जोड़= पर पी वी
सी जल रोधक
15058
-
-
2002
16.
एल-
9512384022
22.06.2017
मै0 आर. डी. कंO5ट कंo,
वीपीओ कुलटाना, सांपला
बेरी रोड,
सांपला,
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9201
िजला रोहतक – 124501,
हEरयाणा
17.
एल-
9512384224
22.06.2017
मै0 बाबा मुंिगपा कं! V शन
कंo,
वी पी ओ िनगाना खुद8,
तोशाम,
िजला िभवानी – 127021,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
18.
एल-
9512384123
23.06.2017
मै0 एल. एस. केबल इिaडया
ाo िलo,
Z लॉट नंo 28-31, सै टर-5,
फेस - II, जी सी बावल,
बावल,
िजला रेवाड़ी - 123501,
हEरयाणा
पोलीिवनाइल
लोराइड (भारी
डयूटी) इलै Vीक केबल
भाग 1: 1100 कलो
वाट क5 और तक क5
काय8काEरता वो टता के
िलए
1554
01
-
1988
19.
एल-
9512384317
29.06.2017
मै0 जे. एस. इ टराइिसस,
ग[व बानीपुर, पी. ओ.
बावल,
िजला रेवाड़ी,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
20.
एल-
9512384519
30.06.2017
मै0 मंगलम इ fाटैक,
वी. पी. ओ. पिडयानवास,
िजला रेवाड़ी – 123401,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]
एस. के. वमा8, वैgािनक ई एवं मुख
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
9202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9203
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
9204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20.
L-
9512384519
30.06.2017
M/s. Manglam Infratech,
V.P.O. Padianwas,
Distt. Rewari,
Haryana
Precast Concrete
Blocks for Paving
15658
-
-
2006
[No. CMD/13:11]
S. K. VERMA, Scientist E & Head
नई द ली, 7 दस बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2794
2794
2794
2794.— भारतीय मानक J यूरो (माणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक J यूरो एतhारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िन न िववरण वाले लाइसस= को उनके आगे दशा8यी गई तारीख से रद्द /! थिगत
कर दया गया है :-
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
Oम
संP या
लाइसस संP या
सीएम
/
एल
लाइससधारी का नाम व प.ा
लाइसस के अ तग8त व! तु
/
Oम
स बj भारतीय मानक का
शीष8क
रद करने क5 ितिथ
01
एल
एल
एल
एल-9512368723 मै. आईयूपी िज दल मैट स एa ड
एलोएस िल.,
दहकोरा रोड, ग[व रोहद,
बहादुरगढ़,
िजला झ] जर – 124501,
हEरयाणा
बत8न= और रसोईघर सािधl= के
िलए अ प िनकल ऑ! टेिनटीक
! टेनलैस ! टील क5 चादर एवं
प' ती
आई एस 15997:2012
22.06.2017
[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]
एस. के. वमा8, वैgािनक ई एवं मुख
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9205
नई द ली, 7 दस बर, 2017
का
का
का
का.आ. . . . 2795
2795
2795
2795.—भारतीय मानक Jयूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म भारतीय
मानक Jयूरो एतदारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइसस= के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म दए गए हM, वे !वीकृत कर दए गए हM:-
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
Oम
संP या
लाइसस संP या
! वीकृत करने
क5 ितिथ
लाइससधारी का नाम
व प.ा
भारतीय मानक का
शीष8क
भा मा
भाग
अनु
वष8
1.
एल-
9512382018
02.05.2017
मै0 दीप ] वैलस8,
ओ ड िबजली बोड8 के नज़दीक,
बस ! टैa ड, बहल,
लोहा3,
िजला िभवानी - 127028,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
2.
एल-
9512382220
04.05.2017
मै0 अपना ] वैलस8,
शॉप नं0 781/2, Yलक रोड,
अ4वाल धम8शाला के नज़दीक,
ओ ड फरीदाबाद,
िजला फरीदाबाद,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
3.
एल-
9512382321
04.05.2017
मै0 अपना ] वैलस8,
शॉप नं0 781/2, Yलक रोड,
अ4वाल धम8शाला के नज़दीक,
ओ ड फरीदाबाद,
िजला फरीदाबाद,
हEरयाणा
च[दी एवं च[दी
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
4.
एल-
9512382422
04.05.2017
मै0 पायनीयर पैनल ोड टस,
वीपीओ इसमािलया II-बी,
कुलटाना बेरी रोड,
तहसील सांपला,
िजला रोहतक - 124501,
हEरयाणा
सामा य योजनो के
िलए मX यम धन' व के
रेशा बोड8
12406
-
-
2003
5.
एल-
9512382523
05.05.2017
मै0 u लेन एपलाइंिसस,
आई-34, इa ड! Vीयल एEरया,
फेस-I,
िजला फरीदाबाद - 121003,
हEरयाणा
िवत पेVोिलयम गैस=
के साथ यु त घरेलू
गैस चू हे
4246
-
-
2002
9206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
एल-
9590000117
08.05.2017
मै0 पवन ] वैलस8,
मेन बाज़ार, माटनहेल,
िजला झ] जर,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
7.
एल-
9590000218
08.05.2017
मै0 राजन ] वैलस8,
रेलवे रोड,
िजला रोहतक,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
8.
एल-
9590000319
08.05.2017
मै0 मलहोlा स स ] वैलस8,
शॉप नं0 37, पािलका बाज़ार,
िसिवल रोड,
िजला रोहतक - 124001,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
9.
एल-
9590000420
08.05.2017
मै0 मधुसूदन ] वैलस8,
रेलवे रोड, फोटो वाली गली
का कॉन8र,
िजला रोहतक - 124001,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
10.
एल-
9590000521
08.05.2017
मै0 लाल च द अजय कुमार,
रेलवे रोड,
िजला रोहतक - 124001,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
11.
एल-
9512382624
15.05.2017
मै0 जय कसान
इ टराइिसस,
लोहा3 रोड, बादड़ा,
िजला िभवानी - 127308,
हEरयाणा
खड़ंजे के िलए पूव8
ढिलत कंO5ट J लॉक
15658
-
-
2006
12.
एल-
9590000622
17.05.2017
मै0 लाला बाल कशन ] वैलस8,
वाड8 नं0 4, अनाज मa डी,
हेली मa डी,
तहसील पटौदी,
िजला गुड़ग[व,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
13.
एल-
9590000723
17.05.2017
मै0 लाला बाल कशन ] वैलस8,
वाड8 नं0 4, अनाज मa डी,
हेली मa डी,
तहसील पटौदी,
िजला गुड़ग[व,
हEरयाणा
च[दी एवं च[दी
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
2112
-
-
2014
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9207
14.
एल-
9590000824
25.05.2017
मै0 लूना,
बी-288, सुशांत लोक-1,
िजला गुड़ग[व - 122002,
हEरयाणा
! वण8 एवं ! वण8
िम धातु
आभूषण/िशल् प
वस् तुC –
महीनता एवं
मुहरांकन
1417
-
-
2016
15.
एल-
9512383719
31.05.2017
मै0 वािलटी िलिमटेड,
सोफता,
िजला पलवल - 121004,
हEरयाणा
अनुसEरत फामू8ला -
अनुपूरक आहार
15757
-
-
2007
[सं. सीएमडी/13:11]
एस. के. वमा8, वैgािनक ई एवं मुख
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
9208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[No. CMD/13:11]
S. K. VERMA, Scientist E & Head
नई द ली, 7 दस बर, 2017
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 2796
2796
2796
2796.—भारतीय मानक J यूरो (माणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक J यूरो एतद्ारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िन न िववरण वाले लाइसस= को उनके आगे दशा8यी गई तारीख से रद्द
/! थिगत कर दया गया है :-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9209
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
Oम
संP या
लाइसस संP या
सीएम
/
एल
लाइससधारी का नाम व प.ा
लाइसस के अ तग8त व! तु
/
Oम
स बj भारतीय मानक का शीष8क
रद करने क5 ितिथ
01
एल-9801584
मै0 सूया8 ोड टस,
ग[व बरौली , खेवट नं0 1, खतानी नं0
1, मु! तकल नं0 12, कला नं0
15/5/1,
ब लभगढ़,
िजला फरीदबाबाद – 121004,
हEरयाणा
पैकेजब द पेय जल
(पैकेजब द ाकृितक िमनरल
जल के अलावा)
आई एस 14543:2004
08.05.2017
[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]
एस. के. वमा8, वैgािनक ई एवं मुख
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 gSA
9210
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9211
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
9212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9213
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
9214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9215
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
9216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9217
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
9218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9219
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
9220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9221
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
9222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9223
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
9224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9225
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
9226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9227
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
[फा. सं. आर-25011/21/2017-ओआर-I]
पवन कुमार, 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
9228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9229
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
9230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9231
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
9232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9233
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
9234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9235
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
9236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9237
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
9238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9239
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
9240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9241
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
9242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9243
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
[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
9244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9245
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
[फा. सं. आर-25011/21/2017-ओआर-I]
पवन कुमार, 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9247
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
[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 ldsxkA
9248
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9249
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
9250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9251
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
9252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9253
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
9254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[फा. सं. आर-25011/21/2017-ओआर-I]
पवन कुमार, 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)
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
9256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9257
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
9258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9259
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
9260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9261
61
00
01
70
62
00
07
24
63
00
09
38
64
00
07
48
[F. No. R-25011/21/2017-OR-I]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2017
dkdkdkdk-vkvkvkvk- 2800
2800
2800
2800.— के ीय सरकार ने पेVोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न) अिधिनयम,
1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम इसके पvात उG अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क5 धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क5 गई, भारत
सरकार के पेVोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंlालय क5 अिधसूचना िजसका काशन भारत के राजपl संPया 27 दनांक 08.07.2017
का. आ. संPया 1582 दनांक 22.06.2017, भाग II, खaड 3, उप-खaड (ii) तथा राजपl संPया 34 दनांक 26.08.2017 का. आ.
संPया 1960 दनांक 21.08.2017, भाग II, खaड 3, उप-खaड (ii) म कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची म िविनzद{
िहमाचल रा]य क5 तहसील उना तथा हरोली, िजला उना क5 भूिम म, पंजाब रा]य म गाँव
: झुिगयां : िजला शहीद भगत Yसह नगर से
िहमाचल देश के गाँव : पेखुबेला, िजला उना तक पेVोिलयम उ'पाद= के पEरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल काप}रेशन िलिमटेड ारा उना
Rांच पाइपलाइन – पीएजेपीएल पEरयोजना के स बंध म पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न करने के
िलए अपने आशय क5 घोषणा क5 थी।
और उG राजपl अिधसूचना~ क5 ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 17.10.2017 तक उपलJध करा दी गई थी।
और उG अिधिनयम क5 धारा 6 क5 उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण म सम ािधकारी ने के ीय सरकार को अपनी Eरपोट8 दे दी है।
और के ीय सरकार ने उG Eरपोट8 पर िवचार करने के पvात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उG भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने
के िलए अपेित है, उसम उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न करने का िविनvय कया है।
अत: अब, के ीय सरकार उG अिधिनयम क5 धारा 6 क5 उपधारा (1) ारा द. शिGय= का योग करते Hए एतhारा
घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची म िविनzद{ भूिम म पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अ€जत कया
जाए।
और के ीय सरकार उG अिधिनयम क5 धारा 6 क5 उपधारा (4) ारा द. शिGय= का योग करते Hए, यह िनदDश देती है क
उG भूिम म उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क5 तारीख से के ीय सरकार म िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी िवलंगम= से मुG
होकर इंिडयन ऑयल काप}रेशन िलिमटेड म िनिहत होगा।
पेVोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम 1962 क5 धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी ितपू€त के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल
काप}रेशन िलिमटेड पूण8तया उ.रदायी होगी और पाइपलाईन से स बि धत कसी भी मामले पर के ीय सरकार के िवj कोई वाद
दावा या कानूनी काय8वाही नह‚ हो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला : उना रा]य : िहमाचल देश
O.सं.
तहसील का
नाम
गाँव का नाम
हदब!त
नं.
मुरJबा/कला तथा
खसरा सं.
ेlफल
हेटेयर
एयर
वग8 मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
हरोली
बाथडी
476
1306 रा!ता
00
00
32
997 रा!ता
00
00
50
9262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 रा!ता
00
00
79
929
00
05
36
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9263
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 रा!ता
00
00
57
25
00
00
17
302
00
57
56
1126
00
01
08
1127
00
00
90
9264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
केलुवा
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9265
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
9266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 रा!ता
00
00
73
1801 रा!ता
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9267
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
9268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1684/1
00
03
16
4
हरोली
बटखुद8
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9269
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
9270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1287
00
00
29
1291 रा!ता
00
00
44
1292 रा!ता
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9271
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 रा!ता
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
9272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 रा!ता
00
00
74
369
00
00
20
253
00
03
65
312 रा!ता
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9273
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 रा!ता
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 रा!ता
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
9274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
366
00
00
20
359
00
01
68
358
00
00
30
360
00
03
89
361
00
04
14
353 रा!ता
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 रा!ता
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9275
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
9276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 रा!ता
00
01
09
9
हरोली
नंगल खुद8
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9277
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 रा!ता
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
9278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/248/2017-ओआर-I/ई-18228]
पवन कुमार] 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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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.
SCHEDULE
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
9280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9281
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
9282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9283
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
9284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9285
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
9286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9287
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
9288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9289
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
9290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9291
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
[F. No. R-11025(11)/248/2017-OR-I/E-18228]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2017
dkdkdkdk-vkvkvkvk-
2801
2801
2801
2801.—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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 कुमार] 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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- 2802
2802
2802
2802.—के ीय सरकार को लोकिहत म यह आवƒयक तीत होता है क तिमलनाडु रा]य म ए„ूर से मदुरै तक वाया
चगलप…टु पांिडचेरी िlची एलपीजी पEरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल काप}रेशन िलिमटेड के ारा एक पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी
चािहए;
और के ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवƒयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम म जो इससे
उपाबj अनुसूची म व€णत है ओर िजसम उG पाइपलाइन िबछाऐ जाने का !ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न कया जाए;
अत :अब, के ीय सरकार, पेVोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न) अिधिनयम, 1962
(1962 का 50) क5 धारा 3 क5 उपधारा (1) ारा द. शिGय= का योग करते Hए, उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न करने
के अपने आशय क5 घोषणा करती है;
कोई †िG, जो उG अनुसूची म व€णत भूिम म िहतबj है, उस तारीख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से युG भारत के राजपl क5
ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलJध करा दी जाती है, इ‡5स दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग
के अिधकार के अज8न के स ब ध म ी एस. पी. मधुसूधनन, सम ािधकारी, भूिम अज8न अिधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप}रेशन
िलिमटेड, पाइपलाइन पEरयोजना, Zलाट सं.-14, जयकाश !Vीट, वी. जी. पी नगर, राजािजपुरम, ितवलुर, तिमलनाडू - 602001
को िलिखत 3प म आेप भेज सकेगा I
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9297
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
तालुका : विडपˆी
िजला : मदुरै
रा]य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवDण सं.- खaड सं.
उप खaड सं.
ेlफल
हेटेर
एयर
वग8 मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. तुंिबचांपˆी
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. िच„मनय‡ंपˆी
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
9298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9299
66
1
0
05
75
64
5
0
03
50
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/96/2017-ओआर-I/ई-7820]
पवन कुमार, 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
9300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9301
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
[F. No. R-11025(11)/96/2017-OR-I/E-7820]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2017
dkdkdkdk-vkvkvkvk- 2803
2803
2803
2803.—के ीय सरकार को लोकिहत म यह आवƒयक तीत होता है क तिमलनाडु रा]य म ए„ूर से मदुरै तक वाया
चगलप…टु - पांिडचेरी - िlची एलपीजी पEरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप}रेशन िलिमटेड के ारा एक पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी है ।
और के ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवƒयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम म जो इससे
उपाबj अनुसूची म व€णत है ओर िजसम उG पाइपलाइन िबछाऐ जाने का !ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न कया जाए।
अत: अब, के ीय सरकार, पेVोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ स ( भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न) अिधिनयम, 1962
(1962 का 50) क5 धारा 3 क5 उपधारा (1) ारा द. शिGय= का योग करते Hए, उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज8न करने
के अपने आशय क5 घोषणा करती है;
कोई †िG, जो उG अनुसूची म व€णत भूिम म िहतबj है, उस तारीख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से युG भारत के राजपl
क5 ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलJध करा दी जाती है, इ‡5स दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम
उपयोग के अिधकार के अज8न के स ब ध म ी एस. पी. मधुसूधनन, सम ािधकारी, भूिम अज8न अिधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप}रेशन
िलिमटेड, पाइपलाइन पEरयोजना , Zलाट सं.14, जयकाश !Vीट, वी. जी. पी नगर, राजािजपुरम, ितवलुर, तिमलनाडू-602001 को
िलिखत 3प म आेप भेज सकेगा I
9302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
तालुका : िवOवांडी
िजला : िवलुपुरम
रा]य : तिमलनाडु
गाँव का नाम
सवDण सं.- खaड सं.
उप खaड सं.
ेlफल
हेटेर
एयर
वग8
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
37. नंदवादी
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9303
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. ठपैर
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
9304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9305
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
9306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.िछ„तŠछुर
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9307
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. क=Oांबूंदी
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
9308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
3
0
05
80
1
4ए
0
05
80
1
4बी
0
11
00
130.सालाई (िवOवांडी)
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. िपलईयाकु8Zपम
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9309
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
9310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9311
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
9312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9313
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
9314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9315
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
9316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.मुंिगप…टु
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9317
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
9318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9319
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
9320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. पेEरयबाबूसमुम
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9321
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
9322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. िछ„बाबूसमुम
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
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/96/2017-ओआर-I/ई-7820]
पवन कुमार, 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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
9324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9325
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
9326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9327
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
9328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9329
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
9330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9331
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
9332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9333
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
9334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9335
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
9336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9337
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
9338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9339
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
[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)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2804-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vè;{k]
¯gnqLrku ,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM cSaxyksj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
01@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14011@26@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2805-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eq[;
izca/d (,pvkj)] ¯gnqLrku ,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM cSaxyksj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
03@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
9342
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
Sh. R. Surendra Babu,
The Chief Manager (HR) &,
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2806-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjr vFkZ
ewolZ fyfeVsM dk izca/u] dksyj xksYM iQhYM ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 03@2017) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
Sh. Thirunavooukarasu,
The Management of BEML Ltd,
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. Venkatappa
9344
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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)]
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2807-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
egkizca/d (,pvkjMh)] Hkkjr vFkZ ewolZ fyfeVsM] cSaxyksj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV
(lanHkZ la[;k 13@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&14011@04@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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,
1. The General Manager (HRD),
BEML Contract Workers Union,
Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
Bangalore Complex,
Bangalore Complex,
New Thippasandra Post,
New Thippasandra Post,
Bangalore – 560075.
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?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2808-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eq[;
izca/d foÙk] ¯gnqLrku ,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM] cSaxyksj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
21@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42025@03@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
Sh. R. Venkatesh,
Chief Manager Finance,
S/o. M.S. Raman,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd,
Residing at 2302, 6th ‘B’ Main,
Post Bag No. 7502,
MIG 3rd Stage,
New Tippasandra Post,
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9349
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2809-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ¯izfliy]
jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ ,tqds'ku] Hkqous'oj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh@la?k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
29@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@39@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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 in
9350
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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2810-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ¯izfliy]
jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ ,tqds'ku] Hkqous'oj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh@la?k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
30@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@38@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2811-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ¯izfliy]
jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ ,tqds'ku] Hkqous'oj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh@la?k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
31@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@40@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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-Union
9352
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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2812-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vè;{k]
vks,l,lih,vkjlh] mM+hlk ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68@2014) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@153@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2813-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vè;{k]
vks,l,lih,vkjlh] mM+hlk ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2014) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@154@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
9354
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2814-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vè;{k]
vks,l,lih,vkjlh] mM+hlk ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71@2014) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@152@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9357
ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2815-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ¯izfliy]
jhtuy baLVhV~;wV vkWiQ ,tqds'ku] Hkqous'oj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh@la?k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
28@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@41@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2816-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 12@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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. The
9360
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2817-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 30@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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 Officer
9362
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 years
9364
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
ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2818-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 37@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 to
9366
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
NIL
9368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2819-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 45@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 have
9370
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2820-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 57@2007) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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.
…Respondents
9372
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2821-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqEcbZ iksVZ
VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 59@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-12-2017 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&31011@07@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2822-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 06@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-12-
2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@80@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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 Officer
9376
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
ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2823-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eS- osLVuZ
bafM;k f'ki;kMZ fy- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 21@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
07-12-2017 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&36011@7@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 the
9378
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 filed
9380
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
ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2824-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksjiksjs'ku
cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 257@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-12-2017
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&12011@16@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 relevant
9384
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
ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2825-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k cSad
ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 09@2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-12-2017 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 Officer
9386
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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2826-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ
fjpMZlu ,aM ØqMkl (1972) fyfeVsM] psUubZ vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
01@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@220@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2827-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 98@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@207@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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 the
9388
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9389
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2828-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 96@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@205@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2829-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 101@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@210@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2830-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 100@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@209@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2831-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 103@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@212@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2832-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
egkizca/d] vuqla/ku ,oa fodkl izHkkx] Hksy] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
17@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@107@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
NIL
9396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 16, 2017/AGRAHAYANA 25, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2833-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[;
dk;Zdkjh] ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 95@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@204@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2834-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
egkizca/d] lqj{kk ¯iz¯Vx ,aM ¯e¯Vx dkiksZjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k fyfeVsM] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds
iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 67@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&16011@01@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
AND
9398
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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2835-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
eqfueksgu ,aVjizkbt (usYyksj) ds izca/u vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
70@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@131@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 Officer
9400
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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2836-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jk"Vªh;
jktekxZ izkf/dj.k vkSj vU; yksxksa ds izca/u ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 48@2015) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@58@2015&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2837-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSustesaV
vkWiQ ,elhMh] fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@11@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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. Director
9402
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 to
9406
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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2838-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh
fo'ofo|ky; dk izca/u ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42012@183@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 the
9408
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9409
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2839-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj v/h{kd
vfHk;ark] leUo; eaMy (fo|qr) lhihMCY;wMh] ubZ fnYyh ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 31@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&42011@160@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º
jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd
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 clear
9410
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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'.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 13 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2840-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 30-11-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22012@88@2014&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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
ubZ fnYyh] 13 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2841-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 20@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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 cause
9416
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
ubZ fnYyh] 13 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2842-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 48@2008) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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 Officer
9418
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 25] 1939
9421
ubZ fnYyh] 13 fnlEcj] 2017
dk-vk- 2843-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
¯lxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh 108@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-12-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
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 under
9422
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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 16] 2017@vxzgk;.k 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. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed
by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2018.01.21
17:12:34 +05'30'