1938 GI/2018
(2687)
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- 14]
ubZ fnYyh] vizSy 8—vizSy 14] 2018] 'kfuokj@pS=k 18—pS=k 24] 1940
No. 14]
NEW DELHI, APRIL 8— APRIL 14, 2018, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 18— CHAITRA 24, 1940
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)
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 563-—chek fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkf/dj.k vf/fu;e] 1999 (1999 dk 41) dh /kjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh jfo feÙky] vij lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx ds LFkku ij Jh nsckfl'k ikaMk] vij lfpo] foÙkh;
lsok,a foHkkx dks rRdky izHkko ls vxys vkns'kksa rd Hkkjrh; chek fofu;ked vkSj fodkl izkf/dj.k (vkbZvkjMh,vkbZ) ds va'kdkfyd
lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- 11@6@@2003&chek&Iº
e`rqUt; ¯lg] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2018
S.O. 563.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Debasish Panda, Additional Secretary,
Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance as Part-time Member of the Insurance Regulatory and
2688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Development Authority of India (IRDAI) vice Shri Ravi Mital, Additional Secretary, DFS with immediate effect and
until further orders.
[F. No. 11/6/2003-Ins. I]
MRITUNJAY SINGH, Under Secy.
कामक
कामक
कामक
कामक, , , , लोक
लोक
लोक
लोक िशकायत
िशकायत
िशकायत
िशकायत तथा
तथा
तथा
तथा पशन
पशन
पशन
पशन मं ालय
मं ालय
मं ालय
मं ालय
(कामक
कामक
कामक
कामक और
और
और
और िश ण
िश ण
िश ण
िश ण िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग )
नई दली, 10 अ
ैल, 2018
का
का
का
का.आ. . . . 564
564
564
564.—क
ीय सरकार, कनाटक राय सरकार , गृह िवभाग (कानून व वथा ), के शासक य आदेश स. जी ओ . न.
HD 115 CID.2017 ब
गलु , दनांक 13 .12 .2017 क स"मित के तहत , दली िवशेष पुिलस थापना अिधिनयम , 1946
(1946 का अिधिनयम स. 25) क धारा 5 क उपधारा (1) 'ारा
दत शि(य) का
योग करते +ए दली िवशेष पुिलस थापना के
सदय) को, -ी परेश सुपु. कमलाकर बुधवंत मेता, िनवासी तुलसीनगर, होनवरा, उ1र क2ड़ िजला, कनाटक क ह5या से स"बंिधत ,
होनवरा पुिलस थाना, उ1र क2डा िजला कनाटक म
दज अपराध सं. 592 /2017 U/s 143 ,147 , 148, 302 & 201 r /w 149
& 120 -बी IPC का अ9वेषण करने तथा त5स"ब9धी
य52, उ5
ेरणा व् सडयं.ो या उ( एक या एक से अिधक अपराध) या इस कृ5य
के दौरान उ( त=य) से उ5प2 अ9य कोई अपराध िजसे अंजाम दया गया हो , उसका अ9वेषण करने के िलए उनक शि(य) एवं
>े.ािधकार का िवतार समत कनाटक राय म
करती है ।
[फा. सं. 228/06/2018-एवीडी-II]
एस. पी. आर. ि.पाठी, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2018
S.O. 564.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section(1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State
Government of Karnataka, Home(L&O) Department vide Government Order No.G.O No. HD 115 CID 2017
Bengaluru dated 13.12.2017, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of the case in Crime No.592/2017 U/s
143,147,148,302 & 201 r/w 149 & 120-B IPC registered at Honnavara Police Station , Uttara Kannada District,
Karnataka pertaining to the murder of Shri Paresh, S/o Kamalakar Budavanth Mesta, R/o Tulasinagar Honnavara, Uttar
Kannada District, Karnataka and attempts,abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more
of the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same act or arising
out of the same facts of the above said Crime Number.
[F.No. 228/06/2018-AVD-II]
S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;
(LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx)
(lrdZrk izHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ekpZ] 2018
dk-vk- 565-—foHkkxh; tkap (xokgksa dh mifLFkfr dk izorZu rFkk nLrkost izLrqfr) vf/fu;e] 1972 (1972 dk 18) ds
[kaM 4 ds mi&[kaM (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk MkW- oh-,e- vxzoky] iwoZ&fpfdRlk v/h{kd vkSj
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2689
tkap izkf/dkjh dks MkW- jkds'k oekZ] rRdkyhu foHkkxkè;{k] dkfMZ;ksykWth] liQnjtax vLirky] ubZ fnYyh ls lacaf/r foHkkxh; tkap ds laca/
esa mDr vf/fu;e ds [kaM 5 esa fofufnZV 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus dk vf/dkj iznku djrh gSA
¹iQk- la- lh&13011@01@@2012&lrdZrkº
,l- Jh/j] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
(VIGILANCE DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 15th March, 2018
S.O. 565.—In exercise of the power conferred by sub section (1) of Section 4 of Department Inquiries
(Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central
Government hereby authorizes Dr. V.M. Agarwal, Ex-Medical Suprintendent & the Inquiring Authority to exercise the
powers specified in Section 5 of the said Act in relation to departmental inquiry relating to Dr. Rakesh Varma, the then
HoD, Cardiology, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
[F. No. C-13011/01/2012-Vig.]
S. SRIDHAR, Under Secy.
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
कोयला मं ालय
नई दली, 10 अ
ैल, 2018
का
का
का
का.आ.
.
.
. 566
566
566
566.—कोयला धारक >े. (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम
इसके पD चात् उG त
अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत के राजप., भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 1 अगत,
2017 'ारा
कािशत भारत सरकार के कोयला मं.ालय क अिधसूचना का. आ. संL यांक 2425(अ), तारीख 31 जुलाई,2017 के
काशन पर उG त अिधसूचना से संलM न अनुसूची म
वNणOत भूिम और ऐसी भूिम, (िजसे इसम
इसके पD चात् उG त भूिम कहा गया है), म
के सभी अिधकार, उG त अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िव लंगम) से मुG त होकर, आ5 यंितक Qप म
के9 ीय
सरकार म
िनिहत हो गए है ;
और के9ीय सरकार को यह समाधान हो गया है क स
Rल कोलफ Tस िलिमटेड, दरभंगा हाउस, राँची, झारखंड (िजसे इसम
इसके पXात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन) और शतZ का िज9ह
के9ीय सरकार इस िनिम1 अिधरोिपत करना उिचत
समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है;
अतः, अब, के9ीय सरकार, उ( अिधिनयम क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (1) 'ारा
द1 शि(य) का
योग करते +ए, यह
िनदेश देती है क इस
कार िनिहत उ( भूिम म
या उस पर के पूव[( सभी अिधकार के9ीय सरकार म
इस
कार िनिहत बने रहने के
बजाए, तारीख 1 अगत, 2017 से िन\िलिखत िनबंधन) और शतZ के अधीन रहते +ए सरकारी कंपनी म
िनिहत हो जाएंगे, अथात:-
(1) सरकारी कंपनी उ( अिधिनयम के उपबंध) और अ9य सुसंगत िविध के अधीन यथा अवधा]रत सभी
ितकर, ^याज, नुकसािनय)
इ5याद और वैसी ही मद) क बाबत् सभी संदाय करेगी ;
(2) सरकारी कंपनी 'ारा शत (1) के अधीन, संदेय रकम) का अवधारण करने के
योजन) के िलए उ( अिधिनयम क धारा 14 के
अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन कया जाएगा तथा ऐसे कसी अिधकरण और उ( अिधकरण क सहायता करने के िलए
िनयु( ि(य) के संबंध म
उपगत सभी य, उ( सरकारी कंपनी 'ारा वहन कए जाएंगे और इसी
कार िनिहत उ( भूिम
म
या उस पर के अिधकार) के िलए या उनके संबंध म
अपील आद िविधक कायवािहय) क बाबत उपगत, सभी य भी
सरकारी कंपनी 'ारा वहन कए जाएंगे ;
(3)
सरकारी कंपनी, के9ीय सरकार या उसके पदधा]रय) क ऐसे कसी अ9य य के संबंध म
>ितपूaत करेगी जो इस
कार
िनिहत उ( भूिम म
पूव[( अिधकार) के बारे म
के9ीय सरकार या उसके पदधा]रय) 'ारा या उनके िव b क9हc
कायवािहय) के संबंध म
आवDयक हो ;
2690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(4)
सरकारी कंपनी के पास के9ीय सरकार के पूव अनुमोदन के िबना, उ( भूिम म
इस
कार िनिहत उपयु( अिधकार) को कसी
अ9य ि( को अंत]रत करने क शि( नहc होगी; और
(5)
सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश) और शतZ का पालन करेगी, जो के9ीय सरकार 'ारा, जब कभी आवDयक हो, उ( भूिम के
िविशd >े.) के िलए दये जाएं या अिधरोिपत कए जाएं।
[ फा.सं. 43015/24/2016- एलए एfड आईआर ]
आर.एस.सरोज, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 10th April, 2018
S.O. 566.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,
number S.O. 2425(E), dated the 31st July, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),
dated the 1st August, 2017, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and all rights in or over the said
lands described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) vested
absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and
conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby directs that all rights in or over the said land so vested, shall, with effect from the 1st
August, 2017, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government company,
subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-
(1)
the Government Company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages, etc. and the
like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant law;
(2)
a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any
such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the said Government Company
and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection
with the rights, in or over the said lands, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government Company;
(3)
the Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government, its officials against any other expenditure
that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its
officials regarding the aforesaid rights in the said land so vested;
(4)
the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said land so vested, to any
other person without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and
(5)
the Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the
Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.
[F.No. 43015/24/2016-LA & IR]
R. S. SAROJ, Under Secy.
पेVªksfy;e ,oa izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2018
dk-vk- 567-—dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼ Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k ½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl eU=ky; dh vf/klwpuk laŒ dkŒ vkŒ 339¼v½ rkjh[k 1 Qjojh
2016 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= laŒ 293 rkjh[k 03 Qjojh 2016 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh ] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk es layXu
vuqlwph eas fofufnZ"V Hkwfe eas dsjy jkT; eas 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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2691
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 27@02@2016 ls 31@03@2016 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 ds ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu fd;k tkrk gS(
vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku dh rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj eas fufgr gksus dh ctk,]
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä ] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM eas fufgr gksxkA
vuqlwph
jkT;: dsjy
ftyk: f='kqj
rkyqd: pyDdqVh
uke xzke
losZ uEcj
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,fj;k
oxZehVj
fd"kDdeqjh ¼[k.M la0 49½
833@1
0
07
14
833@3
0
08
82
834@3
0
01
46
834@4
0
15
86
841@4
0
01
15
841@5
0
05
19
843@1
0
08
97
843@3
0
08
54
859@8
0
06
86
859@12
0
03
24
861
0
10
24
862@2
0
02
96
862@5
0
04
05
862@6
0
00
70
862@8
0
01
93
870
0
07
31
871@3
0
06
39
871@4
0
03
71
872@1
0
14
66
[ फा.सं. आर-12031/196/2017-ओआर-I/ ई-19746]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
2692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2018
S.O. 567.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas SO No. 339(E), dated 01.02.2016 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 293 dated 03.02.2016 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
27.02.2016 to 31.03.2016
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.
S C H E D U L E
STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : THRISSUR TALUK : CHALAKKUDY
VILLAGE
SURVEY NUMBERS
AREA
HECTARES
ARES
SQ MTRS
KIZHAKKUMMURI
BLOCK. NO. 49
833/1
0
07
14
833/3
0
08
82
834/3
0
01
46
834/4
0
15
86
841/4
0
01
15
841/5
0
05
19
843/1
0
08
97
843/3
0
08
54
859/8
0
06
86
859/12
0
03
24
861
0
10
24
862/2
0
02
96
862/5
0
04
05
862/6
0
00
70
862/8
0
01
93
870
0
07
31
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2693
871/3
0
06
39
871/4
0
03
71
872/1
0
14
66
[F.No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2018
dk-vk- 568-—dsUæh; ljdkj us iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼ Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bleas blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k ½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl eU=ky; dh vf/klwpuk laŒ dkŒ vkŒ 910¼v½ rkjh[k 23 ekpZ
2015 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= laŒ 681 rkjh[k 01 vçSy 2015 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk es layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe eas 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';kr] 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 eas fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu fd;k tkrk gS(
vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh 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 esa 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
vkyqok bZLV ¼[k.M la0 35½
161@8
0
02
06
163@8
0
01
48
163@9
0
05
25
163@12
0
02
90
163@17
0
08
55
163@19
0
06
40
164@7
0
07
10
164@8
0
03
16
164@9
0
07
57
164@11
0
03
43
2694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
165@3
0
07
17
165@4
0
05
59
165@5
0
04
52
167@1
0
00
98
167@6
0
02
69
167@7
0
01
31
167@8
0
00
31
188@3
0
19
11
201@2
0
28
70
203@3
0
15
30
207@1
0
18
29
208@2
0
01
70
208@4
0
07
72
208@9
0
11
88
208@11
0
07
49
208@12
0
00
40
208@15
0
03
25
213@5
0
06
84
213@6
0
03
07
[फा.सं. आर-12031/196/2017-ओआर-I/ ई-19746]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2018
S.O. 568.—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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2695
S C H E D U L E
STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : ALUVA
VILLAGE
SURVEY NUMBERS
AREA
HECTARES
ARES
SQ MTRS
ALUVA EAST
161/8
0
02
06
BLOCK.NO. 35
163/8
0
01
48
163/9
0
05
25
163/12
0
02
90
163/17
0
08
55
163/19
0
06
40
164/7
0
07
10
164/8
0
03
16
164/9
0
07
57
164/11
0
03
43
165/3
0
07
17
165/4
0
05
59
165/5
0
04
52
167/1
0
00
98
167/6
0
02
69
167/7
0
01
31
167/8
0
00
31
188/3
0
19
11
201/2
0
28
70
203/3
0
15
30
207/1
0
18
29
208/2
0
01
70
208/4
0
07
72
208/9
0
11
88
208/11
0
07
49
208/12
0
00
40
208/15
0
03
25
213/5
0
06
84
213/6
0
03
07
[F.No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2018
dk-vk- 569-—dsUæh; ljdkj us iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼ Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k ½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
2696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe eas 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 eas ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu fd;k tkrk gS ;
vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe es mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj eas 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
eVwj ¼[k.M la0 27½
276@5
0
12
72
[ फा.सं. आर-12031/196/2017-ओआर-I/ ई-19746]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2018
S.O. 569.—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.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2697
S C H E D U L E
STATE : KERALA
DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : ALUVA
VILLAGE
SURVEY NUMBERS
AREA
HECTARES
ARES
SQ . MTRS
MATTOOR
276/5
0
12
72
BLOCK No. 27
[F.No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2018
dk-vk- 570-—dsUæh; ljdkj us iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼ Hkwfe eas mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼ 1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k ½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl eU=ky; dh vf/klwpuk laŒ dkŒ vkŒ 910¼v½ rkjh[k 23 ekpZ
2015 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= laŒ 681 rkjh[k 01 vçSy 2015 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh ] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk es layXu
vuqlwph eas fofufnZ"V Hkwfe eas dsjy jkT; eas 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 10@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 esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe eas ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu fd;k tkrk gS ;
vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe eas mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj eas fufgr gksus fd ctk,]
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä ] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxkA
vuqlwph
jkT;% dsjy
ftyk% ,sjukdqye
rkyqd% vkyqok
uke xz
losZ uEcj
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,fj;k
oxZehVj
eVwj ¼[k.M la0 27½
264@9
0
04
38
354@4
0
00
23
354@9
0
00
58
354@10
0
01
38
354@23
0
02
18
354@24
0
02
50
djqdqfV ¼[k.M la0 2½
390@4
0
02
80
2698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ewDdUuwj ¼[k.M la0 15½
253@1
0
00
35
258@1
0
10
81
258@6
0
07
00
258@7
0
11
90
258@8
0
01
60
258@9
0
05
40
264@2
0
00
56
264@3
0
00
73
264@4
0
06
76
264@5
0
06
20
264@7
0
05
03
264@8
0
08
43
264@11
0
01
75
265@2
0
03
38
265@3
0
02
13
265@4
0
03
49
265@5
0
01
15
265@6
0
05
89
265@10
0
00
90
265@11
0
04
94
265@13
0
10
86
265@14
0
00
68
265@16
0
00
26
265@18
0
03
14
268@1
0
06
89
268@4
0
03
16
268@6
0
03
51
268@7
0
11
00
268@8
0
06
91
272@2
0
07
66
272@6
0
02
82
272@7
0
02
20
272@8
0
07
46
272@9
0
03
95
272@10
0
01
79
272@11
0
01
71
272@12
0
05
35
272@13
0
06
09
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2699
275@1
0
03
16
275@4
0
02
56
275@5
0
01
02
275@6
0
01
76
275@9
0
01
64
275@10
0
02
28
275@11
0
02
46
275@15
0
02
58
275@16
0
10
07
275@17
0
02
04
275@31
0
00
25
283@2
0
03
04
283@3
0
00
59
283@4
0
00
97
283@5
0
00
63
283@6
0
05
15
283@8
0
03
43
283@9
0
00
16
283@10
0
00
57
283@11
0
02
31
283@14
0
01
91
283@16
0
01
54
283@17
0
01
68
284@2
0
05
51
284@10
0
05
84
284@12
0
03
48
284@13
0
03
32
285@11
0
05
97
285@18
0
10
65
286@7
0
00
78
286@9
0
10
21
286@12
0
08
60
286@14
0
09
28
286@17
0
12
66
286@18
0
03
29
311@15
0
15
71
312@10
0
01
58
312@11
0
03
83
2700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
312@12
0
03
02
312@13
0
09
43
313@10
0
09
02
313@11
0
04
04
313@12
0
03
74
313@13
0
00
48
313@14
0
02
38
313@15
0
01
50
313@19
0
00
10
317@6
0
20
85
317@7
0
04
44
317@8
0
04
69
317@9
0
05
03
320@1
0
12
92
320@3
0
23
10
[ फा.सं. आर-12031/196/2017-ओआर-I/ ई-19746]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th March, 2018
S.O. 570.—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 10/09/2015.
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.
S C H E D U L E
STATE : KERALA
DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : ALUVA
VILLAGE
SURVEY NUMBERS
AREA
HECTARES
ARES
SQ . MTRS
MATTOOR
264/9
0
04
38
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2701
BLOCK No. 27
354/4
0
00
23
354/9
0
00
58
354/10
0
01
38
354/23
0
02
18
354/24
0
02
50
KARUKUTTY
390/4
0
02
80
BLOCK. No. 2
MOOKKANNOOR
253/1
0
00
35
BLOCK. No. 15
258/1
0
10
81
258/6
0
07
00
258/7
0
11
90
258/8
0
01
60
258/9
0
05
40
264/2
0
00
56
264/3
0
00
73
264/4
0
06
76
264/5
0
06
20
264/7
0
05
03
264/8
0
08
43
264/11
0
01
75
265/2
0
03
38
265/3
0
02
13
265/4
0
03
49
265/5
0
01
15
265/6
0
05
89
265/10
0
00
90
265/11
0
04
94
265/13
0
10
86
265/14
00
0
68
265/16
0
00
26
265/18
0
03
14
268/1
0
06
89
268/4
0
03
16
268/6
0
03
51
268/7
0
11
00
268/8
0
06
91
272/2
0
07
66
272/6
0
02
82
272/7
0
02
20
272/8
0
07
46
272/9
0
03
95
272/10
0
01
79
272/11
0
01
71
272/12
0
05
35
272/13
0
06
09
275/1
0
03
16
275/4
0
02
56
275/5
0
01
02
275/6
0
01
76
2702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
275/9
0
01
64
275/10
0
02
28
275/11
0
02
46
275/15
0
02
58
275/16
0
10
07
275/17
0
02
04
275/31
0
00
25
283/2
0
03
04
283/3
0
00
59
283/4
0
00
97
283/5
0
00
63
283/6
0
05
15
283/8
0
03
43
283/9
0
00
16
283/10
0
00
57
283/11
0
02
31
283/14
0
01
91
283/16
0
01
54
283/17
0
01
68
284/2
0
05
51
284/10
0
05
84
284/12
0
03
48
284/13
0
03
32
285/11
0
05
97
285/18
0
10
65
286/7
0
00
78
286/9
0
10
21
286/12
0
08
60
286/14
0
09
28
286/17
0
12
66
286/18
0
03
29
311/15
0
15
71
312/10
0
01
58
312/11
0
03
83
312/12
0
03
02
312/13
0
09
43
313/10
0
09
02
313/11
0
04
04
313/12
0
03
74
313/13
0
00
48
313/14
0
02
38
313/15
0
01
50
313/19
0
00
10
317/6
0
20
85
317/7
0
04
44
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2703
317/8
0
04
69
317/9
0
05
03
320/1
0
12
92
320/3
0
23
10
[F.No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
म
म
म
म और रोजगार मं ालय
और रोजगार मं ालय
और रोजगार मं ालय
और रोजगार मं ालय
नई द ली, 26 माच, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का.आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 571
571
571
571.—राhप ित, 9यायाधीश (सेवा िनवृ1) र िव9 नाथ िम-ा-II को दनांक 19.03.2018 से 65 वष क आयु
अथात् 05.11.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, के9ीय सरकार औiो िगक अ िधकरण सह -म 9यायालय/राhीय
औiो िगक अ िधकरण, कोलकाता के पीठासीन अ िधकारी के Qप म
िनयु( करते हj।
[सं. अ-19011/01/2018-सीएलएस-II]
अजय मिलक, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 26th March, 2018
S.O. 571.—The President is pleased to appoint Justice(Retd) Ravindra Nath Mishra-II as Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court/National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata with effect from
19.03.2018 and upto the age of 65 years i.e. upto 05.11.2020 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F.No. A-19011/01/2018-CLS-II]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 572-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ vkbZ-
vks-Vh- bUiQkLVªDpj ,.M ,uthZ lfoZlsl fyfeVsM ,oa vU; 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
21/2017) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@36@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Limited and other and their Workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-30012/36/2016-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 16th March, 2018
2704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference: (CGITA) No- 21/2017
1. The Project Manager,
M/s IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Limited,
Plot No. Y2, Ceat Tyre Road, Nr. Nahur Railway Station,
Bhandup (W), Mumbai – 400078
2. The Dy. General Manager (M),
M/s ONGC Petro Additions Limited,
1st Floor, Omkara Complex, Sai Chowkdi,
Manjalpur, Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390011
…First Party
V/s
Shri Bhupendra Pragjibhai Prajapati,
B-134, Mahanagar Society, Nr. Yamuna Mills,
Dabhi Road, Pratapnagar,
Vadodara (Gujarat)-390004
…Second Party
For the First Party No. 1 :
Shri Anil Parikh
For the First Party No. 2 :
Shri Akshat Khare
For the Second Party :
Shri V.K. Mashar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/
36/2016–IR(M) dated 21.03.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether Shri BhupendraPragjibhaiPrajapati, Ex-junior Manager-Stores is covered under the definition of
workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, “whether the action of the
management of M/s IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri
BhupendraPragjibhaiPrajapati, Ex-Junior Manager – Stores w.e.f. closing hours of 5th March, 2015 is legal,
just and proper? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 21.03.2017. After serving the notice on the parties, the second party submitted the
statement of claim Ex. 2 and before filing written statement by the first party; both the parties submitted the
settlement Ex. 10 which was read over to both the parties who were identified by their respective counsels.
Both the parties agreed and verified the terms of the settlement Ex. 10.
2. Thus the reference is finally disposed of in terms of the settlement Ex. 10.
3. The award is passed accordingly. The settlement Ex. 10 will be the part of the award.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 573-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ vkbZ-
vks-Vh- bUiQkLVªDpj ,.M ,uthZ lfoZlsl fyfeVsM ,oa vU; 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22/2017) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@37@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2705
management of M/s IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Limited and other and their Workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-30012/37/2016-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 16th March, 2018
Reference: (CGITA) No- 22/2017
1. The Project Manager,
M/s IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Limited,
Plot No. Y2, Ceat Tyre Road, Nr. Nahur Railway Station,
Bhandup (W), Mumbai – 400078
2. The Dy. General Manager (M),
M/s ONGC Petro Additions Limited,
1st Floor, Omkara Complex, Sai Chowkdi,
Manjalpur, Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390011
…First Party
V/s
Shri Pravinkumar Paragbhai Parmar,
A/1, Janakpuri Society, Opp. Vidyavihar School, Subhanpura,
Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390004
…Second Party
For the First Party No. 1 :
Shri Anil Parikh
For the First Party No. 2 :
Shri Akshat Khare
For the Second Party :
Shri V.K. Mashar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/37/
2016–IR(M) dated 21.03.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether Shri Pravinkumar Paragbhai Parmar, Ex-Senior Officer is covered under the definition of workman
as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, “whether the action of the
management of M/s IOT Infrastructure and Energy Services Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri
Pravinkumar Paragbhai Parmar, Ex-Senior Officer w.e.f. closing hours of 5th March, 2015 is legal, just and
proper? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 21.03.2017. After serving the notice on the parties, the second party submitted the
statement of claim Ex. 2 and before filing written statement by the first party; both the parties submitted the
settlement Ex. 11 which was read over to both the parties who were identified by their respective counsels.
Both the parties agreed and verified the terms of the settlement Ex. 11.
2. Thus the reference is finally disposed of in terms of the settlement Ex. 11.
3. The award is passed accordingly. The settlement Ex. 11 will be the part of the award.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
2706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 574-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e 1947] (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ
Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/dj.k ,oa vU; 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 99/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11011@4@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Airports Authority of India and other and their Workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-11011/4/2013-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 06th March, 2018
Reference: (CGITA) No- 99/2014
1. The Airport Controller,
Airports Authority of India,
Dumas Road,
Surat (Gujarat)
2. M/s Central Tap Engineering,
30, Kameshwar Twins,
100 Foot Road, Shreyas Tekra,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
The Secretary,
Surat Jilla Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,
House No. 4, Shantibhai Ni Chawl, Behind Dhanamal Complex,
Udhna Darwaja, Khatodara,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party :
Shri C.S Naidu Associates
For the Second Party :
None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-11011/4/2013–
IR(M) dated 27.06.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2707
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat for regularization of services of Shri
Patel Dhansukh S. in the establishment of Airports Authority of India, Surat from the date of their joining in
service by treating the contract between the management of Airports Authority of India, Surat and the
contractor is sham, bogus and mere paper arrangement is legal, proper and just? If so, to what relief Shri Patel
Dhansukh S. is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 27.06.2013. Despite service of notice on both the parties and giving 10
opportunities to submit the statement of claim by the second party union Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh
and also seeking last opportunity by his advocate Shri N.H. Rathod for submitting the statement of claim, the
second party union has been absent and failed to submit the statement of claim. Shri N.H. Rathod who claims
himself the advocate for the second party union, was present in the court but did not comment anything
regarding the submission of the statement of claim.
2. Thus it appears that the second party union is not willing to prosecute the case.
3. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party union with the
observation as under: “the demand of Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat for regularization of services
of Shri Patel Dhansukh S. in the establishment of Airports Authority of India, Surat from the date of their
joining in service by treating the contract between the management of Airports Authority of India, Surat and
the contractor, can be said to be sham and bogus. The demand of the union also can be said to be illegal,
improper and unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 575-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ
Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/dj.k ,oa vU; 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 100/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&11011@5@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Airports Authority of India and other and their Workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-11011/5/2013-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present: PRAMOD KUMAR CHATURVEDI,
Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th March, 2018
Reference: (CGITA) No- 100/2014
1. The Airport Controller,
Airports Authority of India,
Dumas Road,
Surat (Gujarat)
2708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. M/s Central Tap Engineering,
30, Kameshwar Twins,
100 Foot Road, Shreyas Tekra,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The Secretary,
Surat Jilla Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,
House No. 4, Shantibhai Ni Chawl, Behind Dhanamal Complex,
Udhna Darwaja, Khatodara,
Surat (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party : Shri C.S Naidu Associates
For the Second Party : None
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-11011/5/2013–
IR(M) dated 27.06.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat for regularization of services of Shri
Patel Nishant T. & Shri Patel Vimal H. in the establishment of Airports Authority of India, Surat from the date
of their joining in service by treating the contract between the management of Airports Authority of India,
Surat and the contractor is sham, bogus and mere paper arrangement is legal, proper and just? If so, to what
relief Shri Patel Nishant T. & Shri Patel Vimal H. is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 27.06.2013. Despite service of notice on both the parties and giving 10
opportunities to submit the statement of claim by the second party union Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh
and also seeking last opportunity by his advocate Shri N.H. Rathod for submitting the statement of claim, the
second party union has been absent and failed to submit the statement of claim. Shri N.H. Rathod who claims
himself the advocate for the second party union, was present in the court but did not comment anything
regarding the submission of the statement of claim. Thus it appears that the second party union is not willing
to prosecute the case.
2. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party union with the
observation as under: “the demand of Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Surat for regularization of services
of Shri Patel Nishant T. & Shri Patel Vimal H. in the establishment of Airports Authority of India, Surat from
the date of their joining in service by treating the contract between the management of Airports Authority of
India, Surat and the contractor can be said to be sham and bogus. The demand of the union also can be said to
be illegal, improper and unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 576-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ fcjyk
lhesUV dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15/2017) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@41@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2709
management of M/s Birla Cement Corporation Limited and other and their Workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-29012/41/2016-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Present: Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 15/2017
Ref.No. L-29012/41/2016-IR(M) dated 30.03.2017
BETWEEN
Sri Ram Sumiran S/o Sri Sunder Lal,
R.o Village Raja Ka Purwa, Post-Tekari Dadu
Block Rahi, Raibareli(UP)
AND
1.
The Vice President,,
M/s Birla Cement Corporation Limited,
Cement Unit, Amawan Road, Raibareli (UP)
2.
The Factory Manager
M/s Birla Cement Corpn. Ltd.
Cement Unit, Amawan Road, Raibareli
3.
M/s H.R. Contractors through
M/s Birla Cement Corporation Limited,
Cement Unit, Amawan Road, Raibareli
AWARD
1
By order No. L-29012/41/2016-IR(M) dated 30.03.2017 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Ram Sumiran
S/o Sh. Sunder Lal , Raibareli and the Vice President/Factory Manager/M/s H.R. Contractors, Birla Cement
Corporation Ltd. Raibareili for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“KYA BIRLA CEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED KE MANAGEMENT CEMENT IKAI,
RAEBARELI WA M/S H.R. CONTRACTORS, RAEBARELI DWARA SRI RAJ KUMAR
S/O LATE SRI LAL BAHADUR, RAEBARELI KO DINANK 01.10.2014 KO NAUKARI SE
NIKAL DIYA JAANA NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHIN TO VAADI KIS
RAHAT KO PAANE KA HAQDAR HAI?”
3. As per the claim statement W-1, the petitioner workman has stated in brief that he has been working for the
last twelve years under opposite party No.1 in the Cement Unit and payment was being made in cash by
opposite party 3 and he was appointed in the factory of opposite party No.1 through contractor opposite party
no.3 on oral directions. However, the contract was used to change off and on, but the petitioner has been
working without any interruption for the last 12 years and no complaint was ever received against him, neither
any warning letter or charge sheet was issued to him. His work and conduct towards his superiors and
employees has always been quite good, but when he requested for his regularization and for grant of facilities
to him, the management of the Company got annoyed and on its directions the contractor terminated his
services orally on 01.10.2014.
4.
The petitioner has further stated that he has requested several times for his reinstatement but the management
did not accept his request, the principle of “First come and last Go” was not followed, junior employees are
still working there. Complaint was in writing made to superior authorities as well as DLC/ALC, conciliation
proceeding failed. The workman has alleged violation of the provision of I.D. Act., no prior notice was given
neither salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation etc. was paid. Other facilities as casual leave,
earned leave and encashment are also not being provided to the labourers by the Company. Request for delay
of condonation has also been made. The workman has also submitted that before the termination his monthly
2710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
salary was Rs.6500/- With the aforesaid averments request has been made to set aside the oral termination
order dated 01.10.2014 and for his reinstatement with full salary.
5. During the proceedings before this Court the petitioner has moved an application W-3 dated 28.2.2018,
alongwith the terms of the compromise, requesting thereby that he voluntarily intends to not press this case, in
view of the compromise arrived at by both the parties. It appears that an amicable settlement has been
accepted by both the parties. Parties learned Authorised Representatives alongwith workman have themselves
pleaded before this Court that the Industrial Dispute referred by the Govt. of India may kindly be adjudicated
in the light of the compromise W-4 dated 28.2.2018. Before this Tribunal the management has handed over
cheque No. 515970 of SBI dated 28.02.2018 amounting to Rs.94570/ to the workman.
6. After having heard both the parties and perusal of the record available before this Court it is inferred that good
sense has prevailed on both the parties, and they have entered into a compromise/terms of settlement W-4
dated 28.2.2018. Therefore the matter is adjudicated accordingly in terms of the compromise W-4 dt.
28.02.2018. Photo copy of the compromise dated 28.02.2018, duly attested by the Secretary to the Court,
CGIT, Lucknow shall form part of the award.
7. Award as above.
LUCKNOW, 05.03.2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 577-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ
fcjyk lhesUV dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ,oa vU; 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 23/2017) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@42@2016&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Birla Cement Corporation Limited and other and their Workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-29012/42/2016-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Present: Rakesh Kumar, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 23/2017
Ref.No. L-29012/42/2016-IR(M) dated 30.03.2017
BETWEEN
Sri Raj Kumar S/o Late Sri Lal Bahadur,
R/o Village & Post- Rasehta,
Raibareli(UP)
AND
1. The Vice President,,
M/s Birla Cement Corporation Limited,
Cement Unit Amawan Road
Raibareli(UP)
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2711
2. The Factory Manager
M/s Birla Cement Corpn. Ltd.
Cement Unit, Amawan Road, Raibareli
3. M/s H.R. Contractors through
M/s Birla Cement Corporation Limited,
Cement Unit, Amawan Road, Raibareli
AWARD
1. By order No. L-29012/42/2016-IR(M) dated 30.03.2017 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Raj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Lal Bahadur, Raibareli and the Vice President/Factory Manager/M/s H.R. Contractors, Birla
Cement Corporation Ltd. Raibareili for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“KYA BIRLA CEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED KE MANAGEMENT CEMENT IKAI,
RAEBARELI WA M/S H.R. CONTRACTORS, RAEBARELI DWARA SRI RAJ KUMAR
S/O LATE SRI LAL BAHADUR, RAEBARELI KO DINANK 01.10.2014 KO NAUKARI SE
NIKAL DIYA JAANA NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHIN TO VAADI KIS
RAHAT KO PAANE KA HAQDAR HAI?”
3. As per the claim statement W-1, the petitioner workman has stated in brief that he has been working for the
last twelve years under opposite party No.1 in the Cement Unit and payment was being made in cash by
opposite party 3 and he was appointed in the factory of opposite party No.1 through contractor opposite party
no.3 on oral directions. However, the contract was used to change off and on, but the petitioner has been
working without any interruption for the last 12 years and no complaint was ever received against him, neither
any warning letter or charge sheet was issued to him. His work and conduct towards his superiors and
employees has always been quite good, but when he requested for his regularization and for grant of facilities
to him, the management of the Company got annoyed and on its directions the contractor terminated his
services orally on 01.10.2014.
4.
The petitioner has further stated that he has requested several times for his reinstatement but the management
did not accept his request, the principle of “First come and last Go” was not followed, junior employees are
still working there. Complaint was in writing made to superior authorities as well as DLC/ALC, conciliation
proceeding failed. The workman has alleged violation of the provision of I.D. Act., no prior notice was given
neither salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation etc. was paid. Other facilities as casual leave,
earned leave and encashment are also not being provided to the labourers by the Company. Request for delay
of condonation has also been made. The workman has also submitted that before the termination his monthly
salary was Rs.6500/- With the aforesaid averments request has been made to set aside the oral termination
order dated 01.10.2014 and for his reinstatement with full salary.
5. During the proceedings before this Court the petitioner has moved an application W-3 dated 28.2.2018,
alongwith the terms of the compromise, requesting thereby that he voluntarily intends to not press this case, in
view of the compromise arrived at by both the parties. It appears that an amicable settlement has been
accepted by both the parties. Parties learned Authorised Representatives alongwith workman have themselves
pleaded before this Court that the Industrial Dispute referred by the Govt. of India may kindly be adjudicated
in the light of the compromise W-4 dated 28.2.2018. Before this Tribunal the management has handed over
cheque No. 515972 of SBI dated 28.02.2018 amounting to Rs.94570/ to the workman.
6. After having heard both the parties and perusal of the record available before this Court it is inferred that good
sense has prevailed on both the parties, and they have entered into a compromise/terms of settlement W-4
dated 28.2.2018. Therefore the matter is adjudicated accordingly in terms of the compromise W-4 dt.
28.02.2018. Photo copy of the compromise dated 28.02.2018, duly attested by the Secretary to the Court,
CGIT, Lucknow shall form part of the award.
7. Award as above.
LUCKNOW, 05.03.2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
2712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 578-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ rsy
,oa izkd`frd xSl fuxe fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12/2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and their Workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-30012/1/2014-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee,
M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
Ref. Case No. 12 of 2014.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-
The Management of ongc Ltd., Cachar Forward Base, Silchar, Assam.
…O.P/ Management.
-Vrs-
Workman Sri Nikunja Paul, Malugram, Sikhar, Assam.
…Claimant/Workman.
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman.
:
Mr. J.Kar, Ld Advocate.
Mr. H.Dey, Ld Advocate.
For the Management
:
Mr. P.K.Roy, Learned Advocate.
Mr. S.K.Chakrabarty, Ld. Advocate.
Mrs. M.Dutta, Ld. Advocate,
Mrs. A.Chakrabarty, Ld. Advocate.
Date of Award: 19.03.2018.
AWARD
1. The present reference arose out of an Industrial Dispute between the claimant/workman Sri Nikunja Paul and
the Management of ONGC Ltd., Cachar Forward Base, Silchar, Assam. According to the Central Government,
an Industrial Dispute exists between ONGC and the workman in respect of the matters mentioned in the
Schedule as here under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Cachar Forward Base, Silchar-788026 (through
General Manager) in dismissing the services of Sh. Nikunja Paul, Ex-Contingent Employee w.e.f. 19.06.13
vide order dated 18.06.13 and in denying to reinstate the service is legal and justified?”
2. After receipt of the reference from the appropriate Government, both parties were notified upon which they
appeared and submitted their written statements respectively.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2713
3. According to the claimant Sri Nikunja Paul he was originally appointed by the ONGC as contractual worker in
the Cachar Forward Base, Silchar during the year 1987 and in the year 1990 an Industrial Dispute was referred
by the Appropriate Government to the Tribunal in respect of regularization of the services of the concerned
workmen. According to the claimant the reference was disposed on 11.7.1994 in favour of the workmen and
the litigation was finally over with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.05.2008 wherein the
decision of the Tribunal was upheld. It was also stated that vide order dated 29.09.2008 the ONGC engaged
the claimant as contingent employee under semi-skilled category on fixed daily wages. Thereafter, vide
memorandum dated 03.04.2013 the management leveled major allegations against him and initiated a
proceeding on certain vague issues. It was further stated that a representation submitted by the workman
against initiation of such proceeding was not properly disposed of by the management and the Enquiry
Committee, constituted by the management, held the enquiry against him without giving him any opportunity
to defend himself in complete disregard of principle of Natural Justice. It was further stated that the enquiry
commenced at around 3 pm on 18.04.2013 and completed on the same day at around 11 p.m . It was also
alleged that the pre determined mind of the enquiry committee illegally submitted the enquiry report finding
him guilty on all counts and thereafter he was even denied the opportunity of filing his written brief as
required under the Rules in respect of the findings of the Enquiry Committee. Thereafter the Disciplinary
Authority vide order dated 18.06.2013 removed him from the service in violation of all formalities and the
principles of Natural Justice. The workman further alleged that the punishment of removal from service
imposed upon him was arbitrary, excessive and harsh. Thereafter the workman submitted petition before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) under Industrial Dispute Act,1947 and though conciliation took place for
amicable settlement of the issue, because of adamant attitude of the management conciliation failed and the
Conciliation Officer reported the “conciliation failure report” to the appropriate Government and thereafter the
appropriate Government sent this reference to this Tribunal with the issue/schedule mentioned herein above.
The workman/claimant at the end of his claim statement prayed for setting aside the order of removal from
service and also for his reinstatement in service along with back wages and interest @12% on the accrued
amount.
4.
The management submitted written statement wherein the allegation brought by the claimant/workman was
completely denied. It was stated that the Departmental Enquiry against the workman was conducted in fair
manner and he was afforded all reasonable opportunities to defend himself. He was also afforded opportunity
to produce his evidence, if any, but he declined to adduce any evidence. It was further submitted that during
the course of enquiry the workman admitted charges drawn against him and on consideration of the materials
on record the enquiry Committee found him guilty and report on the enquiry was furnished to him seeking his
response. In his response also the workman did not raise the plea of denial of opportunity and violation of
principle of natural justice. It was stated by the management in their written statement that Domestic Enquiry
was initiated against the workman, a contingent worker, vide memorandum dated 03.04.2013 with five
different charges and on receipt of the charges the workman in clear and unambiguous term admitted four of
the five charges brought against him and in respect of the 5th charge pertaining to receiving money illegally
from two persons he admitted the receipt of money but took the plea that it was taken as loan to help his
younger brother. It was also stated that the workman did not adduce any evidence from his side. The
management claimed that there was no occasion of violation of principle of Natural Justice and he was rightly
removed from service being found guilty for the charges which were grave in nature. The management prayed
for answering the reference in favour of the management. After receipt of copy of the written statement of the
management the workman/claimant submitted an additional claim statement where no new substance was
stated as had been stated in his original claim statement.
5. The workman side examined only one witness namely the claimant himself Sri Nikunja Paul. He also
exhibited certain documents. The management side also examined one witness namely Sri Kripesh
Chakrabarty who was working as Dy. Manager, HR, ONGC, Cachar Forward Base, Silchar, Assam on the day
of filing of his examination-in-chief. He also exhibited certain documents.
6.
During argument learned counsel appearing for the workman side submitted that the so-called Domestic
Enquiry was conducted against the principle of Natural Justice causing immense prejudice to the delinquent
workman. He further stated that the charge memo was not accompanied by mandatory, “Article of charges”.
He further submitted that the Domestic Enquiry conducted as per decades old Standing Order (Exhibit-C) was
completely inappropriate. He further stated that Exhibit-C does not provide any detail procedure to be
followed for conducting Domestic Enquiry . Such enquiry had to be conducted as per principle of Natural
Justice offering reasonable opportunities to the workman which was not done. He further submitted that the
workman did not admit the charges. He referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of
Uttaranchal—vs—Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
in an enquiry the employer should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent employee
2714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and then give opportunity to him to cross-examine the witness of the employer and only thereafter the
delinquent employee can be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence. He further stated that the enquiry
proceeding was completed in a most pre-determined manner and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority
accepted the so-called Enquiry Report and imposed the gravest punishment of removal from service. He also
submitted that punishment of dismissal from service was too harsh and disproportionate. In the end the learned
counsel for the workman prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 18.6.2013(Exhibit-P) and also
prayed for passing direction to reinstate the workman in service along with back wages and all consequential
benefits.
7.
Learned Counsel for the management side on the other hand, submitted that the Domestic Enquiry was
conducted by a duly constituted Enquiry Committee and the charges against the delinquent employee was duly
furnished to him. In this connection he further submitted that in regard to charge Nos. 1 to 4 the workman
Nikunja Paul admitted the charges and pleaded that at the relevant time he could not understand the order
given to him by the Appropriate Authority. In regard to charge No.5 i.e. receiving money from the outsiders
by the delinquent workman on the alleged promise of getting service in the Company, the learned Lawyer
submitted that a criminal case filed against the workman by the concerned outsiders though ultimately the case
ended in Court on compromise. It was also submitted that it is a settled principle in the administrative law that
onus of proof rest upon one who alleges the invalidation of an order and in the instant matter the workman
has miserably failed to prove that the order of dismissal was passed in a manner which was not appropriate
and which was against the principles of Natural Justice. He also referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in “Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Others---vs-- J.Hussain” reported in
(2013) 10 SCC 106 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the charges are proved discretion lies
with the Disciplinary Authority to decide the kind of punishment to be imposed and it is only when the
punishment is found disproportionate to the nature of charges such punishment can be interfered with or
altered.
8.
Let me now consider and analyze the evidence adduced by the parties in the matter. The concerned
workman/claimant Sri Nikunja Paul (W.W.1) stated that illegal and untrue charges were brought against him.
He further stated that vide Exhibit-6 he submitted his representation dated 5.4.2013 but without disposing of
his representation the Disciplinary Authority constituted a Committee to enquire into the allegations brought
against him vide order dated 08.04.2013 (Exhibit-7). The Committee fixed the date of enquiry on 9.4.2013 but
due to his sickness he prayed for time but despite that the date was again fixed on 10.4.2013. Ultimately, the
enquiry was held on 18.04.2013 and enquiry began at around 3 p.m and he being a mere contingent worker
was not at all comfortable and was feeling embarrassed during the proceeding and was unable to defend
himself properly. He proved copy of the proceeding as Exhibit-12. He further stated that the Enquiry
Committee held all the allegations as proved without giving him any opportunity to cross-examine the witness
of the management. In regard to charge No.5 he stated that the management did not produce the relevant
witnesses and also ignored the fact that this matter was settled and the settlement was informed to the
management by Smti Sujata Singha vide his letter dated 12.10.2013. He proved Exhiit-13 as the said letter. He
further stated that on completion of the enquiry proceeding he was denied opportunity of filing a written brief
and the Enquiry Committee unilaterally submitted their finding showing all the charges proved against him.
According to him the conduct of the Enquiry Committee showed their pre determined minds which rendered
the enquiry as absolutely bad in law. During cross-examination the workman admitted that as a contingent
worker of the ONGC his service condition was governed by Certified Standing Order of Contingency of the
ONGC. He also admitted that he was served with the memorandum of charges dated 03.04.2013 and against
the charges he submitted his reply as Exhibit-2. He also admitted that after receipt of his reply the
Appropriate Authority appointed an Enquiry Committed consisting of two officers of ONGC and he appeared
before the Enquiry proceeding. The relevant part of his cross-examination may be quoted hereunder:
“During the course of enquiry Management brought witnesses. After the enquiry is over, the Enquiry
Commission might have submitted the report. It is a fact that the report of the Enquiry Committee was
served upon me. I submitted my reply to the Enquiry report vide Exhibit-12. After the reply to the
Enquiry Committee’s report was submitted by me, the Management passed the order of penalty against
me vide Exhibit-13. After submission of my reply for excusing me from the charges the Authority did
not give me any written or verbal assuarance stating that they would pardon me. Exhibits-8(1) to
Exhibit-8(6) are my signatures in Exhibit-8 along with the signatures of others. In Exhibit-12 I said that
I was given opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that I was given the opportunity to seek the
help of co-worker in the Enquiry Proceeding. Exhibit-12 does not reveal that there was infirmity in the
Enquiry Proceeding.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2715
9.
Management witness Kripesh Chakrabarty stated that after the close of the enquiry the workman was
furnished with a copy of enquiry report asking him to furnish his reply as to the said report and the workman
submitted his reply and in that reply the workman did not allege that he was not provided any opportunity of
hearing during the course of Domestic Enquiry. He further stated that charge No.5 was regarding illegally
receiving of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.90,000/- by the workman from Sri Jayanta Gowala and Sri Brijesh Kumar
Sinha promising them illegally to get appointment in ONGC. He also stated that during the course of enquiry
the workman admitted taking money from Sri Brijesh Kumar Sinha with the plea that he took the money to
help his younger brother for his business with a promise to refund the money within 3 months. He further
stated that during the enquiry the Enquiry Committee brought to the notice of the workman the relevant letter
written by Sujata Sinha, an approved Social Worker and Brijesh Sinha showing that he did not return the
money. He further stated that since the workman was a contingent worker in ONGC his service is governed by
the Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of the ONGC and Clause 16(ii) of the Standing
Order provides the procedure for imposing a major penalty. As per the aforementioned Clause where an
employee is charged with an allegation which may lead to the imposition of a major penalty he has to be
informed in writing about the allegation against him and shall be given an opportunity to make representation
and on receipt of employee’s explanation where the allegation is denied by him an enquiry shall be held by an
officer nominated by the Administration and at the enquiry the concerned employee shall be afforded
reasonable opportunity of explaining and defending himself. According to the witness he was informed about
the charges in writing and thereafter during the enquiry proceeding he was offered reasonable opportunity to
cross-examine the management witnesses and also to bring his own witness if he so desires. The management
witness further stated that during the Domestic Enquiry management side examined 4 witnesses and the
workman was given the opportunity to cross-examine them but he declined to cross-examine the witnesses. As
per the report of the enquiry the Enquiry Committee all the charges were proved against the workman and the
workman was furnished a copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee which was duly received by him. He
further stated that the workman submitted his reply on 07.05.2013 wherein he did not raise the plea of not
providing reasonable opportunities to him. The witness further stated that in regard to charge No.5 i.e.
receiving of money from outsiders with a promise to arrange employment in ONGC, the workman admitted
receipt of money from outsiders though he claimed that he took the money to help his younger brother.
10. During cross-examination the witness admitted that enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Committee and no
enquiry Officer was there. He also admitted Exhibit-8 as the details of the enquiry proceeding. He also
admitted that Exhibit-9 was submitted on 11.10.2012 between Nikunja Paul and Sri Jayanta Goala and Biresh
Kumar Sinha. He also admitted Exhibit-10 which is a copy of letter addressed to the Manager (HR), ONGC,
Silchar by Smti Sujata Sinha stating that the issues between Nikunja Paul , Sri Jayanta Goala and Sri Biresh
Kumar Sinha were settled. He also admitted that in the Enquiry Committee there was no elaboration or
statement regarding the nature of misbehavior which was a charge against the workman and the nature of
apology tendered by the workman was also not elaborately mentioned. He also admitted the enquiry started at
3 pm and within 2 hours the enquiry was complete.
11. On consideration of the materials on record it appeared that one major plea of the workman was that he was
not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In his cross examination he admitted that he was duly
served the copy of the memorandum of charge and was also given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses
of the management side during the domestic enquiry though he declined to cross examine them. The plea of
the workman that during enquiry in presence of the senior officers he was feeling embarrassed and thus could
not defend himself properly. This plea cannot be accepted per se. It also appeared that the report of the enquiry
was duly furnished to him seeking his response. He also gave his response. On perusal of the proceeding of
the domestic enquiry it appeared that in regard to charges No. 1 to 4 there was no denial of the charges and the
workman was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but he declined. Admittedly, the workman did
not adduce any evidence during the domestic enquiry. It is however, noticed that in regard to charge No.5 the
outsiders from whom the workman allegedly took money with a promise to arrange employment in ONGC
were not examined as witnesses. But the complaints against the workman submitted by such outsiders were
brought on record during the domestic enquiry. The workman did not deny that he took the money though his
plea was that he took the money to help his younger brother. In this connection let us examine the enquiry
proceeding (Ext 8). During the enquiry one of the witnesses Mrs. Krishna Barman, Senior HR Executive of
ONGC at the relevant time stated that one Miss. Sujata Sinha, a social worker of the locality officially made
an allegation against the workman that he had taken money from Biresh Chandra Sinha and Jayanta Goala
promising to help them in giving employment. The witness, during the domestic enquiry, also stated that both
the aforesaid persons also contacted her with a request to arrange for refund of the money. This statement of
Mrs. Krishna Barman clearly indicated the grave misconduct committed by the workman. Indeed the matter
was later settled on compromise but the fact of compromise did not absolve the workman of the misconduct
2716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
which was grave in nature. The compromise, however, led to disposal of the criminal case against the
workman on compromise. The witness (Mrs. Krishna Barman), therefore brought on record, during the
domestic enquiry, the contents of the charge No.5. It also appeared from the Ext 8 that the workman declined
to cross examine Mrs. Barman and the other witnesses. The statement of Mrs. Barman during the domestic
enquiry therefore remained unrebutted. The enquiry committee, therefore, appeared to have correctly held all
the charges against the workman as proved. There also did not appear any material to even suggest that the
enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice. On proof of the charges brought against the
workman by the management, the controlling authority appeared to have acted duly by removing the workman
from service. It is therefore, held that the management did not act unjustifiably or illegally in imposing the
major penalty of removal from service. Accordingly, the reference is answered in negative. The reference is
therefore, disposed with a no relief award.
Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal on this 19th day of March, 2018 at Guwahati.
MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 579-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ bf.M;u
vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39/2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&30012@65@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and their Workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-30012/65/2004-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
Present: M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/39 of 2005
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
The Chief Employee Relations Manager [WR],
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
254-C, Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Prabadevi, Mumbai – 400 025.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Shri Prakash Kanduji Yeshwante & 11 Ors.,
C/o. Shri Haresh Motwani, Advocate High
Court, 1/3, Ground Fl., Rupal Apts. No.1,
98, Dada Saheb Phalke Road,
Dadar, Mumbai – 400 014.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2717
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. Sundeep Puri,
& Mr. R.V. Paranjpe, Advocates
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. Haresh Motwani
Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 22nd February, 2018
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-30012/65/2004 – IR (M) dated 23.12.2004. The terms of reference
given in the schedule are as follows :
1.
“Whether the contract between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and the Contractor, M/s. All Services under One
Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai is a sham and bogus and is a camouflage to deprive the workers listed at
Exhibit ‘A’ to the petition of benefits available to permanent workmen of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.?”
2.
“Whether the workers listed at Exhibit ‘A’ to the petition should be declared as permanent workers of Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd.?”
3.
“What are the wages and consequential benefits to be paid to the workers listed at Exhibit ‘A to the
Petition ?”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their
respective representatives.
3.
Second party workmen filed statement of claim Ex.8. According to the concerned workmen they are doing
sweeping and cleaning work in the establishment of IOCL, the first party at Prabhadevi with effect from date of
engagement as shown in Annexure ‘A to the statement. The work of sweeping and cleaning is of perennial in nature.
The first party has engaged their permanent workers in regular employment of the first party for doing sweeping,
cleaning and house-keeping work which is of unskilled nature. The first party has also engaged workmen doing
unskilled work in their regular employment who are paid wages and allowances and extended benefits much in excess
of wages drawn by the concerned workmen and benefits extended to them.
4.
It is the case of the concerned workmen that in order to deprive the concerned workmen of the benefits of
permanency and wages of permanent workmen, IOCL worked out a paper arrangement to show that the contractors
engaged such workmen. The contract labour system between the first party and the contractors, who are merely name
lenders, was sham & bogus. The work of the workmen is being assigned by the officers of first party. Instructions
regarding work are being given by the officers of the first party. Wages are being disbursed by the so-called name
lenders who are being changed from time to time.
5.
It is also the case of the concerned workmen that the first party has sufficient work of sweeping & cleaning to
be done regularly. However, the first party has been showing on paper that there is no sufficient work and therefore
some workers are required to put in less than 8 hours work as falsely claimed. The work of sweeping & cleaning in the
establishment of first party was prohibited under government notification on contract basis through bogus contractors.
6.
According to the concerned workmen, the first party awarded contract to M/s. All Services under One Roof
(India) Pvt. Ltd. and A-1 Enterprises on paper. But both the firms are controlled by one and the same person. The
workmen report for duties from 7.00 a.m. in the morning till 3.00 p.m. They are required to clean work premises on
first, second, third & fourth floor, toilet blocks, urinals, housekeeping, cleaning of all tables & office materials, wall
cupboards, dusting, cleaning & sweeping of record room, club room, mobbing, cleaning of canteen, loading, unloading,
shifting of materials and to clean water. They are required to report on Saturday which is weekly off of the
establishment. The work being done by the concerned workmen is same or of similar nature as is being done by the
regular workmen. Their work is being supervised by Smt. Nita Walinjkar, Dy. Manager, Mr. A. Ramakrishnan, Dy.
Manager and such other officers.
7.
It is in that circumstances, it is the contention of the concerned workmen that the contract labour system
existing between the first party and the name lenders is sham & bogus and the workmen concerned in the present
reference are direct & regular workmen of the first party with effect from date of engagement in the establishment of
the first party and that they are also entitled to wages and benefits and service conditions of the regular workmen with
effect from their date of employment.
2718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
According to them, they filed writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on 28.3.01 against the first
party, RLC, Mumbai for declaration that the workmen are direct, regular and permanent workmen of the first party and
for their absorption as permanent and regular workmen with effect from respective dates of engagement. The Hon’ble
Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court directed that the concerned workmen shall approach the tribunal.
Hence this reference.
9.
First party resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.12 contending therein that the second party workmen
were in employment of M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. who were awarded a contract on the basis of
limited tender to maintain the cleanliness of Western Region Marketing office of the first party and the said contractor
was carrying out such a job by employing his own people who were carrying out their respective jobs under the
supervision & control of M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. As such there is no employer – employee
relationship between the first party and the second party workmen.
10.
It is also the case of the first party that it is having his Western Region Marketing office at Prabhadevi,
Mumbai wherein the first party is employing about 290 staff and 270 officers. With a view to ensure cleanliness of the
premises the first party is utilizing the housekeeping services by awarding the said work on contract to outside parties.
The job of house-keeping is neither connected to or incidental to the activities of the first party company. The contracts
were awarded to the contractors by floating tenders and in turn after acceptance of a bid, the party is awarded the
contract by entering into an agreement. As per the terms of the contract, contractors perform the contracts by engaging
his own employees who were performing the respective jobs at supervision and control of the contractor.
11.
It is also the case of the first party that the core activity of the first party is refining, storage, transportation,
distribution, marketing of petroleum products. Housekeeping is neither connected with or incidental to its activity. As
such the job work done by the contract workmen is not of regular nature nor in perennial. No regular workmen of the
Corporation are performing the said jobs as done by the contract workmen. M/s. All Services under One Roof (India)
Pvt. Ltd. was awarded the contract of housekeeping from 1.6.03 to 31.5.05 on the basis of tender floated by the first
party for awarding housekeeping contract. While awarding the contract to M/s. All Services under One Roof (India)
Pvt. Ltd., the earlier contract for housekeeping services entered into with M/s. Kemould Systems stood terminated on
31.5.03 who in turn settled full & final settlement account of the employees employed by it. On awarding contract to
M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. the said contractor decided to recruit the concerned workmen in the
employment to perform the contract of housekeeping. After signing the contract with M/s. All Services under One
Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd., the said contractor was complying with all statues such as ESI, PF, P.T., Labour Welfare Fund
etc. As such the said contractor is a separate legal entity providing the services of housekeeping to the first party on a
principal to principal basis by engaging his own employees. The said contractor M/s. All Services under One Roof
(India) Pvt. Ltd. is the employer of the second party workmen who is having its own ESI & PF no. which are being
extended to the second party. It is thus denied by the first party that the contract between the first party and this
contractor is sham & bogus.
12.
Lastly it is contention of the first party that there is no any notification prohibiting, awarding of contract for
sweeping & cleaning work at the establishment of first party Corporation issued by the government. In the absence of
notification the concerned workmen are not entitled to claim absorption. The first party has thus denied the allegations
in the statement of claim and prayed that reference be dismissed with costs.
13.
Following issues are framed at Ex.15. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons
to follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1
Whether employer-employee relation was there between workmen
involved in the reference and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.?
No
2.
Whether employees involved in the reference were employees of Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. or of Contractor ?
They
were
employees
of
contractor
3.
Whether the contract between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and
Contractor, M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd., is sham,
bogus and camouflage to deprive the workmen listed in Exhibit ‘A’ to
the petition ?
No
4.
Are workmen involved in the reference entitled to any relief
No
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2719
5.
If yes, of what type ?
No
6.
What order ?
As
per
final
order
REASONS
Issue No.1, 2 & 3.
14.
So far contentions go; it is specifically contended by the concerned workmen in its statement of claim that
they are doing sweeping & cleaning work in the establishment of first party which of perennial and permanent nature
and as such they are engaged as permanent workers in the employment of first party for doing the said work. In his
evidence, Mahendra Barve who has deposed on behalf of the concerned workmen has admitted that the said work of
cleaning and sweeping was awarded to contractor M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. and they were
working in the first party company through the said contractor. He also admits that they were paid by the contractor
M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. whose contract was in force from 1.6.03 to 31.5.05. His glaring
admission also shows that prior to said contractor namely M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd., the
contract was given to M/s. Kemould Systems who paid their full & final settlement in May 2003. In view of these
admissions, it can be gathered that the first party company is utilizing the services of housekeeping by awarding the
said work on contract. The contracts awarded to the contractor by floating tenders and in turn after acceptance of the
bid, the parties awarded the contract by entering into an agreement. In view of this, it is to be seen whether so-called
contract given to M/s. Kemould Systems and M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. are genuine or not or
whether these contracts are sham & bogus and camouflage to deprive the concerned workers of their benefits.
15.
We have documents showing that the work orders were issued by the first party company at pg. 31 below
Ex.27. We have document to show that the work order issued in favour of M/s. Kemould Systems was extended. That
work order was for housekeeping of Western Regional office of the first party company. The earlier work order was
expired on 30.4.03 and subsequently there was extension of said contract period. Ex.43 shows general terms &
conditions for upkeep & maintenance contract for probation office and the fact is admitted that the contract of said
work was given to M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the job covering maintaining neatness,
cleanliness of the office premises maintaining cleanliness in toilets, canteen area open area around building with the
premises, maintaining cleanliness of area surrounding building etc. As per the terms & conditions of the tender the
contractor will make all the payments like employers’ contribution, ESIC, PF, minimum payable bonus etc. to the
workmen and also the minimum wages as declared by the Labour Commissioner. The Xerox copies of registration
certificate issued under Bombay Shops & Establishment Act to M/s. Kemould Systems, letter issued from RPFC office
to contractor M/s. Kemould Systems, pay sheet maintained by M/s. Kemould Systems, muster roll maintained by M/s.
Kemould Systems, identity card issued by M/s. Kemould Systems are the documents to show that earlier contractor
M/s. Kemould Systems had followed the terms & conditions of the contract and then as per the admission of the
concerned workmen, the said contractor M/s. Kemould Systems in 2003 has settled and paid to them and then they
were also paid by the subsequent contractor M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of work done
by them. Admittedly, they have also received the PF amount and in such circumstances it can be said that there are
documents to show that the contractors were maintaining yearly returns and separate PF code no. was given to them
whereby the contractor was deducting EPF contributions in respect of the workers who were engaged by the said
contractor. All these documents would show that the concerned workmen were the employees of the contractors. They
were never appointed at any time by the first party nor the first party has paid them wages at any time. The work was
assigned to them by the contractors who were awarded the contracts as per terms of the contract.
16.
Even then the Learned Counsel for the second party submitted that the work that has been carried out by the
concerned workmen is perennial, regular and permanent in nature and the said work is integral part of the activities of
the first party company. In this respect if we see the evidence of the concerned workmen, he states that they were
doing the work as stated in Annexure – A. In Annexure – A the nature of work as is mentioned is sweeping, cleaning,
dusting and housekeeping. He then states that apart from this work, they were also carrying out other works such as
taking files from one place to other place, shifting of furniture etc. The evidence is also to the effect that such work of
cleaning, sweeping etc. is required to be done on day to day basis. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the
nature of work that was being carried out by the concerned workmen was the integral part of the core activities of the
first party. As is evident from the company’s witness that the company is engaged in production & marketing
petroleum products, it has been established to supply & distribute petrol kerosene, diesel, LPG and therefore job of
housekeeping is neither connected to or the incidental to the activities of the first party. It is in that circumstances the
contracts were awarded to the contractor for doing the job of housekeeping etc. and then it is admitted by the concerned
workman, Mr. Mahendra in his cross examination that such contract of cleaning etc. was awarded to M/s. All Services
under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. It cannot be said therefore that the work which was being carried out by the contract
workers was of perennial nature or it is integral part of the core activities of the company.
2720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
Then, there is no evidence to show that the work of the concerned workmen was supervised by the officers of
the company namely Smt. Nita Walinjkar, Dy. Manager, Mr. A. Ramakrishnan, Dy. Manager. On the contrary there is
documentary evidence to show that the attendance register of these workmen was being maintained by the contractors.
They were performing the jobs under the supervision & control of the contractors for which the contractors used to pay
the wages to them as per attendance register maintained by them. Therefore, since the concerned workmen are not
employees of the first party, they cannot take the advantage of the fact that they are continued to work for many years.
18.
Even then the Learned Counsel for the second party submitted that the workmen were continued for long
period and that indicates that their need for work existed. Submission is to the effect that the first party shifted the
office to their new premises in BKC and that their services were illegally discontinued in 2014 in contravention of
section 33-A of I.D. Act.
19.
In this respect, it can be said that the concerned workmen had no existing rights to be enforced under the act
since they were contract labours. Their services came to an end by efflux of time in May 2005 when the contract of
M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. came to an end. Obviously, there is no evidence to show that there
is any such notification u/s. 10(i) of Contract Labour [Regulation & Abolition] Act, 1970 prohibiting the employment
of contract labour to carry out such work of sweeping & cleaning of premises etc. When there is evidence to show that
the contracts between the first party and the contractors namely M/s. Kemould Systems and M/s. All Services under
One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. are genuine then the concerned workmen are not entitled to get declaration as permanent
employees of the first party nor they are entitled to get monetary benefits as given to the permanent employees of the
first party.
20.
In the context, the reliance can be placed on the decision in case of International Airport Authority of India
V/s. International Air Cargo Union & Ors – AIR 2009 SC Pg. 3063 wherein it is held that,\
“…..The tests that are applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may
not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a
merely camouflage. For example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by
the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, if the salary is
paid by contractor, if the right to regulate employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and
control lies with the contractor. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a
contract labour, when such labour is assigned / allotted / sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who
choose whether the work is to be assigned / allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short
worker being the employee of the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he
will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns / sends the worker to work under
the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that
is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor.”
21.
Considering all these facts and in view of legal position cited supra, I find that there was no employer
employee relationship between the workmen involved in the reference and the first party. As such employees involved
in the reference are not the employees of first party. They are the employees of the contractors. The contract between
the first party and contractor M/s. All Services under One Roof (India) Pvt. Ltd. is not sham & bogus and camouflage
to deprive the concerned workmen. The above issues are therefore answered accordingly as indicated against each of
them.
Issue No.4 to 6.
18.
In view of my findings to the issues, the workmen involved in the reference are not entitled to any relief.
Hence the order.
O R D E R
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date : 22-2-2018
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 580-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ fjFkfod
izkstsDVl izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2721
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 41/2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 03-04-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29011@18@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh-ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Rithwik Project Pvt. Ltd. and their Workman, which was received by the Central Government on
03.04.2018.
[No. L-29011/18/2013-IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
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. 41/2013
Date of Passing Award – 7th March, 2018
BETWEEN:
M/s. Rithwik Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 91/B, Sagar Society Road No. 2,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034.
…1st Party-Management.
AND
The General Secretary,
North Orissa Workers Union,
Orampada, Po. Rourkela,
Distt. Sundargarh, (Odisha).
…2nd Party-Union.
APPEARANCES:
None
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
Shri B.S. Pati,
…
For the 2nd Party-
General Secretary.
Union.
A W A R D
The award is directed against a reference with the schedule “whether the termination of Shri Gouri Sankar
Naik, Shri Kabi Naik and Shri Bhim Naik from services w.e.f. 01.07.2007 by the management of M/s. Rithwik Projects
Ltd., is proper, justified and legal, if not, to what relief these workmen are entitled to?” made by the Government of
India in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-29011/18/2013 – IR(M), dated 23.05.2013 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 (herein after referred to as “The Act”) and the reference is stated to have been arisen out of a dispute between the
management of M/s. Rithwik Project Ltd. A contractor of Kalta Iron Ore Mines, RMD SAIL, Sundargarh and their
workmen.
2.
The case of the disputants workmen as emerges from his statement of claim is that the Management No. 1 is a
contractor of the 1st Party-Management No. 2 i.e. Kalta Iron Mines, Raw Materials Division of SAIL and the said
Management No. 1 was engaged for the purpose of raising of iron ore in the Kalta Iron Mines Area. Initially the
disputant-workman was engaged by M/s. Ores India Limited in the year 1993, who was entrusted for raising iron ore in
the Kalta Iron Mines. Thereafter, the Contractor, M/s. K.D. Sharma was entrusted to raise iron ore in the said mine and
the disputant was working under the said contractor till the year 2002. Thereafter contractor 1st Party-Management No.
1 took the charge of raising of iron ore and the disputant joined in the services of the said Management. He continued
to work in the said Management till he was refused employment with effect from 1.7.2007 by the said contractor
Management No. 1. Such refusal of employment without assigning any reason amounts to retrenchment/termination of
service. It is the claim of the 2nd party-Union that no notice pay and termination benefit as contemplated under section
2722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25-F of the Act was given to them and as such their termination being illegal and unjust, they are required to be
reinstated with full back wages.
3.
The 1st Party-Management of M/s. Rithwik Projects Private Ltd. has been set exparte as it did not make its
appearance and file the written statement inspite of sufficiency of notice after receipt of the reference and filing of the
statement of the claim by the 2nd Party-Union.
4.
One of the disputant workmen namely Kabi Nayak has been examined on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union and
Xerox copy of Identity card issued to him, copy of E.P.F. slip issued to Gopuri Sankar Naik, and copy of the
employment card to Gouri Sankar Naik and Bhima Naik have been filed, which are marked Ext.-1 to Ext.-3, in support
of the claim of the 2nd party-Union.
5.
Perusal of the sworn affidavit and statement of the witness made before this Tribunal reveals that the
assertions made in sworn affidavit of the witness is nothing less and more than the reiteration of pleadings advanced in
the statement of claim. The 1st Party-Management is said to be a contractor of the Management No. 2 and the said
contractor is running its activity in the mine of the Management No. 2 for raising iron ore which are supplied to
different customers. It has been alleged in the evidence of W.W.-1 that he and other three disputants were engaged by
different contractors and they were also engaged by the contractor-Management No. 1 when the said contractor was
entrusted to raise iron ore in the Kalta Iron Ore Mine. The witness has further stated that he and other disputant
workmen were denied employment by the contractor-Management M/s. Rithwik Projects (P) Ltd., with effect from
01.07.2002 which amounted to retrenchment. It is alleged by him that they were not paid any notice pay and
retrenchment compensation while being refused employment. The Xerox copy of the gate passes issued in favour of the
disputant for their entry to the Kalta Iron Ore Mines reveals that they were under the contractor-Management with
effect from 08.08.2005. Ext.-3 i.e. employment card reveals that they were engaged as P.R. Workers by the contractor
at Kalta Iron Mines. Ext.-2 series revealed that they were covered by the E.P.F. Scheme. If these documents are taken
into consideration along with the unchallenged and uncontroverted sworn affidavit of W.W.-1 it can be safely said that
the disputants were working in the Kalta Iron Mines as casual labourers under the employment of M/s. Rithwik
Projects (P) Ltd. i.e. Management No. 1 continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 240 days prior to alleged
refusal of employment. As it has been asserted in the uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of W.W.-1 that the
disputants were not paid towards notice pay and retrenchment compensation while being refused employment, such
refusal of employment amounted to retrenchment without compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Hence,
their such retrenchment was illegal and unjustified. Therefore, they are to be reinstated with 50% back wages.
6.
Accordingly, the Management No. 1 is directed to reinstate them with 50% back wages within two months of
publication of award provided they have not attained the age of superannuation and if they have attained the age of
superannuation they should be paid 50% of the back wages with other service benefits within two months from the date
of publication of the award failing which the disputants would be entitled to claim interest of 8% on the back wages.
7.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 581-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
dfl;k vk;ju ekbUl vkWiQ eSllZ ,Llsy ekb¯ux ,.M bUMLVªht fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
56@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29012@46@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Kasia Iron Mines of M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-29012/46/2004-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2723
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. 56/2004
Date of Passing Award – 6th March, 2018
Between:
1.
The General Manager,
Kasia Iron Mines of M/s. Essel Mining
& Ind. Ltd., At./Po. Barbil, Orissa,
Keonjhar
…1st Party-Management
(And)
Shri Makuru Mahanta,
Vill. Patbilla, Po. Khendra,
Via Jhumpura, Dist. Keonjhar
…2nd Party-Workman
Appearances:
M/s. S. Pattnaik, Advocate
…
For the 1st Party-Management
M/s. Subrat Mishra, Advocate
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman
A W A R D
The award is directed against a reference with the schedule “whether the action of the Management of Kasia Iron
Mines of M/s. Essel Mining and Industries Limited, At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar by dismissing the services of Shri
Makur Mahanta, Ex-general mazdor with effect from 22.8.1998 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?” made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-29012/46/2004 – IR(M), dated
23.08.2004 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 (herein after referred to as “The Act”) and the reference is stated to have been arisen
out of a dispute between the management of Kasia Iron Mines of M/s. Essel Mining & Ind. Ltd., and its workman
namely Makur Mahanta.
2.
Briefly stated the case of the disputant workman, as emerges from his statement of claim, is that he joined in the
establishment of the 1st Party-Management as a general mazdoor in the year 1990 and he was discharging the duties of
Helper in the mining area. On 2.9.1997 the Manager of the Mines issued a charge-sheet against him on false and
frivolous reasons when he refused to work as Drilling Operator in absence of the regular Drilling Operator even though
he was designated as general mazdoor and he was expected to discharge the duties of Helper. A false police case was
registered against him in which he was stated to have manhandled and misbehaved his superior. He was placed under
suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him with charges of manhandling and misbehaving the
Mine Manager and disobeying official order passed by the superior authority. The said departmental enquiry was
conducted in a haste and slipshod manner. He was not afforded reasonable opportunities to defend himself in the said
departmental proceeding. He was not provided with list of witnesses and copies of documents on which the department
was relying to bring-forth the charges. Principle of natural justice was not followed while conducting the departmental
proceeding. The enquiry officer was not impartial and his finding was perverse and contrary to the materials placed in
the departmental proceeding. It has been alleged that he was not issued with second show cause notice and not served
with a copy of the enquiry report after completion of the enquiry and before his dismissal. He was dismissed from
service with effect from 22.8.1998 in a whimsical manner. The criminal case registered against him was ended with
acquittal vide a judgement dated 8.5.2003 of the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barbil. After his acquittal he
made a representation to the Management for his reinstatement. As no action was taken on his representation, he raised
a dispute before the labour machinery resulting in the present reference.
3.
The Management has refuted all the above allegations raised in the statement of claim taking a stand that on the
relevant time i.e. on 01.09.1997 the disputant was working as a general mazdoor under direct supervision of Mine
Foreman in the area of Kasia Mines. Drilling, excavation, staking and cleaning works were carried out in the said mine
2724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under the direction and supervision of Mine Foreman on the relevant time. As the regular driller was absent on that
day, the disputant being a senior general mazdoor and having experience of drilling and excavation was asked to carry
out the drilling operation. But, he disobeyed the direction of the Mine Foreman and when the Foreman reported the
matter to his superior authority and recommended for taking action on such disobedience, the disputant workman
misbehaved with him. On the same day evening at around 5 P.M. he came to the Manager’s office being armed with a
sword and quarrelled with the watchman in an attempt to have a forcible entry to the room of Mine Manager. He
abused in filthy language and threatened to kill the watchman and other superior officers. It is also alleged that, he
threw stones to the chamber of the Manager. Hence, a police case was registered against him and on completion of
investigation he was charge-sheeted in the said police case. Simultaneously, a departmental proceeding was also
initiated against him with charges of misbehaving and manhandling with his superior authority and attempting to
assault the Manager and criminal intimidating him by throwing stones to his office chamber. It has been pleaded by the
Management that, the disputant was furnished with list of witnesses and documents likely to be presented before the
enquiry officer. He was given due opportunities to defend his case and he was represented through a co-worker in the
departmental proceeding. According to the Management the departmental proceeding was conducted in a proper and
fair manner with conformity to the provisions of the Certified Standing Order of the Management and principles of
natural justice. As the disputant was found guilty of severe misconduct, he was dismissed from service after being
given an opportunity to file his show cause reply on the findings of the enquiry officer. The disputant workman having
been involved in commission of serious misconduct was rightly dismissed from service and as such, the action of the
Management needs no interference.
4.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication of
the dispute.
I S S U E S
1.
Whether the reference is maintainable?
2.
Whether domestic enquiry held against the workman was in accordance with the principle of natural
justice?
3.
Whether the action of management in dismissing the workman from service was justified and proper?
4.
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
5.
It is pertinent to mention here that, at the instance of the parties all the issues are heard simultaneously instead of
the issue of fairness of the departmental proceeding being taken up as a preliminary issue. The disputant workman has
examined himself as W.W.-1 and filed copy of the attendance card for the month of Sept., 1997, copy of the charge-
sheet issued to him, copy of his explanation to the charge-sheet, copy of his another explanation dated 7.8.1998, copy
of the judgement of J.M.F.C., Barbil, dated 8.5.2003 passed in G.R. Case No. 283/1997 (T.C.-747/98), and copy of the
order of his dismissal in support of his claim, whereas, the Management has relied upon the oral testimony of Shri
Ashok Kumar Pattanaik, Dy. General Manager and Shri Pravakar Mahanta and documents like copy of the letter dated
1.9.2007 of the Mine Manager, copies of the written complaints/reports of various employees, copy of the notice dated
13.10.1997, copy of the enquiry report and entire proceeding of the enquiry file, copy of the letter dated 1.1.1999
issued by the Sr. Vice President (Mines) to the workman, copy of the letter dated 25.7.1998 issued by the Senior Vice
President Mines to the workman and copy of the Certified Standing Order of the management marked as Ext.-A to
Ext.-G to refute the allegations raised by the disputant workman.
F I N D I N G S
6.
All the issues are considered and discussed simultaneously as findings of those issues are inter-linked to each
other.
In his oral testimony the disputant workman has claimed that he was dismissed from service in a vindictive action
as he refused to perform the duty of a Driller even though he was appointed as a general mazdoor. The departmental
proceeding was initiated without any preliminary or fact finding enquiry and it was based on false and baseless charges.
He was not communicated about the appointment of the enquiry officer and the Presenting Officer before the
commencement of the enquiry. He was not also furnished with the list of witnesses and list of documents when the
enquiry was commenced. The enquiry officer acted in a biased manner and submitted a perverse report even though
there was no material in the departmental proceedings to hold him guilty of serious misconduct. On a close scrutiny of
the documents filed by the disputants it is seen that disputant was issued with a charge-sheet (marked as Ext.-2) in
which allegations in five counts were raised. Ext.-4 further reveals that he submitted a show cause reply after being
informed about the findings of the enquiry officer. There is nothing specific in his oral testimony about the name of the
witnesses and documents which were presented before the enquiry officer without his prior knowledge. He has not also
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2725
vividly described as to how he was prejudiced by non-supply of such list of witnesses and documents. His evidence
appears to be a bald one. On the other hand M.W.-1 has categorically stated that the disputant workman was furnished
with the list of witnesses and documents prior to the commencement of the enquiry. He was also communicated and
informed about the enquiry officer and Presenting Officer before commencement of the enquiry. Nothing substantial
has been elicited from the cross examination of this witness to disbelieve him in this regard. On the other hand the
Management has filed and exhibited the departmental proceeding file which is marked as Ext.-A. On a close scrutiny of
the said departmental proceeding file it is seen that after issue of charge-sheet and submission of explanation by the
disputant workman he was communicated vide a Memo dated 13.10.1997 about appointment of one D. Behera,
Advocate, Keonjhar as an Enquiry Officer. The list of witnesses and documents are stated to have been enclosed with
the said memo. The pleadings and evidence of the parties reveal that the disputant had participated in the departmental
proceeding. No specific allegation has been raised either in the statement of claim or in the evidence of the workman
that he had ever claimed before the enquiry officer about non-supply of list of witnesses and list of documents or copies
of the documents. Though, an argument has been advanced that the departmental enquiry was bad in the eye of law as
no subsistence allowance was provided to the disputant workman during the period of his suspension as well as the
period during which the departmental proceeding was conducted, the said stand has neither been pleaded in the
Statement of claim nor in the oral evidence of the workman. His evidence is totally silent about the subsistence
allowance. On the other hand, the M.W.-1 in his cross examination denied and refuted such suggestion of the
workman. Mere perusal of the documents relied upon by both the parties it is crystal clear that all the formalities and
principle of natural justice were observed while conducting the departmental enquiry. Enquiry report was also
furnished to the disputant workman and he was invited to submit his explanation on the said report as per Ext.-E
available in the departmental proceeding file. Hence, the contention that he was not issued with a second show-cause
notice along with an enquiry report before dismissal has no force.
Further, it cannot be over-sighted that enquiry officer Shri D. Behera is not found to have been connected in any
manner with the Management on account of he being an Advocate. Hence, on a bald statement of the disputant
workman the departmental enquiry cannot be said to be defective. On the other hand a co-employee/workman, who has
been examined as M.W.-2 has testified before this Tribunal in support of the Management. He is stated to be a witness
to the entire incident for which the disputant workman was charge-sheeted. There is nothing in his cross examination to
doubt his credibility and trust-worthiness.
8.
The only point in favour of the disputant workman is that he was acquitted in the criminal case. But, law is well
settled that findings of a criminal court on the same and self matter is not binding to a departmental enquiry since strict
principles of Evidence and Procedure are not required to be followed in a departmental proceeding like in a criminal
trial. The findings of the departmental enquiry is based on pre-ponderence of probabilities, whereas in criminal case the
guilt of the accused is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That apart, a co-worker (M.W.-2), who was said
to be present at the relevant time of incidence, has deposed before this Tribunal describing vividly as to how the
disputant misbehaved his superior authority and criminally intimidated him being armed with a sword/sharp cutting
weapon. There is nothing in his cross examination to discard his version. Though, the disputant workman was not
expected to perform the duty of Rigger being employed as a Helper and it was wrong on the part of the Manager to
insist him to discharge the duty of Rigger, the disputant has no right either to misbehave and manhandle him so also he
should have not misbehaved or manhandled or criminally intimidated his authority for making him absent from duty on
that day for his refusal to discharge the work of a Rigger except lodging a complaint in a lawful manner for the action
of the Management treating him absent from duty.
9.
Further, it is emerging from the pleadings and the evidence of the parties that his dismissal related to 22.8.1998
whereas the dispute seems to have been raised in the year 2004 after his acquittal in the criminal case vide judgement
dated 8.5.2003. There was a delay of more than five years in challenging the order of dismissal. Law is well settled that
when a power is conferred by a statute without mentioning the period within it can be invoked, the same has to be done
within reasonable period, as all powers must be exercised reasonably and exercise of the same within reasonable period
would be a fact of resemblances [Asst. Executive Engineer, Karnataka –versus- Shivalinga (2002-1-LLJ-4575 SC)].
Thus, for the reasons mentioned and discussed above I am constrained to hold that the dismissal of Shri Makur
Mahanta by the Management was justified in view of he being found to have committed a serious misconduct
warranting his dismissal as provided in the Certified Standing Order of the Management. Therefore, the disputant
workman is not entitled to any relief.
10.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
2726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 582-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ HkkUtk
feujYl izkbosV fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 390@2001) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 03-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&29011@6@2001&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 390/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bhanja Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
03.04.2018.
[No. L-29011/6/2001-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
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. 390/2001
Date of Passing Award – 28th February, 2018
Between:
The Managing Director,
Bhanja Minerals Pvt. Ltd.,
At. Park Street, Keonjhar, Orissa
…1st Party-Management
(And)
The General Secretary,
North Orissa Workers Union,
At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar, Orissa
…2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
None
…
For the 1st Party-Management
Shri B.S. Pati, General Secretary
…
For the 2nd Party-Union
A W A R D
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as “The
Act”) have referred a dispute with the schedule “whether the demand of the North Orissa Workers Union Barbil for
payment of wages to the workers as per list enclosed from 23rd Dec., 1998 to till date of opening of the mines by the
management of Deojhar Iron Mine of M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., Deojhar for not observing the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before closure of the mines and also not acting as per the modified order passed in the
O.J.C. No. 17610 of 1998 dated 18.3.99 of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa is justified? If not, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?” for its adjudication vide their letter No. L-29011/6/2001/IR(M) dated 04.05.2001.
2.
The case of the 2nd party-Union as emerges from the statement of claim is that all the workmen, whose list is
enclosed with the schedule of the reference, were employed under the Management in its mine i.e. Deojhar Iron Mines
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2727
and they were paid wages under its muster roll. In the year 1998, there was a boundary dispute of its mine with the
mining area of one M/s. Sarada Mines for which a writ was preferred in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. The
Hon’ble High Court restrained both the parties from carrying out the mining activity in those mining area. On
impleadment and filing of petition by the 2nd party-Union, the said stay order was modified and mining activity was
restrained only in the disputed area. It is the claim of the Union that despite vacation of such stay order, the
Management did not start mining operation and the workmen were refused employment. Though, the disputant
workmen were working in the mines of the Management continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 7/8 years, the
Management did neither pay any compensation nor took any steps as required under section 25-o of the Act for closure
of its mine. It did not take any steps also to reinstate the disputant workmen after vacation of the stay order by the
Hon’ble High Court. Hence, a dispute was raised before the labour machinery and conciliation effort having failed the
dispute has been referred to the Tribunal for its adjudication. Prayer has been made by the 2nd party-Union for directing
the Management to reinstate all the workmen in its muster roll with all back wages and other service benefits.
3.
On being noticed the Management appeared and filed its written statement in the initial stage of the proceeding.
Subsequently, the Management was set exparte as it did not participate in the adjudication process. In its written
statement the Management refuted all the allegations raised by the 2nd party-Union and took a stand that when a
boundary dispute of its mine was arose with M/s. Sarada Mine, the disputant workmen were restrained by the
employees of M/s. Sarada Mine to work. In the result they did not turn up on their own volition to work for the
Management and they had abandoned services voluntarily. It is also pleaded that due to stay order of the Hon’ble High
Court, the workmen did not turn up and they abandoned from their duty. The 1st Party-Management did not ever
terminate their services. As the workmen ceases to work on their own volition and they did not turn up for their work,
they are not entitled to any wages or any relief as claimed by them.
4.
On the aforementioned pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled prior to the Management was set
exparte.
I S S U E S
1.
Whether the demand of the North Orissa Workers Union Barbil for payment of wages to the workers as per
list enclosed from 23rd Dec., 1998 to till date of opening of the mines by the management of Deojhar Iron
Mine of M/s. Bhanja Minerals (P) Ltd., Deojhar for not observing the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 before closure of the mines and also not acting as per the modified order passed in the O.J.C. No.
17610 of 1998 dated 18.3.99 of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa is justified?
2.
If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to
F I N D I N G S
5.
It is pertinent to mention here that this Tribunal was constrained to pass an exparte award on 07.03.2003 when
the Management failed to make its appearance after filing of S.A. of Shri Bhawani Shankar Pati, witnesses for the 2nd
party-Union towards their examination-in-chief as prescribed under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. The Management preferred
a writ vide W.P.(C) 9669/2003 in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa challenging the exparte award and in its order
dated 11.05.2009 the Hon’ble High Court quashed the award and remitted back the matter to the Tribunal for its
adjudication afresh in accordance with law, subject to condition that the petitioner-Management make a payment of
Rs. 75,000/- towards cost to be paid to the workmen. Accordingly, the Management made its appearance on
22.12.2010 and deposited the cost which was disbursed to the concerned workmen and the case was re-opened and
posted for hearing. After several adjournments on the request of the parties, the Union filed sworn affidavit of its two
witnesses towards their examination in chief. When the case was lingering for their cross examination, the
Management failed to take any steps again on 22.02.2016 notice was issued also to the Management for availing the
opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses. When no step was taken on behalf of the Management after several
adjournments, the cross examination of the witnesses was presumed to be declined and the Tribunal is constrained to
proceed with the adjudication in absence of the Management.
6.
The 2nd party-Union has examined one of the disputant workmen namely Shri Rangadhar Naik and General
Secretary of the Union Shri Bhawani Shankar Pati by filing their sworn affidavit. Their evidence filed in form of
sworn affidavit has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. The statement of these witnesses before the Tribunal is
nothing more or less than the reiteration of the pleadings advanced in the statement of claim. According to them the
concerned workmen being in the muster roll of the Management were employed in the mines of the Management and
the Management suddenly closed the mining operations without prior intimation to its workmen and without following
due procedure on a pretext of restrained order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in a writ. It has been claimed by the
witnesses that they moved the Hon’ble High Court for vacation of the said stay order. Accordingly, the order of the
Hon’ble High Court was modified and there was no restriction to carry out mining operation in the undisputed mining
2728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
area of the Management. It is their claim that the workmen were available to perform their duties. But, the Management
did not engage them and closed the operation of the mine suo motu without following due procedure. Hence, they
became unemployed and as the closure was without intimation and due procedure, they are to be reinstated with full
back wages. There is nothing in their uncontroverted and unchallenged testimony to disbelieve them. That apart, the
Management has not challenged their engagement/employment prior to the alleged closure of the mine. There is also
no denial in the written statement of the Management in regard to the claim of continuous and uninterrupted
engagement of the disputant workmen for more than 7/8 years. Admittedly there is no material before me to suggest
that due procedure as contemplated in Section 25-O or procedure as laid down in the Act was followed before stopping
or closure of the mining operation. No compensation or prior notice for such closure of the mining operation was given
to the workmen. No material is placed before the Tribunal to establish that the concerned workmen had abandoned
their job voluntarily in view of the boundary dispute between two mine owners. Be that as it may, the closure of the
mining operation is apparently illegal so also the disengagement or refusal of employment to the disputant workmen. It
appears from the oral testimony of the witnesses that mining operation is still closed. It cannot be over-sighted that the
dispute date back to the year 1998/1999 and in the meanwhile at least some of the workmen must have crossed the age
of superannuation. When mining operation is already closed and it is not started, any order of reinstatement would not
be beneficial to the workmen. It cannot also be over-looked that had the mining operation been closed in accordance to
the procedure as laid down in the Act the disputant workmen would have received retrenchment compensation. It is
well settled that in all matters of illegal or wrong dismissal of retrenchment of service, the Tribunal is not duty bound to
pass an order of reinstatement with full back wages. In this regard the Tribunal has discretion to pass an appropriate
award taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
7.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as analysed above it is felt just and proper
to direct the Management to pay Rs. 25,000/- to each workmen or his legal heir in case of death of any workmen,
whose name is listed along with the schedule of the reference as a one-time compensation for their illegal
disengagement. The amount of compensation shall be paid within two months of the publication of the award failing
which the workmen are entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8% on the above amount from the date of this order.
8.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 583-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
;wukbVsM bf.M;k bu';ksjsal da- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 8@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-04-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&17012@18@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th April, 2018
S.O. 583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 03.04.2018.
[No. L-17012/18/2005-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri B.C. Rath,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2729
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 08/2006
Date of Passing Award – 28th February, 2018
Between:
1.
The Regional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, Himalaya House,
38-B, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700 071.
2.
The Sr. Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, Jajpur Road,
Jajpur (Orissa)
…1st Party-Managements
(And)
Shri Nakul Chandra Rout,
S/o. Shri Gopal Ch. Rout,
At./Po. Rachipur, Jajpur, Orissa
…2nd Party-Workman
Appearances:
M/s. Nalini Kr. Mohanty, Advocate …
For the 1st Party-Managements
M/s. S.K. Nayak, Advocate
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman
AWARD
The award is directed against a reference made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in
exercising its authority conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act (herein-after referred to as “The Act”) vide its letter No. L-17012/18/2005 – IR(M), dated 20.04.2006
and the schedule of the reference is “Whether the contention of Shri Nakul Chandra Rout that he worked as Sweeper
with the management of United India Insurance Company for more than 240 days continuously during the preceding 12
calendar months prior to his date of termination is correct. If so, whether the industrial dispute raised by him against
the management over his termination justified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
Sworn of unnecessary details the case of the disputant workman as emerges from his statement of claim is that he
was appointed as a Sweeper on 29.8.2001 in the branch office of the Management No. 1 at Jajpur. He worked as such
continuously and uninterruptedly till 21.3.2005 when he was refused employment by the Branch Manager of the said
branch office. According to him no notice pay in lieu of notice for disengagement/retrenchment and retrenchment
compensation as provided under section 25-F of the Act was paid to him when employment was refused to him, even
though he worked for more than 240 days continuously in the calendar year preceding to his retrenchment. His such
retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of the Act was illegal and unjustified. Therefore, the Management is required
to reinstate him with full back wages and other consequential reliefs.
3.
The Management has refuted the allegations raised by the disputant workman on a pleading that the Management
being a Government Undertaking has its own recruitment rules and guidelines for appointment of its various categories
of staff and as such Branch Manager had no authority to make any appointment in its various branch offices. The
disputant was given a contract work of sweeping the branch office on daily wage basis for a temporary period when the
regular Sweeper of the Branch office at Jajpur was superannuated. Such engagement of the disputant on daily wage
basis was much more less than 240 days in a calendar year and as such question does not arise for compliance of
Section 25-F of the Act. According to it on transfer and posting of regular sweeper the contract job of the disputant
was dispensed with. In the above back-drops the disputant has neither any right to continue in the job permanently nor
he is entitled to any reinstatement as well as any compensation.
4.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issue have been settled for adjudication of the dispute.
I S S U E S
1.
Whether the reference is maintainable?
2.
Whether the workman has worked continuously for 240 days prior to his termination?
3.
Whether the above termination of workman without payment
2730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
To substantiate his claim the disputant workman has tendered oral evidence only by examining himself and one
Keshab Charan Bhuyan as W.W-1 and W.W.-2 whereas, the Management has examined its Branch Manager, Jajpur
Road Branch, as M.W.-1 and relied upon the documents like cash disbursement vouchers on different dates, office
directions passed on different dates and letter written by the workman which are marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-B/2
respectively.
F I N D I N G S
6.
For the sake of convenience all the issues are taken for consideration simultaneously.
Coming to the evidence of the disputant workman it is seen that not a single scrap of paper towards appointment
of the disputant as a Sweeper with effect from 29.8.2001 and his continuance in the said capacity till he was refused
employment on 22.3.2005 is filed on a contention that no written appointment letter was issued to him and he was paid
wages through vouchers. The disputant workman and his witnesses have only adduced oral evidence in support of the
claim of the disputant that he was appointed as a Sweeper with effect from 29.8.2001 and continued as such till
21.3.2005. In the case between Rajsthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd., -versus State of Rajasthan and another arising
out of Civil Appeal No. 5969 of 2004 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that in the case where termination is alleged to
have been made in violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, mere filing of an affidavit and giving his own statement
before Labour Court to the said effect is not enough evidence to prove that the workman had worked for 240 days as
claimed. Burden is always upon the workman to prove the said fact.
7.
In the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others –versus State of Bihar arising of S.L.P. (C) No. 7957 of
1996 the Hon’ble Apex Court have observed that services of a daily wagers are temporary one. They are temporary
employees working on daily wages. Under the circumstances their disengagement from service cannot be construed to
be a retrenchment under the I.D. Act. The concept of retrenchment therefore cannot be stretched to such an extent as to
cover the employees engaged on daily wage basis.
8.
Keeping in view the above settled principles if the evidence of the disputant workman is examined, it is seen that
he has not discharged his burden of proof to establish his claim that he worked for more than 240 days continuously
and uninterruptedly preceding to his alleged retrenchment on 20.3.2005. It is emerging from his evidence that he was
paid wages through different vouchers in an interval of seven days or fifteen days. He was refused employment when
one Laxman Jena regular sweeper of the Management was transferred from Kolkatta to Jajpur. On the other hand it has
been affirmed on oath by the M.W.-1 that the disputant was never engaged continuously for a period of 240 days either
in a calendar year preceding to his disengagement or in a year. He was engaged on daily wage for sweeping the office
premises only and his such engagement was 12 days in the year 2001, 219 days in the year 2002, 162 days in the year
2003 and 205 days in 2004 and 29 days in the year 2005 when he was disengaged. The vouchers under which the
disputant was paid for the above specific work are filed by the Management and marked as exhibits. Close scrutiny of
those vouchers reveals that there is no discrepancy in the oral evidence of M.W.-1. Relying upon the principle set out
by the Hon’ble Apex Court the learned counsel for the disputant workman submitted that as the Management’s office
runs five days in a week, continuous and uninterrupted work of 205 days in a calendar year mandates the Management
to comply with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the disputant. In this regard he has filed
the calendars of the year 2001 to 2005. The calendars are apparently printed by Orissa State General Employees
Insurance Association. There is no authentication to infer that the holidays shown in the printed calendar are in
conformity to the declared public holidays by the Management in those calendar years. Further, it cannot be overlooked
that in the calendar of the year 2004 six working days in a week are shown. Though, the witnesses have been examined
from both the sides, they have not stated anything from which it can be concluded that the office of the Management
was functioning for five days in a week and as such the Management is required to comply with the provisions of
Section 25-F when the disputant is found to have worked for more than 205 days in a calendar year. Thus, from the
analysis and discussions made above it can be safely held that the disputant workman has failed to establish that he
worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his disengagement as well as his claim that the
Management was five working days in a week. That apart, it cannot be over-sighted that his engagement was purely on
temporary and daily wage basis against a vacancy to be filled up by regular employee. When his employment was on
daily wage basis against a temporary vacancy, it can be presumed that the disputant is aware of his
appointment/engagement was for a specific period or for specific purpose. Be that as it may, provisions of Section 25-F
is not required to be complied with when such an employee or workman or daily wager is disengaged in the event of
the vacancy being filled up by a regular workman. In view of the discussions made above, the
termination/retrenchment/refusal/disengagement of the disputant workman cannot be said illegal or unjustified.
9.
Accordingly the reference is answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2731
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vizSy] 2018
dk-vk- 584-—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;] xksnkofj[kkuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-03-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA
¹la- ,y&22013@01@2018&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
jktsUæ flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th April, 2018
S.O. 584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Godavarikhani 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 21.03.2018.
[No. L-22013/01/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL.DIST. &
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present : SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
I.D. No. 21 of 2013
Between:-
Thatikonda Sammaiah, S/o.Gattaiah, Occ:Coal Filler,
R/o.Laxmipuram, Ramagundam Mandal of Peddapalli District.
… Petitioner
A N D
1.
The Colliery Manager, SCCL, GDK VI Incline, Godavarikhani
2.
The Chief General Manager, SCCL, RG-I, Godavarikhani,
Post Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar.
3.
The Managing Director (Admn.), SCCL, Kothagudem,
District Khammam.
… Respondents
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Bhagavanth Rao, Advocate for the
petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over
for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
AWARD
1.
This is a petition filed by petitioner workman U/s.2-A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, Challenging the order of R-2
herein by which the petitioner was removed from service and he prayed for reinstatement into service and also for a
relief of Rs.3,000/- per month as MMC and also for a sum of Rs.6,000/- till he was given employment. In fact the
petition was filed by petitioner during 2013 challenging the order dated 13-06-2000 by which the petitioner was
removed from service. It was registered as ID.No.21/2013. My predecessor in office has disposed the said Industrial
Dispute, after giving opportunity to the respondents and after receiving their counter vide order dated 07-11-2015. The
I.D., was allowed by setting aside the dismissal order dater 11-06-2000 and it was directed that the petitioner shall be
deemed to be retired from service voluntarily with effect from 13-06-2000. The respondents have challenged the award
by filing writ petition vide WP No.25043 of 2016. The Honorable High Court was pleased to allow the writ petition
and remanded the matter with a specific direction to this Tribunal to consider the issue of limitation. While allowing
the writ petition the Honorable High Court, was pleased to observe as follows.
2732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 14, 2018/CHAITRA 24, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“The only point raised in the present writ petition is with regard to the right of respondent No.2 to
file I.D.No. 21/2013 after lapse of 13 years.
Though a specific ground was taken raising the Bar of limitation in the counter filed on behalf of
respondent No.1, the Labour Court neither framed the point with regard to the limitation nor decided the
same. In the circumstances, after going through the award, this court is satisfied that the Labour Court has
not decided the said point of limitation.
Accordingly, this Writ petition is allowed on the point of non-consideration of the point of limitation
and the matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for consideration of the issue afresh within a period of three
(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.”
2.
The following was the brief case of the petitioner as per his petition.
The petitioner was appointed in SCC Company on 01-01-1970. He got appointment in the place of his father-in-
law under "settlements" of section 12(3) of ID. Act. He has discharged duties to the fullest satisfaction to the superiors.
The health of the petitioner was not good he could not attend duty during 1999. He was suspend from service from 21-
11-1999 to 30-11-1999. The vision of his left eye was badly affected. He has obtained treatment at Area Hospital and
he was declared as fit to attend duties on 01-10-1999. The petitioner has stated that in spite of treatment his vision was
not improved. He was unable to attend the duty. He has attended only 130 musters in 1999. The petitioner was
removed from service on the ground of continues absenteeism. The petitioner states that he was an illiterate his thumb
impression was obtained on white papers. The respondent company without declaring the petitioner unfit, terminated
him from service. Therefore he prayed for reinstatement to the service by giving relief at the rate of Rs.3000/- P.M as
MMC and Rs.6,000/- per month till he was given employment.
The respondent opposed the petition on various grounds. The respondent has filed a counter stating that the
petitioner was removed from service in 2000. He kept quiet for a period of 14 years and raised the present Industrial
Dispute. Therefore it is barred by limitation U/s. 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act and liable to be dismissed. The
respondents have denied the other allegations of the petitioner and further stated that according to 52(2) of Mines Act
1952 an underground employee is required to put minimum musters of 190 and surface employee must attend 240
musters in a year. Therefore the petitioner being underground employee supposed to attend minimum musters of 190,
but he was a continues absentee and he has attended only 70 musters during 1999. A charge sheet was served on the
petitioner on 19-03-2000. The respondent has furnished the attendance particulars of petitioner during 1996 to 2000.
The respondent has stated that such continuous absence amounts to misconduct under company's standing orders vide
Clause 25.25. Therefore charge sheet was served on the petitioner, and a regular departmental enquiry was conducted.
The charges were proved against the petitioner. The respondent has opposed the petition mainly on the ground of
limitation. It was also opposed on the ground of absence as the petitioner failed to put in minimum required musters.
3.
As I have already stated, the petition was decided by my predecessor vide award dated 07-11-2015. However in
view of the directions of the Honorable High Court vide orders in W.P. No. 25045/2016 both the counsel for petitioner
and respondent have advanced their arguments.
Now the point for consideration is whether the petition filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation as
contended by the respondent?
4.
Since the present case was remanded with regard to the limitation aspect, I don’t want to go to the other
merits of the case. The Hon’ble High Court while allowing Writ Petition specifically directed this Tribunal to consider
the issue of limitation. According to the available material the petitioner herein worked as Badli Coal Filler and in
view of his continuous absence after a departmental enquiry and followed by a show cause notice the petitioner was
removed from service w.e.f., 13-06-2000 vide order dated 11-06-2000. This Industrial Dispute was filed by the
petitioner nearly 13 years after the said removal order. The respondents while filing their counter specifically pleaded
that the present Industrial Dispute is not maintainable in view of the provisions vide section 2A(3) of the ID Act. The
learned counsel for the petitioner states that this aspect was considered at the time of registering the case and as the
amendment was subsequent to the removal order the petitioner can maintain ID under section 2A(2) of ID Act and
section 2A (3) is not a bar against the petition. For convenience sake I am reproducing section 2 A of the Industrial
Disputes Act which reads as follows:
Amendment of section 2A. - Section 2A of the principal Act shall be numbered as sub-section (1)
thereof and after sub-section (1) as so numbered, the following sub-sections shall be inserted, namely:—
“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1)
may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to
therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer
of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour
Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 14] 2018@pS=k 24] 1940
2733
referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the
provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial
dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the
expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service
as specified in sub-section (1).”
5.
Therefore according to section 2A(3) an application referred in sub section (2) namely an application questioning
the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment of an employee shall be made before Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry
of (3) years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or other wise termination of service. The petitioner did
not dispute the date of removal namely 13-11-2000 and admittedly the petition was filed before this Tribunal on 05-03-
2013 and it was registered as I.D.No.21/2013 on 05-08-2013. The sub section 2A(3) specifically provides that a period
of (3) years is limitation for filing an application under section 2A. Therefore, the petitioner is supposed to file his
application within (3) years after his removal. I am unable to accept the contention of petitioner that the amended
provision has no application to his case since the removal was in 2000 when there is a specific bar against the petition.
He is not entitled to file Industrial Dispute under section 2A(2) of ID Act beyond the period of (3) years. Therefore, the
petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
6.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 2nd day of
November, 2017.
SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For workman:
-For Management:-
-Nil-
-Nil-
E X H I B I T S
For workman:-
Ex.W-1
Dt.
11-06-2000
Dismissal order, Photostat copy
Ex.W-2
Dt.
14-07-2000
Demand letter with courier receipt
Ex.W-3
Dt.
19-03-2000
Enquiry report, Photostat copy.
For Management:-
Ex.M-1
Dt.
19-03-2000
Charge sheet
Ex.M-2
Dt.
03-04-2000
Enquiry notice with Ack.,
Ex.M-3
Dt.
--
Declaration of petitioner as enquiry proceedings in English
Ex.M-4
Dt.
--
Domestic enquiry proceedings
Ex.M-5
Dt.
19-03-2000
Enquiry report
Ex.M-6
Dt.
21/27-04-2000
Show cause notice
Ex.M-7
Dt.
11-06-2000
Dismissal order.
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: 2018.05.08
15:54:38 +05'30'