5736 GI/2018
(5999)
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- 40]
ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 7—vDrwcj 13] 2018] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 15—vkf'ou 21] 1940
No. 40]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 7—OCTOBER 13, 2018, SATURDAY/ASVINA 15— ASVINA 21, 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)
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
(िवीय
िवीय
िवीय
िवीय सेवाएं
सेवाएं
सेवाएं
सेवाएं िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग) ) ) )
नई दली, 4 अ तूबर, 2018
का
का
का
का.आ. 1465
1465
1465
1465.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d vf/kfu;e] 1934 ¼1934 dk 2½ dh /kkjk 45&>&d dh
mi&/kkjk ¼7½ ds mica/kksa ds varxZr xSj&c®fdax foÙkh; daiuh dh vihy ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ysus gsrq lqJh vatuk nqcs] mi egkfuns'kd] foÙkh;
lsok,a foHkkx] foÙk ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dks inukfer djrh gSA bls loZlk/kkj.k dh lwpuk gsrq izdkf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA
[Qk- la- 7@114@2009&chvks, ]
,- ds- ?kks"k] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2018
S.O. 1465.—Ms. Anjana Dube, Deputy Director General in the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India is designated by the Central Government to decide the appeal of a non-banking financial
6000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
company under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 45-1A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934).
This is published for general information.
[F. No. 7/114/2009-BOA]
A. K. GHOSH, Under Secy.
कृिष एवं कसान क या
कृिष एवं कसान क या
कृिष एवं कसान क या
कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंालय
ण मंालय
ण मंालय
ण मंालय
(कृिष
कृिष
कृिष
कृिष, सहका रता एवं कसान क या
सहका रता एवं कसान क या
सहका रता एवं कसान क या
सहका रता एवं कसान क याण िवभाग
ण िवभाग
ण िवभाग
ण िवभाग)
नई द ली, 11 अ तूबर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1466
1466
1466
1466—ब-रायीय सहकारी सिमितयां अिधिनयम, 2002 (2002 का 39) के खंड 4 के उपखंड (।) !ारा
"दत शि तय$ का "योग करते ए भारत सरकार क) अिधसूचना सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम दनांक 14 जून,
2018 के अिध,मण म. के/0 सरकार एतत!ारा डॉ. अिभल2 िलखी, IAS (HY:91), संयु5 सिचव (सहका7रता) को कृिष एवं
कसान क याण मं:ालय, कृिष, सहका7रता एवं कसान क याण िवभाग म. त;काल "भाव से अथवा अगले आदेश$ तक
सहकारी सिमितय$ के के/ 0ीय पंजीयक के ?प म. िनयु5 करती है।
[फा. सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम]
सुशील कुमार झा, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE
(Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare)
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2018
S.O. 1466.—In exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and in supersession of the Government of India Notification No. L-
11012/2/2003-L&M dated 14th June, 2018, the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. Abhilaksh Likhi, IAS (HY:91),
Joint Secretary (Cooperation) in the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture,
Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies with immediate effect and until
further orders.
[F. No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M]
SUSHIL KUMAR JHA, Under Secy.
नागर िवमानन
नागर िवमानन
नागर िवमानन
नागर िवमानन मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई द ली, 4 अ तूबर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1467
1467
1467
1467.—राA Bपित, एअर इंिडया िलिमटेड संE था के बFहGिनयम$ के खंड 98 म. "द; त शि5य$ के उपयोग !ारा
इस अिधसूचना को जारी कए जाने क) ितिथ से 3 वषG क) अविध के िलए अथवा आगामी आदेश$ तक, जो भी पहले हो,
Iीमती दJ गुबती पुरंदेK वरी को एअर इंिडया के िनदेशक मंडल म. गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर सहषG िनयु त करते हL।
[फा. सं. एवी-18013/007/2007-एआई]
च/ 0 कशोर शु ला, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2018
S.O. 1467.—In exercise of the powers conferred under section 98 of the Articles of Association of the Air India
Limited, the President is pleased to appoint Smt. Daggubati Purandeswari as part-time non-official Director on the Board
of Air India Limited for a period of 3 years from the date of issue of this Notification or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F. No. AV-18013/007/2007-AI]
CHANDRA KISHORE SHUKLA, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6001
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
नई द ली, 10 अ तूबर, 2018
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ. 1468.
1468.
1468.
1468.—के/0ीय सरकार को यह "तीत होता है क इसके उपाबM अनुसूची म. वFणGत प7र2े: क) भूिम म. से
कोयला अिभ"ाN होने क) संभावना है;
और उ5 अनुसूची म. वFणGत भूिम के 2े: म. अंतFवGP करने वाला रेखांक संQयांक आर.ई.वी./03/2018, तारीख 6
अगEत, 2018 का िनरी2ण स.Bल कोलफ)Yस िलिमटेड (भूिम और राजEव िवभाग), दरभंगा हाउस, राँची – 834029
(झारख[ड) के कायाGलय म. या महा"बंधक, स.Bल कोलफ)Yस िलिमटेड, मगध-आ\पाली 2े:, िजला- चतरा (झारख[ड) या
महा"बंधक (खोज "भाग) आर.आई.-III, के/0ीय खान योजना एवं िडजाईन संEथान िलिमटेड, ग$डवाना पैलेस, कांके रोड,
राँची (झारखंड) के कायाGलय म. या कोयला िनयं:क, 1, काउंिसल हाउस EBीट, कोलकाता- 700001 के कायाGलय म. कया जा
सकता है;
अतः अब, के/0ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक 2े: (अजGन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम.
इसके पaात उ5 अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क) धारा 4 क) उप-धारा (1) !ारा "दc शि5य$ का "योग करते ए, उ5
अनुसूची म. वFणGत भूिम म. कोयले का पूवd2ण करने के अपने आशय क) सूचना देती है ।
पूवe5 अनुसूची म. वFणGत भूिम म. िहतबM कोई fि5, -
(i)
सgपूणG भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या उ5 भूिम म. या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अजGन पर आ2ेप कर सकेगा; या
(ii)
उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 4 क) उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क) गई कारGवाई से ई 2ित या संभािवत 2ित, अिधिनयम क)
धारा 6 के अधीन कसी नुकसानी के िलए "ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या
(iii) उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 13 क) उप - धारा (1) के अधीन समाN हो गई पूवd2ण अनुjिNय$ के संबंध म. या उ5
अिधिनयम क) धारा 13 क) उप - धारा (4) के अधीन समाN हो गये खनन पkे के िलए "ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा
और उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 13 क) उपधारा (1) के ख[ड (i) से खंड (iv) म. िविनlदGP मद$ के संबंध म. उपगत fय
को उपदFशGत करने के िलए पूवe5 भूिम से संबि/धत सभी मानिच:$, सारिणय$ और अ/य दEतावेज$ को,
इस अिधसूचना के राजप: म. "काशन क) तारीख से नmबे दन के भीतर महा"बंधक, स.Bल कोलफ)Yस िलिमटेड, मगध-
आ\पाली 2े:, िजला- चतरा(झारख[ड) या महा"बंधक, स.Bल कोलफ)Yस िलिमटेड, भूिम और राजEव िवभाग, दरभंगा
हाउस, राँची – 834029 (झारख[ड) को सुपुदG करेगा ।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
आपाली िव तार प रयोजना
िजला- चतरा (झारखंड)
( रेखांक संQयांक आर.ई.वी./ 03/2018, तारीख 6 अगEत, 2018 )
mलॉक
,.सं.
nाम
थाना सं.
थाना
िजला
2े:
7टoपिणयां
एकड़ म.
हेटेयर म.
ए
1.
मसीलqग
61
टंडवा
चतरा
278.13
112.55
भाग
बी
2.
उसुG
54
टंडवा
चतरा
8.00
3.24
भाग
सी
3.
कुमरांग कला
52
टंडवा
चतरा
10.00
4.05
भाग
6002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
डी
4.
कुमरांग खुदG
51
टंडवा
चतरा
9.00
3.64
भाग
कुल 2े:: (mलॉक - ए + बी + सी + डी )=
305.13
एकड़
(लगभग)
123.48
हेटेयर
(लगभग)
सीमा –वणन:
mलॉक – ए
क – ख – ग - घ - रेखा, मसीलqग nाम म. िब/दु ‘क’ से आरंभ होती है और िब/दु ख, ग और घ से
गुजरती है और आरंिभक िब/दु ‘क’ पर िमलती है
mलॉक – बी
ङ – च – छ - ज - रेखा, उसुG nाम म. िब/दु ‘ङ’ से आरंभ होती है और िब/दु च, छ और ज से गुजरती है
और आरंिभक िब/दु ‘ङ’ पर िमलती है ।
mलॉक – सी
झ – ञ – ट - ठ - रेखा, कुमरांग कला nाम म. िब/दु ‘झ’ से आरंभ होती है और िब/दु ञ, ट और ठ से
गुजरती है और आरंिभक िब/दु ‘झ’ पर िमलती है ।
mलॉक – डी
ड – ढ – ण – त – थ - द - रेखा, कुमरांग खुदG nाम म. िब/दु ‘ड’ से आरंभ होती है और िब/दु ढ, ण, त, थ और द से
गुजरती है और आरंिभक िब/दु ‘ड’ पर िमलती है
[फा. सं. 43015/13/2018-एलए ए[ ड आईआर]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2018
S.O. 1468.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in
the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And, whereas, the plan bearing number Rev/03/2018, dated the 6th August, 2018 containing details of the areas
of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and
Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central
Coalfields Limited, Magadh - Amrapali Area, District-Chatra (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Deputy commissioner,
District – Chatra (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), RI- III, Central Mine
Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal
Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700 001;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the said Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may —
(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over the said land; or
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6003
(ii)
claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action
taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof; or
(iii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license ceasing
to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act, for mining lease ceasing to have effect and
deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in
respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,
to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Magadh-Amrapali Area, District – Chatra (Jharkhand)
or General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029
(Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULE
AMRAPALI EXPANSION PROJECT
DISTRICT- CHATRA (JHARKHAND)
[ Plan bearing number Rev/03/2018, dated the 6th August, 2018]
Block
Sl.
No.
Village
Thana
No.
Thana
District
Area
Remarks
In acres
In hectares
A
1.
Masilong
61
Tandwa
Chatra
278.13
112.55
Part
B
2.
Ursu
54
Tandwa
Chatra
8.00
3.24
Part
C
3.
Kumrang Kalan
52
Tandwa
Chatra
10.00
4.05
Part
D
4.
Kumrang
Khurd
51
Tandwa
Chatra
9.00
3.64
Part
Total Area : (Block – A+B+C+D) =
305.13 acres
(approxi-
mately)
123.48
hectares
(approxi-
mately)
Boundary Description:
Block- A
A-B-C-D
-
Line starts from point ‘A’ in Masilaung village and passes through points B, C and D and
meets at starting point ‘A’.
Block- B
E-F-G-H
-
Line starts from point ‘E’ in Ursu village and passes through points F, G and H and
meets at starting point ‘E’.
Block- C
I-J-K-L
-
Line starts from point ‘I’, in Kumrang Kalan village and passes through points J, K and L
and meets at starting point ‘I’.
Block- D
M-N-O-P-Q-R
-
Line starts from point ‘M’, in Kumrang Khurd village and passes through points N, O, P,
Q and R and meets at starting point ‘M’.
[F. No. 43015/13/2018-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.
नई दली, 10 अ तूबर, 2018
का
का
का
का.आ. 1469
1469
1469
1469.—के/0ीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक 2े: (अजGन और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का 20)
(िजसे इसके पK चात उ5 अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क) धारा 7 क) उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी जो भारत सरकार के कोयला
6004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
मं:ालय क) अिधसूचना संQयांक का.आ. 590(अ), तारीख 22 फरवरी, 2016, भारत के राजप:, भाग II खंड 3, उप-खंड
(ii), तारीख 25 फरवरी 2016 म. "कािशत और संशोिधत अिधसूचना संQयांक का॰आ॰ 1136(अ), तारीख 13 माचG, 2018,
भारत के राजप:, भाग II खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 14 माचG, 2018 म. "कािशत क) गई थी, उस अिधसूचना से संलJ न
अनुसूची म. िविनlदGP 53.02 हेटेयर (लगभग) अथवा 130.95 एकड़ (लगभग) प7र2े: क) भूिम म. और उस पर के सभी
अिधकार$ का अजGन करने के अपने आशय क) नो7टस दी थी;
और स2म "ािधकारी ने उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 8 के अनुसरण म. के/0ीय सरकार को अपनी 7रपोटG दे दी है;
और के/0ीय सरकार का, पूवe5 7रपोटG पर िवचार करने के पaात और झारखंड सरकार से परामशG करने के पK चात्
यह समाधान हो गया है क इससे संलt अनुसूची म. वFणGत 53.02 हेटेयर (लगभग) अथवा 130.95 एकड़ (लगभग), माप
वाली भूिम के सभी अिधकार$ का अजGन कया जाना चािहए ;
अतः, अब, के/0ीय सरकार उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 9 क) उप-धारा (1) !ारा "दc शि5य$ का "योग करते ए
घोषणा करती है क इससे संलt अनुसूची म. वFणGत 31.93 हेटेयर (लगभग) अथवा 78.90 एकड़ (लगभग), माप वाली भूिम
म. या उस पर के सभी अिधकार अFजGत कए जाते हL ।
इस अिधसूचना के अधीन आने वाले 2े: के रेखांक संQयांक आर.ई.वी./04/18, तारीख 9 अगEत, 2018 का
िनरी2ण उपायु5, िजला बोकारो, झारख[ड के कायाGलय म. या कोयला िनयं:क, 1, काउंिसल हाउस EBीट, कोलकाता
700001 के कायाGलय म. या महा"बंधक, ढोरी 2े:, िजला बोकारो, झारखंड या महा"बंधक, भूिम और राजEव, स.Bल
कोलफ)Yस िलिमटेड, दरभंगा हाउस, राँची- 834029, झारखंड या मुQय महा"बंधक (खोज "भाग), स.Bल माइन oलाwनंग
ए[ड िडजाइन इ/Eटीxयूट िलिमटेड, ग$डवाना पैलेस, कांके रोड, राँची- 834008, झारखंड के कायाGलय म. कया जा सकता है।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िपछरी िववृत प7रयोजना-II
िजला – बोकारो (झारखंड)
( रेखांक संQयांक आर.ई.वी./04 /18, तारीख 9 अगEत, 2018 )
सभी अिधकार:
,.
सं.
nाम
थाना
थाना
संQया
िजला
2े:
(हेटेयर म.)
2े:
(एकड़ म.)
7टoपिणयां
1.
िपछरी
पेटरवार
49
बोकारो
31.93
78.90
भाग
कुल 2े: :
31.93 हेटेयर (लगभग)
78.90 एकड़ (लगभग)
nाम िपछरी म. अFजGत क) गई भूिम के oलॉट संQयांक :
1513 (भाग), 1579 (भाग), 1580, 1581 (भाग), 1582 (भाग), 1603 (भाग), 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607 (भाग),
1608 से 1615, 1616 (भाग), 1619, 1621, 1622 (भाग), 1623, 1624 से 1626, 1627 (भाग), 1628 (भाग),
1630, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1641, 1642, 1652 (भाग), 1653 से 1657, 1658 से 1660, 1662, 1669, 1670,
1671 (भाग), 1679 (भाग), 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683 (भाग), 1684, 1685 (भाग), 1686 (भाग), 1687 से 1692,
1693 (भाग), 1694 (भाग), 1696 से 1698, 1699 (भाग), 1700 (भाग), 1701, 1702, 1785 (भाग), 1843 (भाग),
1844 से 1847, 1849, 1850 (भाग), 1851, 1854 से 1859, 1861 से 1863, 1868, 1877, 1882, 1884 से 1890,
1891, 1892, 1893 (भाग), 1900 (भाग), 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904 से 1916, 1918, 1919 (भाग), 1921, 1922,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6005
1923 (भाग), 1924 से 1946, 1947, 1948 से 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 (भाग), 1960 (भाग), 1961 से
1964, 1965 (भाग), 1966 (भाग), 1983 (भाग), 1984 (भाग), 1985 से 1987, 1988 (भाग), 1990 (भाग), 1991,
1992 (भाग), 1993, 1994 (भाग), 1995, 1996, 1997 (भाग), 2089 (भाग), 2090, 2091 से 2098, 2099 (भाग),
2100 से 2105, 2107 से 2112, 2113 (भाग), 2114 (भाग), 2130 (भाग), 2134 (भाग), 2135 (भाग), 2136, 2137
(भाग), 2138 (भाग), 2139, 2140 से 2142, 2143 (भाग), 2145 से 2156, 2158 (भाग), 2159, 2160, 2161,
2162, 2163 (भाग), 2164, 2165 और 2166 (भाग)।
सीमा वणGन:
क-ख-ग-घ
- रेखा, िब/दु ‘क’ से आरंभ करती है और oलॉट संQयांक 1513, 1579, 1581,
1582, 1607, 1606, 1603, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1695 से
गुजरती है और िब/दु ‘घ’ पर िमलती है।
घ-ङ-च-छ
- रेखा, oलॉट संQयांक 1695, 1694, 1693, 1686, 1683, 1685, 1684, 1785
से गुजरती है और िब/दु ‘छ’ पर िमलती है।
छ-ज-झ-ञ-ट
- रेखा, oलॉट संQयांक 1785, 1843, 1893, 1900, 1897, 1953, 1954,
1955, 1960, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1980, 1981, 1983 से
गुजरती है और िब/दु ‘ट’ पर िमलती है।
ट-ठ-ड-ढ
- रेखा, oलॉट संQयांक 1983, 1984, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1997, 2089, 2090 से गुजरती है और िब/दु ‘ढ’ पर िमलती है।
ढ-ण-त-थ-द-ध-न
- रेखा, oलॉट संQयांक 2090, 2105, 2104, 2107, 2111, 2112, 2113,
2114, 2138, 2137, 2130, 2134 से गुजरती है और िब/दु ‘न’ पर िमलती है।
न-प-फ-ब-भ-म-क
- रेखा, oलॉट संQयांक 2134, 2143, 2145, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2150,
2152, 2154, 2157, 2158, 2163, 2166, 2099, 4309 से गुजरती है और
दामोदर नदी के तल से गुजरती ई और आरंिभक िब/दु ‘क’ पर िमलती है।
[ फा. सं. 43015/15/2014-एलए ए[ड आईआर]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2018
S.O. 1469 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O.
590(E), dated the 22nd February, 2016 issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India,
Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 25th February, 2016 and subsequently amendment thereof vide number S.O.
1136(E), dated the 13th March, 2018, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India,
Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 14th March, 2018, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to
acquire all rights in and over the land measuring 53.02 hectares (approximately) or 130.95 acres (approximately) in the
locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;
And whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the
Central Government;
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the
Government of Jharkhand is satisfied that the all rights in and over the land measuring 53.02 hectares (approximately) or
130.95 acres (approximately), described in the Schedule appended hereto should be acquired;
6006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that all rights in and over the said land of 31.93 hectares (approximately) or 78.90 acres
(approximately), described in the Schedule annexed hereto are hereby acquired.
The plan bearing number REV/04/18, dated the 9th August,2018 of the area covered by this notification may be
inspected in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, District - Bokaro, Jharkhand or at the Office of Coal Controller, 1,
Council House Street, Kolkata -700001 or in the Office of the of General Manager, Dhori Area, District Bokaro,
Jharkhand or General Manager, Land and Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029,
Jharkhand or Chief General Manager, (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited,
Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi - 834008, Jharkhand.
SCHEDULE
Pichhri Opencast Project - II
District- Bokaro (Jharkhand)
[ Plan bearing number REV/04/18, dated the 9th August,2018]
All Rights:
Sl. No.
Village
Thana
number
Thana
District
Area
(in hectares)
Area
(in acres)
Rema-rks
1.
Pichhri
49
Petarwar
Bokaro
31.93
78.90
Part
Total:
31.93 hectares
(approximately)
78.90 acres
(approximately)
Plots numbers acquired in village Pichhri:
1513(P), 1579(P), 1580, 1581(P), 1582(P), 1603(P), 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607(P), 1608 to 1615, 1616(P), 1619, 1621,
1622(P), 1623, 1624 to 1626, 1627(P), 1628(P), 1630, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1641, 1642, 1652(P), 1653 to 1657, 1658 to
1660, 1662, 1669, 1670, 1671(P), 1679(P), 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683(P), 1684, 1685(P), 1686(P), 1687 to 1692, 1693(P),
1694(P), 1696 to 1698, 1699(P), 1700(P), 1701, 1702, 1785(P), 1843(P), 1844 to 1847, 1849, 1850(P), 1851, 1854 to
1859, 1861 to 1863, 1868, 1877, 1882, 1884 to 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893(P), 1900(P), 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904 to 1916,
1918, 1919(P), 1921, 1922, 1923(P), 1924 to 1946, 1947, 1948 to 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955(P), 1960(P), 1961 to
1964, 1965(P), 1966(P), 1983(P), 1984(P), 1985 to 1987, 1988(P), 1990(P), 1991, 1992(P), 1993, 1994(P), 1995, 1996,
1997(P), 2089(P), 2090, 2091 to 2098, 2099(P), 2100 to 2105, 2107 to 2112, 2113(P), 2114(P), 2130(P), 2134(P),
2135(P), 2136, 2137(P), 2138(P), 2139, 2140 to 2142, 2143(P), 2145 to 2156, 2158(P), 2159, 2160, 2161, 2162, 2163(P),
2164, 2165 and 2166(P).
Boundary description:
A-B-C-D
-
Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes through plot numbers 1513, 1579, 1581,
1582, 1607, 1606, 1603, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1695 and meets at point
‘D’.
D-E-F-G
-
Line passes through plot numbers 1695, 1694, 1693, 1686, 1683, 1685, 1684,
1785 and meets at point ‘G’.
G-H-I-J-K
-
Line passes through plot numbers 1785, 1843, 1893, 1900, 1953, 1954, 1955,
1960, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1980, 1981, 1983 and meets at point ‘K’.
K-L-M-N
-
Line passes through plot numbers 1983, 1984, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1997, 2089, 2090 and meets at point ‘N’.
N-O-P-Q-R-S-T
-
Line passes through plot numbers 2090, 2105, 2104, 2107, 2111, 2112, 2113,
2114, 2138, 2137, 2130, 2134 and meets at point ‘T ’.
T-U-V-W-X-Y-A
-
Line passes through plot numbers 2134, 2143, 2145, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2150,
2152, 2154, 2157, 2158, 2163, 2166, 2099, 4309 and passes through river bed of
Damodar River and meets at starting point ‘A’.
[ F.No. 43015/15/2014-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6007
नई दली, 11 अ तूबर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1470
1470
1470
1470.—के/0ीय सरकार को "तीत होता है क इससे उपाबM अनुसूची म. उिलिखत भूिम म. कोयला
अिभ"ाN कए जाने क) संभावना है ;
और जबक उ5 अनुसूची म. वFणGत भूिम के 2े: का mयौरा रेखांक संQया एमसीएल/के.ए./अिधसूचना/2017-
18/678, तारीख 24 फरवरी, 2018 का िनरी2ण, िनदेशक तकनीक) (ओपी), महानदी कोलफ)Yस िलिमटेड, जागृित िवहार
पर िEथत, डाक-बुलाG, िजला-सgबलपुर, ओिडशा -768018 के कायाGलय म. या मुQय महा"बंधक( खोज िवभाग), के/0ीय खान
योजना और िडजाइन संEथान िलिमटेड, ग$डवाना oलेस, कांके रोड, रांची (झारखंड) के कायाGलय म. या कोयला िनयं:क, 1,
काउंिसल हाउस EBीट, कोलकाता -700001 के कायाGलय म. या िजला कलेटर, िजला अंगुल, ओिडशा के कायाGलय म. कया
जा सकता है ;
अतः अब, क. 0ीय सरकार कोयला धारक 2े:(अजGन और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957(1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम.
इसके पK चात् उ5 अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क) धारा 4 क) उप-धारा (1) !ारा "दc शि5य$ का "योग करते ए, उस भूिम
म. कोयले का पूवd2ण करने के अपने आशय क) सूचना देती है।
उ5 अनुसूची म. वFणGत भूिम म. िहतबM कोई fि5, —
(i)
सgपूणG भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या उ5 भूिम म. या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अजGन पर आ2ेप कर
सकेगा; या
(ii)
उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 4 क) उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क) गई कारGवाई से ई 2ित या संभािवत 2ित के
िलए उसक) धारा 6 के अधीन कसी नुकसानी के िलए "ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या
(iii)
उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 13 क) उप - धारा (1) के अधीन समाN हो गई पूवd2ण अनुjिNय$ के संबंध म.
या उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 13 क) उप - धारा (4) के अधीन समाN हो गये खनन पkे के िलए "ितकर का
दावा कर सकेगा और उ5 अिधिनयम क) धारा 13 क) उप-धारा (1) के ख[ड (i) से खंड (iv) म. िविनlदGP
मद$ के संबंध म. उपगत fय को उपदFशGत करने के िलए पूवe5 भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिच:$, चाट|
और अ/य दEतावेज$ को,
इस अिधसूचना के राजप: म. "काशन क) तारीख से नmबे दन के भीतर िनदेशक तकनीक) (ओपी), महानदी कोलफ)Yस
िलिमटेड, जागृित िवहार पर िEथत, डाक-बुलाG, िजला-संबलपुर, ओिडशा -768018 के कायाGलय म. भेज.गे।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
किनहा कोल mलॉक
िजला-अंगुल, ओिडशा
[ रेखांक संQया एमसीएल/के.ए./अिधसूचना/2017-18/678, तारीख 24 फरवरी, 2018 ]
,मांक
nाम का नाम
पटवारी सकG ल
संQया /थाना
संQया
तहसील
िजला
हेटेयर म. 2े:
(लगभग)
7टoपिणयां
1
कंसामुंडा
136, 63
किनहा
अंगुल
0.449
भाग
2
किनहा
131, 60
किनहा
अंगुल
1.477
भाग
3
छेिलया
175, 108
किनहा
अंगुल
0.032
भाग
6008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4
पथरामुंडा
178, 91
किनहा
अंगुल
0.473
भाग
5
तेलीwसंघा
177, 90
किनहा
अंगुल
0.040
भाग
6
गुंडुरीनाली
159, 88
किनहा
अंगुल
0.024
भाग
कुल : 2.495 हेटर (लगभग)
या 6.17 एकड़ (लगभग)
अिधसूिचत कए जाने वाले oलॉट :
(1)
nाम कंसामुंडा म. अFजGत कए जाने वाले oलाट संQयांक: 4406/4905, 1691/4893, 1694/4894, 1913, 1914,
1915, 1924, 1925, 1928, 1933, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1932/4377, 1930, 1931,1932, 3970/4350,
4042/4966, 4042/4967.
(2)
nाम किनहा म. अFजGत कए जाने वाले oलाट संQयांक: 1596, 926/1775, 1559/1687, 1597, 1598,
1599/1780,
910/1839,
1006/1821,
1006/1799,
1006/1820,
1638/1824,
1638/1836,
1639/1837, 1638/1835, 1638/1833, 1638/1823, 741/1825, 741/1826, 1595, 1599,
1598/1691, 1595/1745.
(3)
nाम किनहा म. अFजGत कए जाने वाले oलाट संQयांक: 1231/1681.
(4)
nाम पथरामुंडा म. अFजGत कए जाने वाले oलाट संQयांक: 1335, 228/3328, 120/3265, 120/3457.
(5)
nाम तेलीwसंघा म. अFजGत कए जाने वाले oलाट संQयांक: 2051/2533.
(6)
nाम गुंडुरीनाली म. अFजGत कए जाने वाले oलाट संQयांक: 1039/1707.
सीमा िववरण:
mलॉक- ‘क’ :
ठ – ड : रेखा िब/दु '' ठ '' से "ारंभ होती है जो कंसामुंडा, किनहा nाम और गोहीराडंडा आर.एफ. के िमलन िब/दु
(ि:-जंशन) पर िEथत िपलर के पास िEथत है । इसके बाद यह किनहा और कंसामुंडा nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ
चलती ई पूवG दशा जाती ई कंसामुंडा nाम क) oलॉट संQया 1507,1508,1509, क) उcरी सीमा होते ए कंसामुंडा nाम
क) oलॉट संQया 1509 के उcर-पूवG कोने तक जाती है । इसके पK चात,रेखा किनहा nाम म. "वेश करती है और उcर दशा
म. जाती ई oलॉट संQया 1777 के पिaम, उcर एवं पूवG सीमा को छूती है । oलॉट संQया 966 क) उcरी सीमा को भगतः से
छूती ई oलॉट संQया 981 के उcरी कोने तक जाती है । यही रेखा oलॉट संQया 980,979.1027 क) उcरी सीमा, oलॉट
संQया 1026 क) उcर- पूव~ कोने क) तरफ जाती ई oलॉट संQया 1026 के उcर- पूव~ कोने तक जाती है । रेखा उcर-पूवG
दशा म. oलॉट संQया 1021 क) उcर-पिaम सीमा के साथ जाती ई, oलॉट संQया 1020 क) पिaमी और उcर सीमा से
भागतः ?प से तथा oलॉट संQया 1008,1009,1146 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ जरडा और किनहा nाम क) पिaमी छोर तक
जाती है । इस nाम क) सड़क को पार करने के बाद रेखा oलॉट संQया 1641 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ किनहा और पथरमुंडा
nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है । इसके बाद रेखा पथरमुंडा nाम मे "वेश करती है और oलॉट संQया 138 क)
पिaमी सीमा के साथ भागतः दि2ण दशा मे जाती ई इसी oलॉट के दि2ण- पिaम कोने तक जाती है । इसके बाद oलॉट
संQया 138,3197 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ रेखा पूवG क) तरफ जाती ई oलॉट संQया 3197 के दि2ण-पूव~ कोने तक जाती
है । यही रेखा उcर- पूवG दशा मे जाती ई oलॉट संQया 142 क) सीमा के साथ भागतः ?प से ,oलॉट संQया 175,176 क)
उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 456,455,453 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ जाती ई oलॉट संQया 453 के दि2ण- पूवG कोने तक
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6009
जाती है । यह उcर दशा क) और मुड़ती ई oलॉट संQया 453 क) पूव~ सीमा तक जाती ई oलॉट संQया 452 के उcर-
पिaम कोने तक जाती है । यह रेखा oलॉट संQया 564,565, 566,579,3218,584 एवं 586 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ पूवG
दशा म. जाती ई oलॉट संQया 586 के दि2ण – पूवG कोने तक जाते है । पुनः यह रेखा उcर क) और मुड़ती है और इसी oलॉट
क) पूव~ सीमा तक होती ई oलॉट संQया 586 के उcरी कोने तक जाती है । यह पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती ई oलॉट संQया
574,590 क) दि2णी सीमा को आंिशक ?प तक जाती ई oलॉट संQया 590 के दि2ण-पूवG कोने तक जाती है । इसके
पaात, रेखा दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) और जाती ई oलॉट संQया 589,588 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ oलॉट संQया 587 क)
दि2णी सीमा को भागतः होती ई oलॉट संQया 596,598,599 क) क) दि2णी सीमा से होती ई िब/दु “ड” को छूती है जो
पथरमूडा और तेिलwसंघा सड़क के पिaमी क) और िEथत है ।
ड – ढ : रेखा “ड” से "ारंभ होती है और दि2ण दशा क) और मुड़ती ई पथरमुंडा और तेिलwसंघा सड़क के पूव~ सीमा के साथ
दि2ण दशा क) ओर बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 3166 के उcरी कोने तक जा कर िब/दु “ढ” पर िमलती है ।
ढ – ण : रेखा “ढ़” से "ारंभ होकर, तेिलwसंघा और पथरमुंडा nाम सड़क को पार करने के पaात रेखा oलॉट संQया 355 क)
पूव~ सीमा के साथ भागतः होकर दि2ण दशा क) और मुड़ती है । इसके बाद oलॉट संQया 355 क) दि2ण दशा क) सीमा के
साथ चलती ई पिaम दशा क) आर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 3271 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ जाती ई दि2ण क) तरफ
जाती है । इसके बाद यह इसी oलॉट क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ पिaम क) ओर जाती है और इसी oलॉट क) पिaमी सीमा के
साथ उcर क) ओर मुड़ती है । यही रेखा oलॉट संQया 341 क) पिaमी सीमा , oलॉट संQया 340 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ भाग
से,oलॉट संQया 337,336 क) पूव~ सीमा,334 क) पूवG और दि2णी सीमा ,3234,3293 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ पिaमी
दशा क) और बढ़कर oलॉट संQया 3293 क) दि2ण-पिaम कोने से होते ई िब/दु “ण” पर िमलती है ।
ण-त : रेखा िब/दु “ण” से "ारgभ होकर oलॉट संQया 3293 क) पिaम-उcर सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया
327,326 क) उcरी सीमा oलॉट संQया 325,324,323 क) पिaमी सीमा ,oलॉट संQया 322,321 क) दि2णी-पिaमी
सीमा,oलॉट संQया 3188,270,271,272 क) दि2णी सीमा ,oलॉट संQया 284,286 क) पूव~ सीमा ,oलॉट संQया 287,288
क) उcर-पूवG सीमा ,oलॉट संQया 2357 क) उcरी पूवG-दि2णी सीमा ,oलॉट संQया 300,301 क) पूव~ सीमा,oलॉट संQया
301 क) दि2णी-पिaमी सीमा,oलॉट संQया 299,298,297,296,295,292,291,289 क) पिaमी सीमा और oलॉट संQया
3263 क) दि2णी तथा भागतः पिaमी सीमा,oलॉट संQया 3286 क) दि2णी सीमा,oलॉट संQया 3286,3275 क) पिaमी
सीमा ,oलॉट संQया 3191 क) दि2णी-पिaमी सीमा से होकर जाती है । इसके बाद रेखा पिaम क) और मुड़ती है और oलॉट
संQया 3196 क) दि2णी सीमा ,oलॉट संQया 137 क) दि2ण-पूवG सीमा के साथ चलती है । इसके बाद रेखा दि2ण दशा क)
और जाती है और किनहा से जरडा तक जाने वाले nाम सड़क क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 61 के उcरी
कोने तक जाती है । इसके बाद यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर चलती ई oलॉट संQया 3266 क) दि2ण-पिaम सीमा से होकर
oलॉट संQया 120 क) भागतः दि2णी सीमा से होती ई िब/दु - "त" तक जाती है ।
त – थ: रेखा िब/दु – “त” से "ारंभ होती है जो पथरमुंडा nाम क) oलॉट संQया 93 के उcर-पूव~ कोने पर िEतथ है और oलॉट
संQया 93,94 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ होती ई oलॉट संQया 105 के उcर-पूवG और भागतः पिaमी सीमा,oलॉट संQया
106,119,118,116 क) पूव~ सीमा से होकर जाती है तथा तेलीwसंघा और पथरमुंडा nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ चलती
है । यह रेखा बाई जंशन िपलर को पार करने के बाद oलॉट संQया 3294 को आंिशक ?प से पार करती है । इसके
पaात,oलॉट संQया 3294 भागतः क) उcरी सीमा होते ए बाई जंशन िपलर को पार करने के पaात यह oलॉट संQया
3294 को भागतः साथ-साथ होती ई oलॉट संQया 3291 क) उcरी और पूव~ सीमा के साथ चलती है । पुनः रेखा तेलीwसंघा
और पथरमुंडा nाम$ क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ चलती है । बाई –जंशन िपलर को पार करने के पaात रेखा oलॉट संQया
322 क) पिaमी सीमा तथा oलॉट संQया 319 क) पूव~,उcरी तथा पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती है । पुनः रेखा oलॉट संQया
322 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ-साथ उ/ह nाम$ के सिgमिलत सीमा तक जाती है । रेखा nाम क) सीमा के साथ पूव~ दशा क)
ओर चलती ई िब/दु “थ” तक जाती है ।
थ-द: रेखा िब/दु “थ” से "ारंभ होती है जो तेलीwसंघा nाम क) oलॉट संQया 710 के उcर-पूवG कोने पर िEथत है । तब, रेखा
oलॉट संQया 3123,3124,3128,3129,3144 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ होती ई oलॉट संQया 3145 क) पिaमी और
6010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
दि2णी सीमा,oलॉट संQया 3146,3147 क) दि2णी सीमा,oलॉट संQया 3151 क) पिaमी सीमा ,oलॉट संQया 3152 क)
पिaम और दि2ण क) ओर से तेलीwसंघा और पथरमुंडा nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा पर बाई-जंशन िपलर तक पँचती है ।
इसके पaात रेखा तेलीwसंघा nाम म. "वेश करती है और oलॉट संQया 771 के दि2ण-पिaम म. िब/दु “द” तक जाती है ।
द- ध : रेखा िब/दु “द” से "ारंभ होती है जो oलॉट संQया 772 के उcर-पिaम कोने और तेलीwसंघा रोड के उcर-पिaम क)
ओर िEथत है । रेखा “द - ध” उcर-पूवG दशा क) ओर oलॉट संQया 771 क) उcर-पूवG तरफ से चलती ई िब/दु “ध” तक
जाती है ।
ध- न : रेखा िब/दु “ध” से "ारंभ होती है जो तेलीwसंघा,आgबपाल और बीजीगोल nाम$ के ि:-जंशन िपलर पर िEथत है ।
तब रेखा तेलीwसंघा और बीजीगोल nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ चलती ई उcर-पिaम दशा क) और बढ़कर
तेलीwसंघा,लोधाबंध और बीजीगोल nाम$ के ि: -जंशन िपलर तक जाती है । पुनः यह रेखा उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है
और पथरमुंडा और लोधाबंध nाम$ क) सिgमिलत सीमा से होती ई िब/दु “न” तक जाती है ।
न-प: रेखा िब/दु “न“ से "ारgभ होती है जो पथरामुंडा nाम क) oलॉट संQया 2849 के उcर- पूव~ कोने पर िEथत है। फर यह
रेखा oलॉट संQया 2849, 2848, 2854 और 2855 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ चलती है। इसके बाद यह उcर-पूवG दशा क)
ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 2844 सड़क के पूव~ कनारे से होकर जाती है। इसके बाद यह oलॉट संQया 2737, 2736,
2739, 2741 और 2805 क) पूव~ सीमा से होकर जाती है। यह रेखा oलॉट संQया 2805, 2801, 2800, 2790, 2791 क)
उcरी सीमा के साथ पिaम दशा क) ओर चलती ई पथरमुंडा बEती म. "वेश करती है और oलॉट संQया 1821, 1818 क)
उcरी सीमा के साथ चलती है। इसके बाद oलॉट संQया 1813 क) पिaमी सीमा, 1813 क) उcरी सीमा, 1548 क) पूव~
सीमा और 1548, 1547, 1546, 1545 क) उcरी सीमा से होकर गुजरती और दि2ण दशा क) ओर oलॉट संQया 1545 क)
पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती है। पुनः यह पिaम दशा क) ओर oलॉट संQया 1560 के उcर-पिaम कोने और 3256, 1526,
1541 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ मुड़ती है। पुनः यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर oलॉट संQया 1540 क) पूव~ सीमा और 1539,
1537, 1533 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ मुड़ती है। इसके पaात, यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ती ई oलॉट संQया 1533 क)
पिaमी सीमा और 1534 क) भागतः सीमा के साथ चलती है। इसके बाद यह रेखा उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है तथा 1525
के पूव~ कनारे के साथ 1526, 1522, 1514 क) उcरी सीमा और 1513 के भाग के साथ चलती है। इसके पaात, यह 1295
क) पूव~ सीमा 1295 क) उcरी सीमा, 1295 क) आंिशक पिaमी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है। पुनः यह oलॉट संQया 3250 क)
उcरी सीमा को पार करती है एवं 1354 क) सीमा को आंिशक छूती है। इसके बाद रेखा उcरी दशा क) ओर oलॉट संQया
1353, 1323, 1322 के पूव~ कनारे के साथ चलती है। इसके बाद यह oलॉट संQया 1322 क) उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया
1320 क) उcर-पूवG, oलॉट संQया 1319 क) उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1319 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1316,
1315 क) उcरी सीमा से होकर जाती ई गाँव क) सड़क को छूती है। इस सड़क को पार करने के बाद रेखा oलॉट संQया 603,
602 क) दि2णी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 602 क) पिaमी, oलॉट संQया 515 क) पूवG-उcर सीमा से होकर गुजरती है। पुनः यह
oलॉट संQया 517 क) भागतः पिaम, oलॉट संQया 518 क) दि2ण, oलॉट संQया 519 क) भागतः पूवG, oलॉट संQया 519 क)
दि2ण, oलॉट संQया 519 क) पिaम से होकर गुजरती है। इसके पaात, यह oलॉट संQया 521, 522, 523 क) दि2ण-पिaम
से होकर गुजरती है। पुनः यह रेखा oलॉट संQया 523 क) पिaम, oलॉट संQया 523 के उcर से होकर गुजरती है। इसके
पaात, यह oलॉट संQया 524 क) उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 525 के पूवG, oलॉट संQया 525, 526 के उcर, oलॉट संQया 527
के पूवG, oलॉट संQया 3242, 530 के उcर, oलॉट संQया 530 के पिaम से होकर गुजरती है। इसके पaात oलॉट संQया 534 के
उcर, oलॉट संQया 535 के पूवG, oलॉट संQया 535, 468 के उcर से होकर गुजरती है। इसके पaात, यह रेखा oलॉट संQया
3341 के भागतः पूव~ भाग, oलॉट संQया 3341 के उcर, oलॉट संQया 3341 के पिaम, oलॉट संQया 3225 के दि2ण के साथ
उcर क) ओर मुड़ती है। इसके पaात, यह रेखा किनहा और पथरमुंडा क) सिgमिलत सीमा को छूती है और और उcर क) ओर
मुड़ती है तथा उसी गाँव क) सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई किनहा बEती के बाई-जंशन िपलर तक जाती है । फर, यह रेखा किनहा
बEती क) दि2ण सीमा साथ बढ़ती ई किनहा-जरडा nाम सड़क oलॉट संQया 1148 के िब/दु-“प” को छूती है।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6011
प-फ: रेखा िब/दु “प” से "ारंभ होती है और उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है, किनहा बEती सीमा के पिaमी कनारे के साथ आगे
बढ़ते ए oलॉट संQया 627 के पूव~ कोने तक जाती है जो िब/दु- “फ” है।
फ-ब: रेखा िब/दु “फ” से "ारंभ होती है और oलॉट संQया 627, 625, 624 और 623 क) उतरी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है,
फर यह oलॉट संQया 635, 636 क) पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 638, 640, 641, 642, 644,646, 647, क) उcरी सीमा
तथा 648 से भागतः गुजरती है। इसके पaात, यह oलॉट सं.648, 650, 651, 653, 654, 1650 क) पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट
संQया 742 क) उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 743 क) उcरी-पूव~, oलॉट संQया 750, 751 के आंिशक उcर, oलॉट संQया 752
के पूवG, oलॉट संQया 752 के उcर, oलॉट संQया 772 के आंिशक पिaम से होती ई पुनः यह रेखा oलॉट संQया 753, 754,
755, 770, 771, 772, 773 क) उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 773, 768 क) पिaमी सीमा और 1784 क) आंिशक उcर-
पिaम सीमा से होकर गुजरती है। इसके पaात, यह oलॉट सं॰ 777 के उcर oलॉट संQया 777 के पिaम oलॉट संQया 779 के
उcर से होकर गुजरती है। इसके पaात यह रेखा पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 792, 858, 857 क) उcरी
सीमा और oलॉट संQया 857 के भागतः पिaम, oलॉट संQया 839 के उcर, oलॉट संQया 839 के पिaमी कनारे के साथ
चलती है। इसके पaात, यह oलॉट संQया 856 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 852, 856 के पिaम, oलॉट संQया
856 उcर-पिaमी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है। इसके पaात, यह रेखा पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 856 क) पिaम
सीमा, oलॉट संQया 865, 866 क) दि2णी सीमा संQया oलॉट संQया 869 क) पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 868 क) दि2णी
सीमा के साथ चलती है। इसके पaात, ये रेखा दि2णी दशा क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 869 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा के
साथ चलती ई सड़क के उcरी कनारे तक पँचती है और पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और इसी सड़क के उcरी कनारे के
साथ बढ़ती ई गोिहरादंडा आर.एफ. और किनहा गाँव के बाई - जंशन िपलर के िब/दु ”ब” तक जाती है।
ब-ठ: पुनः यह रेखा दि2णी दशा क) ओर किनहा nाम और गोिहरादंडा आर.एफ. क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ चलती ई
इस गाँव के बाई जंशन िपलर क) छूती है तथा िब/दु “ठ” पर िमलती है।
mलॉक – ‘ख’ :
ट-ञ: रेखा िब/दु “ट” से "ारंभ होती है जो जयपुर और कंसामुंडा nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा और oलॉट संQया 280 तथा 4003
क) सिgमिलत सीमा पर िEथत है। फर, यह पिaम दशा क) ओर उसी सिgमिलत nाम सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई कंसामुंडा
nाम क) oलॉट संQया 3894 के दि2ण-पिaम कोने के िब/दु-“ञ” को छूती है।
ञ-झ: रेखा िब/दु- “ञ” से "ारंभ होती है जो उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ जाती है। रेखा कंसामुंडा गाँव म. "वेश करती है और oलॉट
संQया 3894, 3886, 3885, 3881 3880, 3879, 3874 क) पिaमी सीमा को छूती ई नाला तक जाती है, इसके पaात,
यह दि2ण-पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और उसी नाले के दि2णी कनारे के साथ आगे बढ़ती है इसके पaात, यह उcर
दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 3915, 3928, 3688, 4510, 4511, 4512 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती ई
oलॉट संQया 3615 के दि2ण-पिaम कोने तक पँचती है, इसके पaात यह रेखा उcर-पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती और oलॉट
संQया 4515 क) पिaमी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है, इसके पaात यह उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और सड़क पार करती ई
oलॉट संQया 1959 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ आगे बदती ई oलॉट संQया 1959 के उcर-पिaम कोने तक जाती है, इसके
पaात, यही रेखा पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1959 क) उcरी सीमा से होकर गुजरती ई oलॉट संQया
1957 के पिaमी कोने तक जाती है। पुनः यह रेखा उcर-पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1957, 1962, 1963,
1887, 1828 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती ई कंसामुंडा गाँव क) सड़क को छूती है। पुनः यह रेखा दि2ण-पिaम दशा
क) ओर मुड़ती है और इसी सड़क के दि2णी कनारे के साथ आगे बढ़ती है, इसके पaात, यह रेखा उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती
है और इसी सड़क को पर करती है और सड़क क) छोर तक जाती है, इसके पaात यह रेखा पुबG क) ओर मुड़ती है ओर oलॉट
संQया 1827 के उcरी कनारे से होकर गुजरती है, इसके पaात, यह उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1823,
1824 के पिaमी कनारे से होती ई िब/दु-“झ” तक पँचती है जो oलॉट संQया 1824 तथा 1814 क) साझा उcर-पिaम
सीमा पर िEथत है।
6012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
झ-ज: रेखा िब/दु “झ” से "ारंभ होती है और पूवG क) तरफ चलते ए oलॉट संQया 1817 के दि2ण-पूवG कोने तक जाती है।
पुनः यह उcर दशा म. मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1817 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 1818 तक पँचती
है। पुनः यह रेखा पूवG क) ओर oलॉट संQया 1822, 1821 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 1785 के दि2ण-पूवG
कोने तक जाती है। इसके पaात, रेखा उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1782 क) पिaम सीमा से होकर
गुजरती ई oलॉट संQया 1782 के उcर-पिaम कोने तक जाती है। पुनः यह पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया
1782, 1781, 1780 के उcरी कनारे से होकर गुजरती है और इसके पaात, यह उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और 1777
क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 1777 के उcर-पिaम कोने तक जाती है पुनः यह रेखा उcर-पूवG
दशा क) ओर मुड़ती और oलॉट संQया 1777, 4698, 1775, 4701, 1773 क) उcर सीमा के साथ चलती ई यह दि2ण
दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1773 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ चलती ई िब/दु “ज” पर पँचती है।
ज-ट: रेखा िब/दु-“ज” से "ारंभ होती है और दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 4708 क) पिaम सीमा के साथ चलती
ई कंसामुंडा nाम सड़क को छूती है। इसके पaात, यह oलॉट संQया 1759 क) भागतः उcरी सीमा से और oलॉट संQया
1759 से होकर गुजरती है। इसके पaात यह oलॉट संQया 1682 और 1757 क) उcरी तथा भागतः पिaमी सीमा के साथ,
oलॉट संQया 1751 क) उcरी और पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1752 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1754 क)
उcरी तथा पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1741 क) उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1740 क) उcरी और भागतः पिaमी सीमा,
oलॉट संQया 1737 क) उcरी और पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1706 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 4412 क)
उcरी तथा पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1707 क) पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1713 क) भागतः उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया
1726 क) उcरी और पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1721 क) भागतः उcरी तथा पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 4577 क)
पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 4839 क) उcरी और पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 1974 क) भागतः उcरी सीमा और oलॉट
संQया 1974 से होकर गुजरती है। इसके पaात, यह oलॉट संQया 4060 क) उcरी और भागतः पिaमी सीमा के साथ, oलॉट
संQया 3962 क) भागतः उcरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है। oलॉट संQया 3963 क) पूव~-उcरी और पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया
3962 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 4615 क) पिaमी सीमा तथा oलॉट संQया 4615 तथा 4055 क) आंिशक
पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 4047 एवं 4046 क) उcरी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 4045 क) उcरी, पिaमी और दि2णी सीमा
तथा oलॉट संQया 4050 क) आंिशक पिaमी सीमा, इसके पaात, रेखा oलॉट संQया 4038 क) उcरी और पिaमी सीमा के
साथ oलॉट संQया 4036 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया 4024, 4026 क) उcरी और पिaमी सीमा, oलॉट संQया
4017, 4013, 4011, 4005 और 4004 क) पिaमी सीमा से चलती ई कंसामुंडा तथा जयपुर गाँव क) सिgमिलत सीमा के
िब/दु “ट” पर िमलती है।
mलॉक- ‘ग’ :
क-ख: रेखा िब/दु-“क” से "ारंभ होती है जो जमािनया, अदैता"साद और मालापसी nाम$ के ि:- जंशन िपलर पर िEथत है
और दि2ण क) तरफ मुड़कर मालापसी तथा जमािनया गांव$ क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है। इसके पaात यह
रेखा गुंडु7रनाली, जमािनया और मालापसी ि:-जंशन िपलर को छूती है। यही रेखा दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर गुंडु7रनाली
और जमािनया गांव$ क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ चलती ई जमािनया गाँव क) oलॉट संQया 399 क) पिaमी सीमा को छूती
है। इसके पaात, यह oलॉट संQया 485 क) उcर-पिaम सीमा से होकर गुंडु7रनाली गाँव म. "वेश करती है। इसके पaात यह
दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर इसी oलॉट क) सीमा के साथ मुड़ती है। इस िब/दु को छूने के पaात यह oलॉट संQया 486 क)
दि2णी-पिaमी सीमा क) तरफ मुड़ती है। पुनः यह इस oलॉट क) सीमा के साथ दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती ई बढ़ती है।
इसके पaात, यह रेखा दि2ण-पिaम क) ओर चलती है और oलॉट संQया 973 क) पिaमी सीमा तथा 972 क) उcरी सीमा
के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई दि2ण दशा क) ओर oलॉट संQया 972, 1064, 1066, 1068 और 1070 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ
आगे बढ़ती है। पुनः यह पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1070 क) दि2णी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है। इसके
पaात, यह रेखा दि2णी सीमा से होकर गुजरती है। इसके पaात, यह रेखा दि2ण क) तरफ मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1074
और 1075 क) पिaमी सीमा से गुजरती है। पुनः यह रेखा दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1075 और
1838 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है। oलॉट संQया 1838 और 1059 के साझा िब/दु को EपशG करने के बाद यह पूवG
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6013
क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 1059 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई गाँव क) सड़क को छूती है। इसके पaात पुनः यह
दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और इसी सड़क के पिaमी कनारे के साथ होती ई उसी सड़क के अंितम िब/दु तक जाती है
और पूवG क) तरफ मुड़ती है तथा इसक) चौड़ाई से होकर गुजरती है। यह रेखा उcर- पिaम दशा क) ओर इसी सड़क के पूव~
कनारे के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 1796 के उcर-पिaम कोने तक पँचती है। इसके पaात यह पूवG दशा क) ओर
मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 1795 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 1795 और 1796 के पूवG के सिgमिलत िब/दु तक
जाती है। पुनः यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1796 और 1797 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है
तथा इसके पaात यह पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 1797 और 1798 क) पूव~ सिgमिलत सीमा तक जाती है।
इसके पaात यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर बढ़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1798 के पूव~ कनारे के साथ आगे बढ़ती है और यह पिaम
दशा क) ओर मुड़कर इसी oलॉट क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ oलॉट संQया 1798 और 1800 के साझा िब/दु तक जाती है। पुनः
यह दि2ण क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1800 क) भागतः पूव~ सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई िब/दु-“ख” तक जाती है।
ख-ग : रेखा िब/दु-“ख” से "ारंभ होती है जो गुंडु7रनाली nाम के oलॉट संQया 1054 के दि2ण-पिaम कनारे के सिgमिलत
िब/दु पर िEथत है। इसके पaात रेखा oलॉट संQया 1054 क) दि2णी सीमा से होकर गुजरती ई गुंडु7रनाली और छेिलया
गांव$ क) सिgमिलत सीमा तक पँचती है और छेिलया गाँव क) oलॉट संQया 1826 क) दि2णी सीमा से छेिलया गाँव म. "वेश
करती है। इसके पaात यह उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती ई इसी oलॉट क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 1708
और 1826 के सिgमिलत िब/दु तक जाती है। इसके पaात, यह oलॉट संQया 1708, 1620 और 21 क) दि2णी सीमा से होती
ई 21 और 46 के सिgमिलत िब/दु तक जाती है। पुनः यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 46, 47 के पिaमीम
कनारे और 47 के दि2णी छोर के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 47 और 48 के सिgमिलत िब/दु तक जाती है। इसके पaात
यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 61, 65, 64 और 74 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया
74 तथा 75 के सिgमिलत िब/दु तक जाती है। पुनः यह रेखा पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 74 क) दि2णी
सीमा के साथ चलती ई दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 1769 के पिaमी कनारे के साथ चलती ई पुनः यह
उcर-पूवG दशा क) ओर आगे बढ़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1769 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 139 के
दि2णी कनारे तक जाती है। पुनः यह दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 139, 137 के दि2णी कनारे के
साथ बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 135 के "ारंिभक िब/दु तक जाती है। oलॉट संQया 137 क) चौड़ाई को पर करने के बाद रेखा
उcर-पिaम दशा क) oलॉट संQया 137 के भागतः पूव~ छोर के साथ मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 137 तथा 248 के सिgमिलत
िब/दु को छूती है। पुनः यह उcर दशा क) मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 248 के पूव~ कनारे के साथ चलती oलॉट संQया 274
तक पँचती है। पुनः यह रेखा दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 274, 1690, 276, 1662, 1473, 590,
545 तथा 543 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है और oलॉट संQया 543 के दि2णी कोने को छूती है। पुनः यह उcर-पूवG
दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 488 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है तथा पूवG दशा क) ओर oलॉट संQया
542, 541, 501, 502, 504, 480, 441, 436, 420, 421, 422 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई छेिलया nाम
सड़क तक जाती है। पुनः यही रेखा उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और इसी सड़क के आंिशक पिaमी कनारे के साथ आगे
बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 995 और सड़क के सिgमिलत िब/दु तक जाती है। इसके पaात यह पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और
oलॉट संQया 1199 के दि2णी कोने तक जाती है। पुनः यह दि2णी दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1199, 1200
तथा 1483 के पिaमी कनारे से होकर गुजरती ई oलॉट संQया 1483 के दि2ण-पिaम कोने तक जाती है। पुनः यह पूवG
दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और 1483, 1484, 1201, 1202, 1203 के दि2णी कनारे से होकर गुजरती है तथा oलॉट संQया
1363, 1207, 1364, 1681 क) दि2णी सीमा और 1485, 1232, 1233, 1530, 1531, 1697, 1696, 1695, 1694,
1693, 1470, 1678, 1687, 1186 तथा 1184 के भागतः पूवG से होकर गुजरती है और पुनः यह दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर
मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 तथा 1327 के पूव~ कनारे के साथ बढ़ती ई िब/दु- “ग”
तक जाती है जो छेिलया, कथारमुंडा और बड़ि:िवड़ा के ि:- जंशन िपलर पर िEथत है।
ग-घ : रेखा िब/दु – “ ग” से "ारंभ होती है और oलॉट संQया 1171 के पूव~ कनारे के साथ उcर दशा क) ओर बढ़ती है जो
छेिलया और कहारमुंडा nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा है यह oलॉट संQया 1170 के पूव~ कोने तक जाती है। पुनः यह रेखा उcर-
पूवG क) ओर मुड़ती है और उसी सिgमिलत nाम सीमा से होकर गुजरती ई छेिलया, कहारमुंडा और कमरेई nाम$ के ि:-
जंशन िपलर तक जाती है। इसके पaात यह रेखा उcर दशा क) तरफ छेिलया और मथारगड़ी आर एफ़ से होकर जाती है।
पुनः यह उसी दशा म. छेिलया nाम और मथारगड़ी आर एफ़ क) सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई िब/दु-“घ” को छूती है जो
कमरेई और मथारगड़ी आर एफ़ क) सिgमिलत सीमा के घुमावदार िब/दु पर िEथत है।
6014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
घ – ङ : िब/दु “घ” से रेखा "ारंभ होती और कमरेई और मथारगड़ी आर एफ़ क) सिgमिलत सीमा क) पूवG दशा क) ओर
बढ़ती ई िब/दु – “ङ “ तक जाती है जो उसी आर. एफ़. क) पूव~ सीमा का सिgमिलत िब/दु है।
ङ -च : रेखा िब/दु “ङ “ से "ारंभ होती ई उcर-पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और कमरेई nाम और मथारगड़ी आर एफ़ क)
सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई कमरेई nाम क) oलॉट संQया 2550 के पिaमी कोने तक जाती है और पुनः यह उcर-
पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और कमरेई और दादाwसंघा nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा से होकर गुजरती ई तेलीwसंघा, कमरेई और
दादाwसंघा के Bाई जंसन िपलर को पार करती ई तेलीwसंघा और दादाwसंघा के बाई जंसन िपलर तक जाती है। पुनः यह
रेखा उcर दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और दादाwसंघा एवं तेलीwसंघा nाम क) सिgमिलत सीमा से होती ई तेलीwसंघा और
आgबपाल एवं दादाwसंघा nाम$ के Bाई जंसन िपलर तक जाती है। पुनः यह उसी दशा म. तेलीwसंघा और आgबपाल nाम$ क)
सिgमिलत सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई िब/दु “च” तक जाती है जो उसी सिgमिलत सीमा तथा तेलीwसंघा nाम$ क) oलॉट संQया
2594 के उcर-पूव~ कोने पर िEथत है।
च – छ : रेखा िब/दु “च” से "ारंभ होकर तेलीwसंघा nाम क) oलॉट संQया 2594 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ पिaम क) ओर आगे
बढ़ती है पुनः दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और इसी oलॉट क) भागतः पिaम सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है। इसके पaात, यह
oलॉट संQया 817, 816, 815 और 813 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ पिaम दशा क) ओर आगे बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 813 के
उcर पिaम कोने तक जाती है। इसके पaात यह oलॉट संQया 813 और 814 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ दि2ण दशा क) ओर
चलती है। oलॉट संQया 814 के दि2ण-पिaम कोने पर पँचने के पaात पुनः यह पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ जाती है और
oलॉट संQया 837, 840 तथा 841 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है। पुनः यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ जाती है और
oलॉट संQया 840 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ बढ़ती है। इसके पaात यह oलॉट संQया 844, 868, 869 और 870 क) उcरी
सीमा के साथ उcर-पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ जाती है। इसके पaात यह oलॉट संQया 870, 871, 874 876 और 880 क)
उcरी सीमा के साथ दि2ण-पिaम म. मुड़ जाती है और oलॉट संQया 880 के दि2ण-पिaम कोने तक जाती है। पुनः यह
पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 881 क) आंिशक उcरी सीमा के साथ चलती ई तेलीwसंघा nाम क) सड़क के
पूव~ कनारे तक जाती है। पुनः यह दि2ण-पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और इसी nाम सड़क के पूव~ कनारे के साथ oलॉट
संQया 2019 तक जाती है। पुनः यह रेखा दि2ण-पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 2019, 2018, 2082,
2085 तथा 2087 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 2085 के दि2ण-पिaम कोने को छूती है। पुनः यह रेखा
दि2ण-पूवG दशा क) ओर आगे बढ़ती है और 2085 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 2085 के दि2ण कोने
तक जाती है। पुनः यह मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 2087 क) पिaमी सीमा से होकर गुजरती ई oलॉट संQया 2087 तथा
2208 क) सिgमिलत सीमा िब/दु को छूती है। पुनः यह पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1912 क) भागतः
दि2णी सीमा से होकर गुजरती ई oलॉट संQया 1877 तथा 2208 के उcर साझा सीमा िब/दु को छूती है। पुनः यह दि2ण
दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 1877 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 1877 क) दि2ण-पूवG सीमा को
छूती है। पुनः यह पूवG दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 2631 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई oलॉट संQया 2631
तथा 2207 के सिgमिलत िब/दु तक जाती है। पुनः यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 2211 के पूव~ कनारे
तथा oलॉट संQया 2218 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ बढ़ती ई सड़क तक जाती है। तेलीwसंघा nाम सड़क को पार करने के बाद
रेखा दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 2255 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ चलती ई िब/दु – “छ” तक पँचती है जो
oलॉट संQया 2255, 2254 तथा 2257 के सिgमिलत िब/दु पर िEथत है।
छ – क : रेखा िब/दु – “छ” से "ारंभ होती है। तेलीwसंघा क) nाम सड़क को पार करने के बाद रेखा पिaम दशा क) ओर oलॉट
संQया 2259 के उcरी कनारे के साथ चलती ई इसी oलॉट क) उcर-पिaम कोने तक पँचती है। इसके पaात यह दि2ण-
पिaम दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है तथा इसी oलॉट क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती है। इसके पaात यह रेखा पिaम
दशा क) ओर मुड़कर oलॉट संQया 2266 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 2269 को छूती है। इसके पaात
यह दि2ण दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 2266 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलॉट संQया 2269 के
दि2ण-पूवG कोने तक पँचती है। यह oलॉट संQया 2269, 2270, 2271 एवं 1583 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ चलती ई
पिaम क) तरफ मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया 1580 के उcर-पूवG कोने तक जाती है । रेखा दि2ण-पिaम दशा क) और मुड़ती
ई oलाट संQया 1580 और 1581 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलाट संQया 1581 के दि2ण-पूवG कोने तक पँचती है ।
इसके पaात यह पिaम दशा क) और मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया 1582, 1575, 1576, 1574। 1570 क) उcरी सीमा के
साथ चलती ई सड़क तक पँचती है । पुनः यह दि2ण दशा क) और मुड़ती है औए इसी सड़क के पिaमी कनारे के साथ
चलती ई oलाट संQया 1562 के दि2णी कोने तक पँचती है । पुनः यह पिaम दशा क) और मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6015
1533, 1534, 1535, 1481, 1498 तथा 1497 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ चलती ई तेिलwसंघा और जरडा nाम$ क)
सिgमिलत सीमा को छूती है। पुनः यह उसी दशा म. आगे बढ़ने के बाद जरडा nाम क) oलाट संQया 3785, 3777, 3775,
3774, 3767, 3768 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ जरडा nाम म. "वेश करती है । इसके बाद यह oलाट संQया 3768 क) भागतः
पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती ई दि2ण दशा क) और मुड़ती है तथा oलाट संQया 3768 और 3751 क) सिgमिलत सीमा
िब/दु तक जाती है । पुनः यह पिaम दशा क) और चलती है और oलाट संQया 3751, 3754 तथा 3969 क) उcरी सीमा के
साथ चलती ई तालाब के पूव~ कनारे को छूती है । इसके पaात, यह उcर दशा क) और मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया 3748
(तालाब के तटबंध) क) भागतः पूव~ सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलाट के उcर-पूवG कोने तक जाती है । पुनः यह रेखा पिaम क)
तरफ मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया 3747 (तालाब) क) उcरी सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलाट संQया 3746 के उcर-पिaम कोने
तक पँचती है । इसके पaात, यही रेखा दि2ण दशा क) और मुड़ती ई इसी oलाट क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा को पार करती
ई oलाट संQया 3968 के उcर-पूवG कोने तक जाती है । पुनः यक पिaम दशा क) और मुड़ती है और जरडा बEती क) दि2ण
सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलाट संQया 3313 के उcर-पूवG कोने तक पँचती है । यह रेखा पिaम क) ओर मुड़ती है और oलाट
संQया 3313, 3311, 3309 तथा 3307 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ चलती ई oलाट संQया 3306 के उcर-पिaम कोने तक
पँचती है पुनः यह रेखा उcर-पिaम दशा क) और मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया 3304, 3302, 3283, 3282, 3272 तथा
3271 क) पिaम सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है । पुनः यह रेखा oलाट संQया 1709 क) उcरी सीमा, oलाट संQया 1709 क)
उcरी सीमा, oलाट संQया 1631 क) पूव~ oलाट संQया 1632, 1633, 1635, 1625, 1622, 1621, 1645, 1646, 1649,
1650, 1604, 1600, 1601, 1681, 1682 तथा 1683 के साथ पिaम दशा क) और मुड़ती ई ज़रदा और जमािनया nाम
क) सिgमिलत सीमा तक सीमा तक जाती है । इसके पaात रेखा उcर दशा क) और मुड़ती है और उसी nाम क) सीमा के
साथ जमािनया nाम के उcर-पूवG कोने क) oलाट संQया 303, 302, 301, 300, 299 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है ।
पुनः यह रेखा oलाट संQया 298 क) पूव~ सीमा के साथ उcर दशा क) तरफ मुड़ती है इसके पaात यह पिaम दशा म. मुड़ती
है और oलाट संQया 298, 297, 509, 286, 283, 588 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई oलाट संQया 587 तक जाती
है । इसके पaात यह रेखा उcर दशा क) और मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया 276 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा के साथ चलती ई
oलाट संQया 238 तथा 276 के सिgमिलत कोने तक जाित है। इसके पaात यही रेखा उcर पिaम दशा क) और मुड़ती है
और oलाट संQया 238 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है । इसके पaात यह वतGमान जमािनया nाम सड़क को पार करती
है और इसी nाम सड़क के दि2ण कनारे के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई oलाट संQया 60 तक जाती है । इसके पaात यह दि2ण दशा
क) और मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया 60 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है और oलाट संQया 59,57,531 क) दि2णी
सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है । इसके पaात यही रेखा उcर दशा क) और मुड़ती है और 591 क) भागतः पिaमी सीमा के
साथ आगे बढ़ती है । इसके पaात यह पिaम दशा के और मुड़ती है और oलाट संQया 51 क) दि2णी कनारे से होकर
गुजरती है । पुनः यह उसी oलाट क) सीमा के साथ उcर दशा क) और मुड़ती है इसके बाद यह पिaमी दशा क) और मुड़ती
है और oलाट संQया 53 क) उcरी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती ई oलाट संQया 50 तथा 53 क) सिgमिलत कोने तक जाती है ।
पुनः यह दि2ण दशा क) और oलाट संQया 49 के पूव~ कनारे के साथ मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 49 के दि2ण-पूवG कोने तक
जाती है । पुनः पिaमी दशा क) और मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 49,48,43 तथा 42 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती
ई oलॉट संQया 42 के दि2ण-पिaम कोने तक जाती है । पुनः यह रेखा उcर दशा क) और मुड़ती है तथा oलाट संQया 37
क) पूव~ सीमा िब/दु के साथ होती ई oलॉट संQया 37 के उcर पूव~ कोने तक जाती है । इसके पaात यह पिaम दशा क)
ओर मुड़ती है और oलॉट संQया 41,40,7,39 क) दि2णी सीमा के साथ आगे बढ़ती है । यही रेखा oलॉट संQया 39 क) दि2णी
सीमा, oलॉट संQया 29 क) भागतः पूव~, oलॉट संQया 29 क) दि2णी oलॉट संQया 29 क) भागतः पिaमी, oलॉट संQया 27
क) दि2णी, oलॉट संQया 27 क) भागतः पिaमी, oलॉट संQया 26,25 क) दि2णी,oलॉट संQया 25 क) पिaमी सीमा के साथ
चलती ई सड़क के कनारे को छूती है और पिaमी दशा क) ओर मुड़ती है और इसी सड़क के दि2णी कनारे से होती ई
िब/दु "क" पर समाN होती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015/12/2018-एलए एंड आईआर]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, अवर सिचव
6016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the11th October, 2018
S.O. 1470.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in
the locality described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;
And, whereas the plan bearing number MCL/KA/Notification/2017-18/678, dated the 24th February, 2018 containing
details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Director Technical
(OP),Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, at Jagruti Vihar, P.O- Burla, District Sambalpur, Odisha-768018, or at the office of
the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mining Planning and Design Institute limited, Gondwana
Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi(Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller,1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001
or at the office of the District Collector, District Angul, Odisha;
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957),(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the land described in the said Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, -
(i)
object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any rights in or over the said land; or
(ii)
claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any
action taken under sub-section(3) of section 4 thereof; or
(iii) claim compensation under sub-section(1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting licenses
ceasing to have effect or under sub-section(4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to
have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the
expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses(i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of
the said Act, to the office of the Director Technical (OP), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, at Jagruti Vihar,
P.O- Burla, District Sambalpur, Odisha -768018 within a period of ninety days from the date of
publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
Kaniha Coal Block
District- Angul, Odisha
[ Plan bearing number MCL/KA/Notification/2017-18/678, dated the 24th February, 2018]
Sl.
No.
Name of village
Patwari Circle
number/Thana
number
Tahasil
District
Area in hectares
(approxi-mately)
Remark
1.
Kansamunda
136,63
Kaniha
Angul
0.449
Part
2.
Kaniha
131,60
Kaniha
Angul
1.477
Part
3.
Chhelia
175,108
Kaniha
Angul
0.032
Part
4.
Patharmunda
178,91
Kaniha
Angul
0.473
Part
5.
Telisingha
177,90
Kaniha
Angul
0.040
Part
6.
Gundurinali
159,88
Kaniha
Angul
0.024
Part
Total : 2.495 hectares(approximately)
or 6.17 acres(approximately)
Plots to be notified:
(1)
Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Kansamunda : 4406/4905,1691/4893, 1694/4894, 1913, 1914,
1915,1924,1925,1928,1933, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1932/4377, 1930, 1931, 1932, 3970/ 4350, 4042/4966,
4042/4967.
(2)
Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Kaniha: 1596, 926/1775, 1559/1687, 1597, 1598, 1599/1780,
910/1839, 1006/1821, 1006/1799, 1006/1820, 1638/1824, 1638/1836, 1639/1837, 1638/1835, 1638/1833,
1638/1823, 741/1825, 741/1826, 1595, 1599, 1598/1691, 1595/1745.
(3)
Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Chhelia : 1231/1681.
(4)
Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Patharmunda: 1335, 228/3328, 120/3265, 120/3457.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6017
(5)
Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Telisingha: 2051/2533.
(6)
Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Gundurinali : 1039/1707.
Boundary Description :
BLOCK- ‘A’:
L-M: The line starts from Point ‘L’ which is situated at tri-junction Pillar of village Kansamunda, Kaniha and
Gohiradanda R.F. Then it moves towards east direction along common village boundary of Kaniha and Kansamunda
northern boundary of plot no. 1507,1508,1509 of village Kansamunda up to north east corner of plot no- 1509 of
Kansamunda. Then the line enters to village Kaniha and moves towards north direction and covers the west, north and
east boundary of plot no.1777, the partly northern boundary of plot no. 966 up to north corner of plot no-981. The same
line proceeds northern boundary of plot no. 980, 979, 1027, north and east boundary of plot no. 1026 up to northeast
corner point of plot no-1026. The line moves towards northeast direction along north and west boundary of plot no. 1021.
Partly western and northern boundary of 1020, north boundary of plot no. 1008,1009,1146 up to west edge of Jarada and
Kaniha village road. After crossing the same village road the line moves along north boundary of plot no.1641, up to
common village boundary of Kaniha and Patharmunda. Then the line enter into village Patharmunda and moves south
direction along partly western boundary of plot no. 138 up to southwest corner of same plot. Then the line proceeds
towards east along south boundary of plot no. 138,3197up to southeast corner of plot no. 3197. The same line moves
towards north east direction covering the partly boundary of plot no.142, northern boundary of plot no.175,176, southern
boundary of plot No. 456,455,453, up to southeast corner of plot no.453. It turns towards north directions covering the
east boundary of plot no. 453 up to northwest corner of plot no. 452. The same lines moves towards east direction
covering the southern boundary of plot no. 564,565,566,579,3218,584 and 586 up to southeast corner of plot no.586.
Again the line turns towards north directions covering eastern boundary of the same plot up to north corner of plot no.
586. It moves towards east direction along partly southern boundary of plot no. 574,590 up to southeast corner of plot no-
590. Then the lines move towards south east direction along west boundary of plot no. 589,588 partly south boundary of
plot no. 587 south boundary of plot No. 596,598,599 up to touch point ‘M’ which is situated at the west side of
Patharmunda and Telisingha road.
M-N: The line start from ‘M’ and moves towards south direction along eastern boundary of Patharmunda and Telisingha
road up to north corner of plot no. 3166 to meet point ‘N’.
N-O: The lines start from ‘N’ after crossing the Telisingha and Patharmunda village road the lines moves south
directions along partly east boundary of plot no. 355 then it moves towards west direction along south side boundary of
plot no. 355 and turns towards south along east boundary of plot no. 3171 then it moves towards west along south
boundary of same plot and turns north along western boundary of same plot. The same line moves towards west direction
covering west boundary of plot no. 341 , partly east boundary of plot no. 340 east boundary of 337,336, east and south
boundary of 334 south boundary of 3234,3293 up to southwest corner of plot no. 3293 to meet at point ‘O’.
O-P: The lines starts from point ‘O’ moves along west and north boundary of plot no. 3293, north boundary of 327,326,
west boundary of 325,324,323, south west boundary of 322,321 south boundary of 3188,270,271,272, east boundary of
284,286,, north east of 287, 288 , north, east south boundary 3257, east of 300,301, south, west of 301 west boundary of
299, 298, 297, 296, 295, 292, 291, 289 and south partly western boundary of 3263 southern boundary of 3286 and
western boundary of 3286,3275, south and west boundary of 3191. Then the lines turn towards west and passes along
southern boundary of 3196 southeastern boundary of 137. Then the line moves south directions and proceeds along
eastern boundary of village road of Kaniha to Jarada up to north corner of plot no. 61. Then it moves towards south
directions covering the south west boundary of plot no. 3266 partly south boundary of plot no. 120 up to point ‘P’
P-Q : The line start from ‘P’ which is situated at northeast corner of plot no. 93 of village Patharmunda and moves along
eastern boundary of plot no. 93,94, north east and partly west boundary of plot no. 105, eastern boundary of plot no. 106,
119, 118, 116 and touches the common village boundary of Telisingha and Patharmunda and proceeds along it. After
crossing the bi-junction pillar the lines covers partly the plot no. 3294 and it moves partly northern boundary of plot
no.3294, northern and eastern boundary of 3291. Again the line moves along common village the boundary of Telisingha
and Patharmunda. After crossing the bi-junction pillar the lines moves western boundary of plot no. 322 and eastern
northern and western boundary of plot no. 319. Again the line moves along eastern boundary of plot no. 322 up to same
common village boundary. The line moves towards east direction along same village boundary up to point ‘Q’.
Q-R: the line start from ‘Q’ which is situated at north east corner plot no.710 of village Telisingha. Then the line moves
along western boundary of plot no. 3123, 3124, 3128, 3129, 3144, western and southern boundary of 3145, southern
boundary of 3146, 3147 western boundary of 3151, west and south side of 3152 up to common village boundary of
Telisingha and Patharmunda at a bi-junction pillar. Then the lines enters into Telisingha village covering the southwest of
plot no.771 up to point ‘R’ .
R-S: The lines start from point ‘R’ which is situated at northwest corner of plot no.772 and also northwest side of
Telisingha road. The line RS moves towards northeast directions along northeast side of plot no. 771 up to point ‘S’.
S-T: The line starts from point ‘S’ which is situated at the tri-junction pillar of village Telisingha, Ambapal and Bijigol.
Then the line passes towards northwest direction along the common village boundary of Telisingha and Bijigol up to tri-
6018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
junction pillar village Telisingha, Lodhabandha and Bijigol. Again the same line turns towards north direction and passes
along common village boundary of Patharmunda and Lodhabandha up to point ‘T’.
T-U: The line starts from point ‘T’ which is situated at northeast corner of plot no.2849 of village Patharmunda. Again
the line proceeds along north boundary of plot no. 2849,2848, 2854 and 2855. Then it turns towards northeast direction
and passes through east side of road plot no. 2844. Then it cross the east side boundary of plot no. 2737, 2736, 2739,
2741 and 2805 and turns the same line towards east direction along the north boundary of plot no. 2805, 2801, 2800,
2790, 2791 and enters to Patharmunda Basti and proceeds along north edge of plot no. 1821,1818 then passes through
west part of boundary of plot no. 1813, north boundary of 813, east boundary of 1548, and then north boundary of 1548,
1547,1546,1545 and turns towards south direction along the west boundary of plot no. 1545. Again it turns towards west
direction along the northwest corner of 1560, north edge of 3256, 1562, and 1541; again it turns towards south direction
along east boundary of 1540and north boundary of 1539, 1537, and 1533. Then it turns towards south direction along
west boundary of plot no. 1533 and part of 1534. Then the same line turns towards north direction and proceeds along
east side of 1525, north boundary of 1526, 1522, 1514 and part of 1513. Then it passes through east boundary of 1295,
north boundary of 1295, part west of 1295again it cross the north boundary of plot no. 3250 and touches the part
boundary of 1354. Then the line turns towards north direction along the east edge of plot no. 1353, 1323, and 1322. Then
it passes through the north boundary of plot no.1322 northeast of 1320, north of 1319, part west boundary of 1319 north
boundary of 1317, 1316, and 1315 up to touch the village road. After crossing the same road the line passes through the
south boundary of plot no.603, 602, west of 602, east and north of 515. Again it passes through the part west boundary of
plot no. 517, south of 518, part east of 519, south of plot 519, west of 519. Then it passes along southwest of 521, 522,
523. Again the line cross through west of 523 north of 523 then it passes through north edge of plot no. 524 east of 525
north of 525, 526 east of 527 north of 3242, 530 west of 530 then it passes north of 534 east of 535 north of 535,468.
Then it turns towards north along part east boundary of 3341 north of 3341 west of 3341 south of 3225. Then the same
line touches the common village boundary of Kaniha and Patharmunda and terms towards north direction and proceeds
along same village boundary up to bi-junction pillar of Kaniha Basti. Then the line passes along the south edge boundary
of Kaniha Basti up to touch the Kaniha Jarada village road plot no. 1148 up to point ‘U’.
U-V: The line starts from point ‘U’ and turns towards north directions proceeds along the west side of Kaniha Basti
boundary up to east corner point of plot no. 627 that is point ‘V’.
V-W: The line starts from point ‘V’ and it passes through the north boundary of plot no.627, 625, 624 and 623, then it
passes west boundary of plot no. 635, 636, north boundary of 638, 640, 641, 642, 644, 646, 647, part of 648. Then passes
west boundary of 648, 650, 651, 653, 654, 1650, north boundary of 742, northeast of 743 partly north of 750, 751, east of
752, north of 752, partly west 752 again the same line passes through north boundary of 753, 754, 755, 770, 771, 772,
773, west boundary of 773, 768 and partly north west boundary of 1784. Then it passes through north of 777, west of
777, north of 779. Then the same line turns towards west direction along north boundary of plot no. 792, 858, 857 and
partly west of 857, north of 839, and west edge of 839 then it passes through partly west boundary of plot no.856, west of
852, 856, northwest boundary of 856. Then the line turns towards east direction along west boundary of plot no. 856,
South boundary of 865, 866, west boundary of plot no. 869, south edge of plot no. 868. Then the same line turns towards
south direction along partly west boundary of 869 up to north edge of road and turns towards west direction and proceeds
along north edge of same road up to bi-junction pillar of Gohiradanda RF and Kaniha village at point ‘W’.
W-L: Again the same line proceeds south direction along common village boundary of Kaniha and Gohiradanda RF and
touches the bi-junction pillar of same village to close at point ‘L’.
BLOCK-‘B’:
K-J: The line starts from point ‘K’ which is situated on the common boundary of village Jaipur and Kansamunda and
common boundary at plot no. 280 and 4003, then it proceeds towards west direction along the same common village
boundary up to south west corner point plot no. 3894 of village Kansamunda touches the point ‘J’.
J-I: The line starts from ‘J’ and it turns towards north direction. The line enter to the village Kansamunda and proceeds
with touches the west boundary of plot no. 3894,3886,3885,3881,3880,3879,3874, up to Nala, then it turns towards south
west direction and proceeds along the south edge of same Nala then it turns north direction and passes along the west
boundary of plot no. 3915, 3928, 3688,4510,4511,4512 and up to south west corner of plot no. 3615 then the same line
turns towards north west direction and passes over west boundary plot no. 4515 then it turns towards north direction and
proceeds with crossing the road and proceeds along the west boundary of plot no. 1959 up to north west corner of plot
1959. Next the same line turns towards east direction and passes over northern boundary of plot no. 1959 up to west
corner of plot no.1957. Again the same line turns north east direction passes through west boundary of plot no. 1957,
1962, 1963,18887,1828 and it touches the Kansamunda village road. Again the line divert towards south west direction
and proceeds along south edge of the same road then the line turns towards north direction and cross the same road and
proceeds up to the edge of road then it turns towards east direction and passes north edge of the plot no.1827, then it
turns towards north direction and goes through western edge of plot no. 1823, 1824 up to point ‘I’, which is situated on
the northwest common boundary point of plot no. 1824 and 1814.
I-H: The line starts from ‘I’ and proceeds towards east direction up to point south east corner of plot no. 1817. Again it
turns towards north direction and proceeds along the eastern boundary of plot no. 1817 up to the plot no. 1818. Again the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6019
line proceeds towards direction east along the boundary of plot no. 1822, 1821 and up to south east corner of plot no.
1785. Then line turns towards north direction and passes over west boundary of plot no.1782 up to north west corner of
plot no.1782 again it turns towards east direction and goes through northern edge of plot no.1782,1781,1780 and then it
moves towards north direction and proceeds along part west boundary of 1777 up to north west corner of 1777 again
same line turns towards north east direction and passes through northern boundary of plot no.1777,4698,1775,4701,1773
and it turns south direction proceeds along east boundary of plot no. 1773 reach up to point ‘H’.
H-K: The line starts from ‘H’ and proceeds towards south direction along west boundary of plot no. 4708 and touch the
Kansamunda village road, the it passes through partly northern boundary of plot no. 1759 and passes through plot no.
1759. Then it passes along the northern and partly western boundary of plot no. 1682 and1757, northern and western
boundary of plot no.1751 partly western boundary of plot no-1752, northern and western boundary of plot no. 1754,
northern boundary of plot no.1741 , northern and part western boundary of plot no. 1740, northern and western boundary
of plot no. 1737, partly western boundary of plot no. 1706 , northern and western boundary of plot no. 4412, western
boundary of plot no. 1707, partly northern boundary of plot no. 1713, northern and western boundary of plot no.1726,
part northern and western boundary of plot no. 1721, western boundary of plot no.4577, northern and western boundary
of plot no. 4839, partly northern boundary of plot no.1974 and crosses the plot no . 1974. Then it proceeds along the
northern and partly western boundary of plot no.4060, partly northern boundary of plot no.3962. Eastern, northern and
western boundary of plot no. 3963, part western boundary of plot no. 3962, western boundary of plot no. 4615 and partly
western boundary of plot nos. 4615 and 4055, northern boundary of plot nos. 4047and4046. Northern, western and
partly southern boundary of plot no. 4045 and partly western boundary of plot no.4050. Then the lines moves along the
northern and western boundary of plot no-4038, partly western boundary of plot no. 4036, northern and western
boundary of plot no-4024,4026, west boundary of 4017, 4013,4011,4005 and 4004 and closed at Point ‘K’ on the
common village boundary of village Kansamunda and Jaipur.
BLOCK- ‘C’:
A-B: The line starts at point ‘A’ is the tri junction pillar of village Jamania, Adaitaprasad and Malapasi and proceeds
towards south direction along common village boundary of village Malapasi and Jamania. Then the line touches the tri
junction pillar of village Gundurinali, Jamania and Malapasi. The same line proceeds towards southeast direction along
common village boundary of Gundurinali and Jamania and touches the west side of plot no. 399 of village Jamania.
Then it enter in to village Gundurinali touches northwest side of plot no. 485 then it turns towards southeast direction
along the boundary of same plot. After touching this point it turns towards southwest boundary of plot no. 486.again it
turns and proceeds southeast direction along the boundary of above plot . Then the line moves towards southwest and
proceeds along western boundary of plot no. 973 and northern boundary of 972 and moves south direction along west
boundary of plot no. 972,1064,1066,1068 and 1070. Again it turns towards east direction and passes through south side
boundary of plot no. 1070. Then the line turns towards south and passes west boundary of plot no.1074 and 1075. Again
same line turns towards direction southeast and prods along the south boundary of plot no. 1075 and 1838. After
touching the common point of plot no. 1838 and 1059. Next it proceeds towards east along south boundary of plot no.
1059 and touches the village road again turns towards south direction and proceeds west edge of same road up to end
point of the road and turns towards east and passes up to its width. The same line moves towards northwest direction
along east part edge of same road and reaches at northwest corner point of plot no.1796. Then it turns towards east
direction along the south boundary of plot no.1795 up to east side common poi of plot no. 1795 and 1796. Again it turns
south direction and proceeds through east boundary of plot no. 1796 and 1797., then it turns towards west direction up to
east common boundary point of plot no. 1797and 1798 then it move towards south direction and proceeds along the east
boundary of plot no. 1798 again it turns towards west direction along the south boundary of same plot up to common
point of plot no. 1798 and 1800 again it turns towards south and proceeds along the part east boundary of plot no. 1800
up to point ‘B’.
B-C: The line starts from point ‘B’ which is situated at southwest side common point of plot no. 1054 of village
Gundurinali. Then the line passes through south boundary of plot no. 1054and reach up to common village boundary of
Gundurinali and Chhelia and enters in to village Chhelia along the south boundary of plot no. 1826 of village Chhelia.
Then it turns towards north direction along the east boundary same plot up to common point of plot no. 1708 and 1826.
Then it moves and proceeds through southern boundary of plot no. 1708, 16,20 and 21 up to common point of 21 and
46. Again it turns towards direction south along west edge of plot no. 46,47 and south edge of 47 up to common point of
plot no. 47 and 48. Then it turns towards south direction and proceeds through southern boundary of plot no. 61,65,64
and 74 up to common point of plot no. 74 and75.Again the line turns towards east direction and passes along southern
boundary of plot no. 74, then it turns and proceeds towards south east direction along west edge of plot no. 1769 again it
moves towards north east direction and proceeds along southern boundary of plot no. 1769 up to south edge of plot no.
139. Again it turns towards southeast direction proceeds along south edge of plot no.139,137 up to starting point of plot
no. 135. After crossing the width of plot no. 137 the line moves towards northwest direction along the part east edge of
plot no. 137 and touches the common point plot no.137 and 248. Again it moves towards north direction along east edge
of plot no.248 up to plot no. 274. Again the line turns towards southeast direction and proceeds through south boundary
of plot no. 274, 1690, 276, 1662, 1473, 590, 545 and 543 and touches south corner of 543. Again it turns towards
northeast direction and proceeds along western boundary of plot no. 488 and moves towards east direction along the
southern boundary of plot no. 542, 541, 501, 502, . Then it turns towards north direction along east boundary of 502 and
6020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
turns and moves towards east direction along south boundary of 504, and 456. Then the line turns to south direction and
passes along the western boundary of plot No. 440 then it turns towards east direction along south boundary of plot no.
440, 439, 438 again it moves towards direction north passes along east boundary of plot no. 438, and it passes through
south, east and north boundary of plot no. 1422 then it moves towards north direction along east boundary of plot no. 437
and then turn towards east direction along south boundary of 420, 421, 422 along the part western edge of the same road
up to common point of common point pf plot no. 995 and road. Then it turns towards east direction proceeds up to south
corner of plot no. 1199. Again it turns towards south direction and passes through western edge of plot no.1199, 1200
andb 1483 up to southwest corner of 1483. Again it turns towards east direction and passes through south edge no.1483,
1484, 1201, 1202,1203 and then the line turns towards south direction along west boundary of 1363, 1365. Again the line
turns towards east direction along south boundary of 1365. Then it turns towards north direction passes through eastern
boundary of 1365. again it moves towards east direction and passes through south boundary of 1207, 1364,1681, part east
of 1485, 1232, 1233, 1530, 1531, 1697, 1696, 1695, 1694, 1693, 1470, 1678, 1687, 1186 and 1184 and again it turns
towards south east direction and proceeds along east edge of plot no. 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 and 1327 up to point
‘C’ which is situated at Tri junction pillar or Chhelia, Kaharmunda and Badatribida.
C-D: The line starts from point ‘C’ and proceeds towards north direction along east side edge of plot no. 1171 that is the
common village boundary of Chhelia and Kaharmunda, up to east corn of plot no. 1170. Again the line turns towards
northeast direction passes through same common village boundary up to Tri- junction pillar of village Chhelia,
Patharmunda and Kamarei. Next the line proceed towards north direction along common village boundary of Chhelia and
Kamarei through the Tri junction pillar of village Chhelia, Kamarei and Matharagadi R.F. Again it extends in same
direction along the common boundary of village Chhelia and Matharagadi R.F and it touches pt ‘D’, which is at turning
point of common village boundary of Kamarei and Matharagadi R.F.
D-E: From point ‘D’ the line starts and proceeds east direct along the common boundary of village Kamarei and
Matharagadi R.F up to point ‘E’ which is east side boundary common point of same R.F.
E-F: The line starts from E moves towards northwest direction and proceed along common boundary of village Kamarei
and Matharagadi R.F upto west corner of plot number 2550 of village Kamarei and again it turns towards northeast
direction and passes through common village boundary of Kamarei and Telisingha and cross tri-junction pillar of
Telisingha, Kamarei and Dandasingha upto bi-junction pillar of Telisingha and Dandasingha. Again same line turns
towards north direction proceed along common village boundary of Dandasingha and Telisingha upto tri-junction pillar
of village Telisingha, Ambapal and Dandasingha. Again it proceeds in same direction along common village boundary of
Telisingha and Ambapal upto point ‘F’ which is situated on the same common village boundary and north east corner of
plot no. 2594 of village Telisingha.
F-G: The line starts from point ‘F’ proceeds west direction along the north boundary of plot no. 2594 of village
Telisingha again turns to south direction and proceeds along partly west boundary of same plot. Then it turns towards
west direction along the northern boundary of plot no. 817,816,815 and 813 up to northwest corner of plot no. 813. Then
it moves towards south direction along the western boundary of plot no. 813 and 814. After reaching at south west corner
of plot no. 814 again it turns to west direction and proceeds along the north boundary of plot no. 837,840, and 841, again
it turns towards south direction along the western boundary of plot no. 840. Then it moves towards north west direction
along the north boundary of plot no. 844,868,869 and 870. then it divert towards south west direction along the northern
boundary of plot no. 870,8,874,876 and 880 up to south west corner of plot no. 880. Again it turns towards west direction
and proceeds along partly north boundary of plot no. 881 up to east side of Telisingha village road. Again it turns
towards south west direction and proceeds along the east edge of same village road up to plot no. 2019. Again same line
turns towards south west direction along the west boundary of plot no.2019, 2018, 2082, 2085 and 2087 to touch the
southwest corner of plot no. 2085. Again the line moves towards south east direction proceeds along the south boundary
of 2085 up to south corner of plot no. 2085. Again it turns and passes through west boundary of plot no. 2087 to touch
the common boundary point of 2087 and 2208. Again it moves towards west direction and passes along partly south
boundary 1912 and touch the north common boundary point 1877 and 2208. Again it turns towards south direction and
proceeds along east boundary of plot no. 1877 to touches the south east corner of plot no. 1877. Again it turns towards
east direction and proceeds along north boundary of plot no. 2631 up to common point 2631 and 2207. Again it turns
towards south direction and proceeds along east boundary of plot no. 2211 and west boundary of 2218 up to road. After
crossing the Telisingha village road the line move to south direction along east boundary of plot no. 2255 to touch the
point ‘G’, which is situated at common point of plot no. 2255, 2254 and 2257.
G-A: The line starts from point ‘G’. After crossing the village road of Telisingha the line moves towards west direction
along north side of plot no. 2259 up to northwest corner of same plot. Then it moves towards southeast direction along
partly west side boundary of same plot. Then the line proceeds towards west direction along northern boundary of plot
no. 2266 and touch no. 2269. Then turns towards south direction along west boundary of the plot no. 2266 up to
southeast corner of plot no. 2269. It moves west direction along southern boundary of plot no. 2269, 2270, 2271 and
1583 and reach at northeast corner of plot no. 1580. The line turns towards southwest direction along eastern boundary of
plot no. 1580 and 1581 and reach south east corner of plot no. 1581.next it turns towards west direction and proceeds
through northern boundary of plot no. 1582, 1575,1576,1574,1570 and up to road. Again it turns towards south direction
along the western edge of same road up to south corner of plot no. 1562. Again it turns towards west direction and passes
along north boundary of plot no. 1533, 1534,1535,1481,1498 and 1497 and touches the common village boundary of
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6021
Telisingha and Jarada. Again it proceeds along the same direction then it enters in to village Jarada along the northern
boundary of plot no. 3785, 3777, 3775, 3774, 3767, and 3768 of village Jarada. Next it turns towards south direction
along the part west boundary of 3768 up to common boundary point of 3768 and 3751. Again it moves towards west
direction and proceeds along the north boundary of 3751, 3754 and 3969 to touch east side of pond. Then it turns towards
north direction and passes along partly eastern boundary of plot no.3748 (Embankment of Pond) up to north east corner
of the same plot. Again the line moves towards west direction along the northern boundary of plot no. 3747(Pond) up to
northwest corner of 3746. Then the same line turns towards south direction to cover partly west boundary of same plot up
to northeast corner of 3968. Again it turns towards west direction and proceeds to the south boundary of Jarada Basti and
reach up to northeast corner of plot no. 3313. The same line turns towards west direction and proceeds along northern
boundary of plot no.3313, 3311, 3309, and 3307 and reach northwest corner of plot no. 3306. Again the line moves
towards northwest direction and proceeds along west boundary of plot no. 3304, 3302, 3283, 3282, 3272 and 3271.
Again the line proceeds towards west direction along the north boundary of plot no. 1709, east of 1631, north of 1632,
1631, 1633, 1635, 1625, 1622, 1621, 1645, 1646, 1649, 1650, 1604, 1600, 1601, 1681, 1682, and 1683 up to common
village boundary of Jarada and Jamania. Then the line moves towards north direction and proceeds along same village
boundary up to plot no. 303 northeast corner of village Jamania. Then the line enters to Jamania village towards direction
northwest and passes along north boundary of plot no. 303,302,301,300,299. Again the line turns to direction north along
the east boundary of plot no. 298 then turn to west direction and proceeds along the north boundary of plot no.
298,297,509,286,283,588 up to 587. Next the line turns towards north direction and passes along the partly western
boundary of plot no. 276 up to common boundary corner of plot no. 28 and 276. Then the same line moves towards
northwest direction and passes along north boundary of plot no. 238 then it crosses the existing Jamania village road and
proceeds along the south edge of the same village road up to plot no. 60. Then it turns towards south direction and
proceeds along west boundary of plot no. 60. Then it moves west direction and passes along the south boundary of plot
no.59, 57,591. Then the same line turns towards north direction passes along port west boundary of 591 then it turns
towards west direction and passes along south edge of plot no. 51. Again it turns north direction along the same plot
boundary then it turns towards west direction and proceeds along north boundary of plot no. 53 up to common of plot 50
and 53. Again it turns towards south direction along the east boundary of plot no. 49 up to southeast corner of plot no.49.
Again moves towards west direction and proceeds along the southern boundary of plot no. 49, 48, 43 and 42 up to south
west corner of plot no.42. Again the same line moves towards north direction along the point eastern boundary of plot no.
37 up to northeast corner of plot No. 37. Then it turns towards west direction and proceeds along the southern boundary
of plot no. 41, 40,7,39. the same line proceeds along south boundary of 39, part east of 29, south of 29 part west of 29,
south of 27, part west of 27, south of 26,25 and west of 25 to touch the edge of road ant turns towards west direction
along the south edge of same road to close at point ‘A’.
[F. No. 43015/12/2018-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.
पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय
नई द ली, 5 अ तूबर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1471
1471
1471
1471.—राजीव गांधी पेBोिलयम "ौोिगक) संE थान (आरजीआईपीटी) अिधिनयम, 2007 के िनयम 5(1)
के तहत "दc शि5य$ का "योग करते ए, के/ 0 सरकार एतद् !ारा Iी िबK वजीत रॉय, िनदेशक (मानव संसाधन), ऑयल
इंिडया िलिमटेड (ओआईएल) को आरजीआईपीटी के पुनगG7ठत बोडG ऑफ गवनGसG म. 3 वष| क) अविध के िलए अथवा अगले
आदेश$ तक, जो भी पहले हो, त; काल "भाव से सदE य के ?प म. िनयु त करती है।
[फा. सं. जे-25021/13/2014-सा. (खंड)]
जे.सी. बाबू, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1471.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5(1) of the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of
Petroleum Technology (RGIPT) Act 2007, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Biswajit Roy,
Director (HR), Oil India Limited (OIL) as Member on the reconstituted Board of Governors of RGIPT with
immediate effect for a period of three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. J-25021/13/2014-Gen. (Pt.)]
J. C. BABU, Under Secy.
6022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1472-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
eSllZ deckrk ,oh,s'ku izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/krar= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k ,ylh, ua-
6@2012] vkbZMh 60@13½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-08-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20013@02@2018&vkbZvkj ¼lh&1½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2018
S.O. 1472.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New
Delhi (Ref. LCA No. 6/2012, ID No. 60/13) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in
relation to the Management of M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Limited and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 31.08.2018.
[F. No. L-20013/02/2018– IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX NEW DELHI
LCA No. 6/2012 (ID No. 60/13)
Shri S.K. Sharma
s/o. late Shri Inder Pal Sharma,
r/o. E-84, Raj Nagar-ll,
Gali Mamta Bakery, Palam Colony,
Delhi 110045.
… Workman
Versus
M/s. Cambata Aviation Pvt. Td.,
Through its Chief Operating Officer-Delhi,
Shri Y.S.Cooper
At: Bay-81, Line Maintenance Building Block-A, IGI Airport, Terminal-Ill,
New Delhi 110037.
Also at :-
Room No. 9 & 9-A, Vasant Square Mall,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
… Management
AWARD
This is an application/complaint filed by the Workman/claimant Shri S.K.Sharma under Section 33-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with the averments that workman was appointed by the
Management as Supervisor on 1/9/2006 on a basic salary of Rs.7775/- per month and on the basis of his performance,
confirmation letter dated 20/2/2007 was issued by the Management , thereby he was confirmed w.e.f.1st March, 2007 on
basic salary of Rs.8350/- per month. The workman was promoted as Duty Officer w.e.f. 1/12/2010 on the basic salary
of Rs.14638/- per month and last drawn salary of the workman was Rs. 29126/- per month. The workman gave no
chance of any complaint to the Management and worked with full devotion and sincerity. It is alleged that the
Management suddenly terminated the services of the workman without any rhyme and reason on 31/10/2012, though he
was on medical leave w.e.f. 15.10.2012 and had sent medicals of the govt. Hospital to the Management through FAX.
The termination of the workman is illegal and unjustified, inasmuch as the Management has terminated the services
during the pendency of industrial dispute bearing No. 122/2012 regarding dearness allowance/variable Dearness
allowance, as referred for adjudication by the appropriate govt, vide reference Order No.L-11- 12/9/2012 (IR-(CM-1)
dated 11/7/2012. It is pleaded that the Management is guilty of the provisions of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act. Prayer has
been made for setting aside the order of termination dated 331/10/2012 and for reinstatement of the worker into the
service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
2.
In the reply to the complaint, it has been stated by the Management that the complainant S.K.Sharma is not a a
workman within the meaning of the ID Act, as he was employed for the post of Supervisor and subsequently promoted
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6023
to the post of Duty Officer vide letter dated 29/11/2010 and he was drawing gross salary of Rs. 30276/- per month. His
duties/functions were mainly of supervisory nature and as such the claim of the applicant/claimant is not maintainable. It
has been denied that service record of the applicant was unblemished It has been pleaded that termination of services of
the applicant is in terms of letter of appointment and contract. Since the applicant was not a workman, no application
was required for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Prayer has been made for rejection of the present
application.
3.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 18.4.2013
1)
Whether service conditions of the claimant were altered in violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ?
2)
Whether the claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service ?
4.
In view of the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act, the instant complaint was/is treated to be a dispute as
referred to this Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As such, this Tribunal is required to submit the
Award to the appropriate Government.
5.
The applicant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.WW1/A
alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/12.
6.
On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant had examined one
Shri C.S.Madan, Senior Manager (HR) as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/42 and also relied on documents so filed by the applicant/workman and also
exhibited as WW1/M-1 to WW1/M-39. It is a matter of record that the witness of the Management MW1 though put to
cross examination on 30/9/2014 and 7/4/2015, did not enter the witness box for his further cross examination for the last
so many dates and hence, evidence of the management was closed vide order dated 6.3.2017. It is pertinent to mention
here that the management thereafter opted not to contest the claim of the applicant/workman and the matter was
proceeded ex parte against the Management vide order dated 18/4/2017.
7.
Although no specific issued has been framed as regards the preliminary objection taken by the Management that
the claimant herein does not fall within the definition of the workman as he was performing his duties of
administrative/supervisory nature and further that, salary of the claimant is above the statutory limit so as to exclude the
claimant from the definition of “workman” under Section 2(S) of the Act, I proceed to decide firstly this issue being
legal in nature.
8.
AR appearing on behalf of the claimant submitted that claimant was not performing any kind of supervisory
duty, though he was designated as Supervisor and subsequently as Duty Officer.
9.
It is well settled that in order to find out as to whether a person was performing the work of supervisory or
managerial in nature, the dominant purpose of the employment of the person concerned should be taken into
consideration and certain additional duties performed by him should be ignored while determining the status and
character of the person. Since the objection regarding the status of the workman being employed in supervisory capacity
has been taken by the management as such the onus to prove this fact is upon the management but the Management has
failed to discharge this onus, inasmuch as the MW1 CS Madan, did not enter the witness box for his further cross
examination for the last so many dates and hence, evidence of the management was closed vide order dated 6/3/2017 and
as such, his testimony can not be read in evidence. It was imperative for the management to adduce cogent evidence to
prove the specific nature of duty regarding supervisory or managerial work. In order to find out whether the workman
herein falls within the definition of workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Act. It would be expedient to have a glance
on definition of the term ‘workman’, contained in section 2(s) of the Act. For sake of convenience, definition of term
‘workman’ is reproduced thus:—
“2(s) Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i)
Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act 1950(46 of 1950) or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or
(ii)
Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison , or
(iii)
Who is, employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv)
Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of
the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”
6024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
The first part of the definition gives statutory meaning of the term ‘workman’. This part of the definition
determines a workman by reference to a person (including an apprentice) employed in an “industry” to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. This part determines what a
“workman” means. The second part is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes. By this
part of the definition, person (i) who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial
dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispute, for the purpose of any
proceeding under the Act in relation to such industrial dispute, have been included in the definition of “workman”. This
part gives extended connotation to the expression “workman”. The third part specifically excluded the categories of
persons specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of this sub section. The third part connotes that even if a person satisfies the
requirements of any of the first two parts but if he falls in any of the four categories in the third part, he shall be
excluded from the definition of ‘workman’. Not only the persons who are actually employed in an industry but also
those who have been discharged, dismissed or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial
dispute, and whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to that dispute, would fall within the ambit of the
definition. In other words, the second category of persons included in the definition would fall in the ambit of the
definition, only for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act in relation to an industrial dispute and for no other
purposes. Therefore, date of reference is relevant and in case a person falls within the definition of workman on that
day, the Tribunal would be vested with jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction would not cease merely because
subsequently the workman ceases to be workman.
11.
For an employee in an industry to be a workman under this definition, it is manifest that he must be employed
to do skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. If the work done by an
employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a workman. The specification of the four types of work obviously is
intended to law down that an employee is to become a workman only if he is employed to do work of one of those
types, while there may be employees who, not doing any such work, would be out of the scope of the word ‘workman’,
without having resort to the exceptions. It cannot be held that every employee of an industry was to be a workman
except those mentioned in the four exceptions as in the case these four classifications need not have been mentioned in
the definition and a workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in cases where he
was covered by one of the exceptions.
12.
In cases where an employee is employed to do purely skilled or unskilled manual work, or supervisory work
or technical work or clerical work there would be no difficulty in holding him to be a workman under the appropriate
classification. Frequently, however, an employee is required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it would
be necessary to determine under which classification he will fall for the purpose of finding out whether he does not go
out of the definition of ‘workman’ under the exceptions. The principle is now well settled that, for this purpose, a
workman must be held to be employed to do that work which is the main work he is required to do even though he may
incidentally doing other type of work.
13.
Applying the legal principle as discussed above, this Tribunal is to examine whether claimant was performing
any supervisory or administrative type of job so as to exclude him from the definition of workman. In this regard it is
appropriate to refer to the version of the applicant S.K.Sharma. While appearing as WW1, the applicant deposed that
though the management had promoted him upto the post of Duty Officer but his service conditions remained the same
as of Asstt.Supervisor, Nature of his job was of manual and operation and he did not have any administrative,
managerial and financial powers. His main job was of man-power allocation as per the duty roaster made by the
Management. In cross examination, he clarified that duty allocation roasters were prepared by the Managers and sent to
the Supervisor for allocation as per the requirement of the airlines. The Supervisor looked after the loading performed
by the loaders. Mostly he worked in the Vigilance Department, which was looking after the discipline among the staff.
He also clarified that he used to work as per instructions of Manager, though he admitted the documents Ex.WW1/M-1
to M-39 which are duty allocation and daily working reports etc., related to him.
14.
To my mind simply because the claimant was supervising the loading work performed by the Loaders, would
not be legally sufficient to exclude him from the definition of the workman inasmuch the Duty Allocation Roasters
were prepared by the Managers. It has been held in the case of Hussan Mithu Mhaswvadkar Vs.Bombay Iron and Steel
Iron Board (2001) 7 SCC 394 that the designation of an official alone is not decisive regarding applicability of the
definition of workman under the Act and one has to examine the nature and kind of his duty as well as power and
functions of such official, so as to decide whether he is performing supervisory nature of work or whether he is mainly
employed in managerial or administrative capacity or not. There is nothing in svidence of the Management as to
what was the supervisory nature of work/duty which the claimant was independently performing and in what kind of
policy decision, the claimant has taken part. There is also nothing on record to show that the claimant had got any kind
of disciplinary powers or any official was working under his control, so as to hold that he was exercising any
supervisory authority over his subordinates, inasmuch as MW1 CS Madan has admitted in his cross examination that
the applicant was not empowered to appoint, terminate, demote or promote or issue chargesheet or sanction leave to any
employee and even no financial power was given to him.
15.
In the case Tata Sons Ltd. Vs. S. Bandoyopadhyay 2004 (102) FLR 157 (Delhi) it was held that Deputy
Manager (Engineering) does not come within the definition of workman, as he was required to report to his superior
though was performing work which also included creativity and imagination. . There are also observations in the above
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6025
ruling that mere designation of an employee is not of any consequence for the purposes of determining whether he is a
workman or not. What is of importance is the nature of his duties, particularly his primary duties or his basic duties and
the dominant purpose of his.employment.
16.
There is hardly any dispute with the above preposition of law but in the case in hand there is no evidence on
record to suggest that claimant was performing any managerial function or administrative work in the course of his
primary or basic duties. The Management was under obligation to lead cogent evidence in this respect so as to exclude
the claimant from the definition of the workman .
17.
Equally settled is the position under law. The Industrial Dispute Act being a social and beneficial legislation,
its provisions should be construed liberally and harmoniously so as to advance the interests of the workman.
18.
In view of the above discussion, it is held that the claimant herein falls within the definition of workman.
Issue No.1 and 2:-
19.
Both these issues being inter related are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be
conveniently disposed of.
20.
Now the vital question for consideration is as to whether termination of the claimant is illegal and against the
provisions of the Act.
21.
It is not in dispute that workman/applicant was appointed by the Management as Supervisor on 1/9/2006 and he
was promoted to the post of Duty Officer w.e.f. 1/12/2010, which fact is manifest from the documents Ex.WWI/ and
Ex.WW1/4. It is also not in dispute that the services of the applicant/workman were terminated by the Management on
31/10/2012. The workman/claimant had got sent a legal notice dated 5/11/2012 (Ex.VWV1/7) to the Management,
which was replied by the Management vide letter dated 23/11/2012 (Ex.WW1/10). The Management has taken a plea
that termination of services of the applicant is in terms of letter of appointment and contract, because since the
applicant was not a workman, no application was required for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. As discussed
above, this Tribunal has already held that the applicant is the workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act.
22.
Testimony of the applicant that management has terminated his services during pendency of industrial dispute
No.122/2012 referred for adjudication by the appropriate govt, vide reference Order No.L-11-12/9/2012 (IR-(CM-1)
dated 11/7/2012, has also gone unchallenged. Since the industrial dispute between the workman and the Management,
as referred to by the appropriate Govt, vide order dated 11/7/2012 (Ex.WW1/11), was pending adjudication, it was
incumbent upon the Management to comply with the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act, which reads as under :-
‘‘33(2) Conditions of service, etc to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of
proceedings -
(1) ...............................
(2)
During the pendency of any such proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in
accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there
are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of contract, whether express or implied
between him and the workman -
(a)
alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to
that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding, or
(b)
for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or
otherwise, that workman, Provided that no such workman shall be discharged, unless he has been paid
wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which
the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer....”
It is manifest from the above that conditions contained in the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) are mandatory and their non-
compliance would render the order of discharge or dismissal void or inoperative. As per the defence of the Management
itself, they had not moved any application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, seeking approval of the Tribunal in respect
of their action of termination of workman from service. Not making an application under Section 33(2)(b) seeking
approval of any order passed against the workman during pendency of the industrial dispute is a clear case of
contravention of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. To this view I am fortified by the decision in the case of
Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar H. Manyuare, 2003 LLR68. Resultantly, it is held that action of the
Management in altering the service conditions of the claimant was in violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the order whereby services of the workman /claimant were terminated by the
Management on 31/10/2012 is held to be void and inoperative.
23.
Now the crucial question for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any incidental relief of
payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service. The workman/claimant while appearing as WW1 has deposed
that he is unemployed from the date of the termination order, though he claimed to have received one month’s notice
pay from the Management but under protest. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that after
termination, the workman/claimant is gainfully employed somewhere else or that he is in a position to make his both
6026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ends meet by doing any work. Even if it is assumed that the claimant is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make
his both ends meet, that would not itself amount to gainful employment.
(2) The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” reported as
(2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
(i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
(ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or
was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads
gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to
the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the
existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically
plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.”
24.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of
termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the
mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se,
sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that
termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one
month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the
action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not
terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
25.
Three Bench Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken
away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be totally, in that eventuality the workman is
required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order
terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith
payment of back wages.
26.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC
(L&S) 716 observed as under :-
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of
service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the
manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting
applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage,
temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and
balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into
consideration is the length of service, which is workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered
a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back
wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him, he may not be in a position to get
another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of
back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of award, which our experience shows
is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character can not be compared to
short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”
27. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lai and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018
(decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and
reinstatement held as under :-
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or
workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages.
In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and
interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6027
different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s
obligation to pay the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal
termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is
no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to
the employee/ workman his dues in the form of full back wages.”
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar decided on 5-4-2018)
MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s
salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be
illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing
as under :-
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act
and that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the
fact that going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he
would, today, be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM
Driver was not on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the
respondent, of his duties as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any
interference with the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service
with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in
service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his
termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages
which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner …”
27. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a post
of regular and perennial nature, coupled with the fact that he did not render any service to the Management since the
date of his termination, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant is entitled to reinstatement into service, with
50 per cent back wages, inasmuch as the order of termination of the claimant/workman being in violation to the proviso
of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is per-se void and inoperative.
Award is passed accordingly.
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1473-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj e/; jsyos ds izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2013&14½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 05-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@127@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1473.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2013-14) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05.10.2018.
[No. L-41011/127/2012– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
6028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COUR, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/19/2013-14
Date: 18.09.2018
Party No.1
: Ehsan Sharafat Khan,
R/o Silent Ganj, behind Kalapi,
Prem Nagar, Jhansi
Distt. Jhansi (UP).
Versus
Party No.2
: Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Kingsway,
Nagpur (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 18th September, 2018)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Central Railway, Nagpur and workman Shri Ehshan
Khan s/o Sharafat Khan a Hot Weather MRCL Waterman for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 41011/127/2012-IR(B-I)
dated 16/05/2013, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Nagpur through its Divisional Railway
Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur by not regularizing the services or giving Ty. Status to Shri Ehshan
Khan S/o Sarafat Khan, Hot Weather MRCL Waterman is legal and justified? If not, then what relief he
is entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in
response to which, Shri Ehshan Khan S/o Sarafat Khan (Union in short) on behalf of the union filed the statement of
claim and the management of Central Railway, Nagpur (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.
3. The Union filed a statement of claim by asserting that, the workman was appointed as MRCL Weather Hot casual
mazdoor (monthly rated casual labour) on 05/04/1986 and served as casual labour for a period of 407 days from
05/04/1986 to 30/06/1991. According to him the workman and other about 250 workmen were engaged by the Party
No.1 regularly since 1980. He acquired temporary status on completion of 120 days of continuous employment. He
belongs to casual labour in Commercial Department. Seniority list of all casual labours is prepared by Party No. 1.
4. The Railway Board is the Apex Body of Railway Administration which issued a letter dated 24/07/1979 for
absorption against regular vacancies in Group D Class IV category. According to union, workman is eligible for
regularisation against regular vacancies. Circular darted 25/05/2001 have circulated of 247 persons are included and
name of the workman also included in the said list. By order dated 06/11/2009 this Tribunal passed an order in case of
Smt. Hemlata Sakharam Bagade for regularisation and Divisional Railway Manager directed to Party No. 1 to absorb the
petitioner. In this case, party approached to the Hon’ble High Court Bench at Nagpur in which Hon’ble High Court
pleased to pass to set aside Award to the extent of 74 workmen and in respect of 56 workmen out of 74 workmen the
award treated as no dispute award.
5. According to the union workman is out of job and is passing his day in penury and pray for declaration of absorption,
the workman as permanent employee of railway and pray that he acquired the temporary status with retrospective effect.
6. On behalf of Party No. 1, written statement is filed by asserting that contention of para no. 1, 9 & 10 are matter of
record. They admitted that, Railway Board is the Apex Body of railway administration which lays down policy decision
in respect of the service conditions of railways employees including casual labour. They also admitted that railway board
issued circular on 05/04/1986 are not applicable in case of the workman. They are not admitting the fact that the
applicant was working as a causal labour during the year 1986.
7. According to Party No. 1 today the age of the workman is more than 45 years, according to Railway Board regarding
decasualization scheme, the persons who are engaged up to the age of 45 years are eligible for recruitment. According to
them the workman was not eligible for recruitment as age barred. Applicant’s name was not appearing in the official
record therefore the applicant was not screened. According to them Railway Administration has engaged the workman as
casual labour and he has worked from time to time as per the records.
8. It was denied that the certificate regarding the said working was issued by the Station Superintendent through
Passenger Amenity Supervisor on 28/03/1988, 26/03/1990, 04/08/1990 and 03/03/1992. According to Party No. 1
applicant is not appeared before Railway Authority and the Screening Committee therefore the railway administration
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6029
has not regularized the applicant in group D post. They also denied that workman name included in the seniority list.
According to Party No. 1, the workman did not report before the railway/screening authorities in the year 2001 so his
name was not considered for regularisation in Group D post.
9. According to party no. 1 the workman wants to enter into the service of railway administration through backdoor
entry. Railway administration has recruited the persons in the Group D post other than decasualization scheme through
the selection conducted by the railway recruitment board. They also denied that the workman is entitled for regularisation
for permanent post and to give continuity in service so they pray that the workman service answered negative and
statement of claim is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
10. Points of determination
1)
Whether the action of the management of the Central Railway, Nagpur in not regularizing the service of
workman is legal and justified?
2)
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief.
Reasons of determination:
11. On behalf of the union, he relied on the following case laws; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and
Another Versus Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana (2009) 8 Superme Court Cases 556 and Divisional
Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Versus A. Sankaralingam (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 55,
in which following principles is laid down :-
(i)
That a workman employed on a part-time basis but under the control and supervision of an employer is a
workman in terms of Section 2 (s) of the Act, and is entitled to claim the protection of Section 25-F thereof.
The preponderance of judicial opinion is that a workman working even on a part-time basis would be
entitled to benefit of Section of 25-F of the Act.”
(ii)
The Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in matters of public employment where the
employees have been engaged as contractual, temporary or casual workers, not based on proper selection as
recognized by rules or procedure and yet orders of their regularisation and conferring them status of
permanency have been passed.”
(iii) Court cannot direct creation of posts—Further held, status of permanency cannot also be granted by court
where post does not exist.”
12. I relied on the following case laws:-M.P. Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chand 2005 SCC (L&S) 417, Mihir Kumar
Vs. LIC (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 875, State bank of Bikaner Vs Nemi Chand (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 584, Divisional Manager
Plantation Vs. Munnu (2005) SCC (L&S) 200, Deputy Commissioner Vs J. Hussani (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 833, Union
Bank of India Vs Vishaw Mohan (1998) 4 SCC 310, State of Assam Vs Mahendra Kumar AIR 1970 SC Page No.1255,
Union of India Vs Parma Nanda AIR 1989 SC Page No.1185 and State Bank Vs Samarendra Kishore 1994 SCC (L&S)
687, in which following principal are laid down :-
i)
Supreme Court as appellate court cannot sit over finding of Enquiry Officer and find fault in it, nor can
appreciate evident of witness examined in departmental enquiry.
ii)
Held courts will not interfere except where findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly
perverse – Test of perversity i.e. whether authority concerned could have reasonably arrived at such
conclusion or finding based on material on records is to be applied – Courts will interfere if principles of
natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated of if order is arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or
based on extraneous consideration.
iii)
Held, Courts should not be guided by misplaced sympathy or continuity ground as a factor in judicial review
while examining quantum of punishment – In all cases dealing with penalty of removal, dismissal or
compulsory retirement, hardship would result, which cannot be a ground to interdict with penalty.
iv)
Held, Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a
statutory provision in this behalf - Moreover, Industrial Courts must act within the four corners of the statute
concerned, in terms of the provisions thereof.
I fully agree with the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now, I want to see the factual arguments
with reference to the evidence produced by the both parties.
13. On behalf the workman it was argued that the workman was appointed monthly rated casual worker and he worked
for 382 days for the period from 01.05.1987 to 30.06.1991. He fulfilled all the criteria of absorption in regular port in
Class IV but the management denied his legitimate claim. On behalf of the workman, Ahsan Ulla Khan was examined
and in the para of 11 to 16 in his cross examination he admitted that he passed Class X and he filed transfer certificate
and mark sheet of class X but at present his age is 50 years old his relied on the documents Exhibit W-II to XVI but on
behalf of the management Mr. Sanjay Kumar (MW 1) was examined and he relied on documents i.e. M-1 to M-IV. Now,
I see the documents parts.
14. Exhibit W-II an affidavit of the workman dated 07/03/2003 filed by the workman, in which he want to change his
name in school certificates. E/W-III to E/W-VII are experience certificates which was issued by the so called
management but according to the workman PW-1 & MW 1 Shri Sanjay Kumar, they have no knowledge who has signed
6030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on this documents. Both parties have relied on circular issued by Party No. 1 on 28/02/2001 (Exhibit M-IV) which
shows that decasualization scheme on behalf of Party No.1.
15. On behalf of management it was argued that any time of decasualization scheme workman has worked 48 years of
age and was not passed Xth examination he appeared before the screening committee by producing Exhibit W-VIII false
list of the casual workers in which Party No. 1 has required to file copy of school leaving certificate, but the workman
manipulated the document by mentioning his name on sl. No. 8 but on perusal of this document it appears that this list
was made only seven person which is marked by A to A. On the contrary management produced M/1 in which name of
the workman was not mentioned. And Exhibit M-II list of screening committee in which it was mentioned that the
screening committee found that present workman not visible. In this way argument of the management appears to be
relied.
16. Both parties did not produce copy of the award dated 06/11/2009 which is said to be passed by this Tribunal and
Hon’ble High Court. On this case, pleading and statement of claim and written statement also not produced by the union.
On contrary, it was argued by the management that Party No. 1 i.e. Hemlata case based on Parcel Porter Case but present
case is based on casual labour regularization. In this case, workman did not prove their age proof by calling concerned
school teacher so this fact is proved so that in the eye of evidence that he eligible at the time of screening committee on
the count of age as well as qualification.
In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where
principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if
termination of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu Udhyog
Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was held that:-
“no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by
Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as
well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing
as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to
satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” These principles are also laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh (2016) 7
SCC-571, UPSRTC Vs. Gopal Shukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017) 13 SCC
269, V.D. Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School Vs. A.
Harnoon (2017) 2 SCC 510.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in above case laws: Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited
versus A. Sankaralingam, held that, “The preponderance of judicial opinion is that a workman working even on a part-
time basis would be entitled to benefit of Section of 25-F of the Act”.
17.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as laid down above, I found that the
workman was not eligible as per guidelines issued by Railway Board in Circular dated 28/02/2001 and found that he is
not eligible for regularisation to the post of Class IV Category Group D. So, in my opinion, the union fails to prove that,
he is eligible for the post of Class IV, but, I found that, the workman worked with the Railway near about 5 years, so I
came to conclusion on the basis of the above case laws that, he is entitled a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- U/s 25-F of
the above Act. Considering the present economical condition, liabilities of his family and present age for further job,
management/Party No. 1 is directed that, workman may be considered, for any suitable temporary or part time job, if it is
possible. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Central Railway, Nagpur through its Divisional Railway Manager, Central
Railway, Nagpur by not regularizing the services or giving Ty. Status to Shri Ehshan Khan S/o Sarafat Khan, Hot
Weather MRCL Waterman is legal and justified, but the workman is entitled for Lumpsum monetary compensation of
Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) U/s 25-F of the above Act, which is payable within one month from the
publication of this award in official gazette, failing which, amount due to workman will carry interest of 6% per annum
from the date of due to the workman to the date of actual payment of the amount to the workman. He is not entitled for
any further relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk vk- 1474-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj e/; jsyos izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2013&14½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-
10-2018 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011@115@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6031
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1474.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/2013-14) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05.10.2018.
[No. L-41011/115/2012– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/06/2013-14
Date: 18.09.2018
Party No.1
: Mohammed Sharif Shafi Hussain
R/o Plot No. 161, Mahendra Nagar,
Teka, Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No.2
: Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Kingsway,
Nagpur (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 18th September, 2018)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Central Railway, Nagpur and Shri Mohammed Sharif
Shafi Hussain a Hot Weather MRCL Waterman for adjudication, as per letter No.L- 41011/115/2012-IR(B-I) dated
05.04.2013, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Nagpur through its Divisional Railway
Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur by not regularizing the services or giving Ty. Status to Shri Mohd.
Sharif Shafi Hussain, Hot Weather MRCL Waterman is legal and justified? If not, then what relief he is
entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, Shri Mohd. Sharif Shafi Hussain (Union in short) on behalf of the union filed the statement of
claim and the management of Central Railway, Nagpur (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.
3.
The Union filed a statement of claim by asserting that, the workman was appointed as MRCL Weather Hot
casual mazdoor (monthly rated casual labour) on 05/04/1986 and served as casual labour for a period of 407 days from
05/04/1986 to 30/06/1991. According to him the workman and other about 250 workmen were engaged by the Party
No.1 regularly since 1980. He acquired temporary status on completion of 120 days of continuous employment. He
belongs to casual labour in Commercial Department. Seniority list of all casual labours is prepared by Party No. 1.
4.
The Railway Board is the Apex Body of Railway Administration which issued a letter dated 24/07/1979 for
absorption against regular vacancies in Group D Class IV category. According to union, workman is eligible for
regularisation against regular vacancies. Circular darted 25/05/2001 have circulated of 247 persons are included and
name of the workman also included in the said list. By order dated 06/11/2009 this Tribunal passed an order in case of
Smt. Hemlata Sakharam Bagade for regularisation and Divisional Railway Manager directed to Party No. 1 to absorb the
petitioner. In this case, party approached to the Hon’ble High Court Bench at Nagpur in which Hon’ble High Court
pleased to pass order to set aside the Award to the extent of 74 workmen and in respect of 56 workmen out of 74
workmen the award treated as no dispute award.
5.
According to the union workman is out of job and is passing his day in penury and pray for declaration of
absorption, the workman as permanent employee of railway and pray that he acquired the temporary status with
retrospective effect.
6.
On behalf of Party No. 1, written statement is filed by asserting that contention of para no. 1, 9 & 10 are matter
of record. They admitted that, Railway Board is the Apex Body of railway administration which lays down policy
decision in respect of the service conditions of railways employees including casual labour. They also admitted that
6032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
railway board issued circular on 05/04/1986 are not applicable in case of the workman. They are not admitting the fact
that the applicant was working as a causal labour during the year 1986.
7.
According to Party No. 1 today the age of the workman is more than 45 years, according to Railway Board
regarding decasualization scheme, the persons who are engaged up to the age of 45 years are eligible for recruitment.
According to them the workman was not eligible for recruitment as age barred. Applicant’s name was not appearing in
the official record therefore the applicant was not screened. According to them, Railway Administration has engaged the
workman as casual labour and he has worked from time to time as per the records. According to them, workman was the
one of senior most employees and the number of the workers, who put in less service than him, was regularized. It is
denied that there is any arbitration on the part of the Railway Administration.
8.
It was denied that the certificate regarding the said working was issued by the Station Superintendent through
Passenger Amenity Supervisor on 28/03/1988, 26/03/1990, 04/08/1990 and 03/03/1992. According to Party No. 1
applicant is not appeared before Railway Authority and the Screening Committee therefore the railway administration
has not regularized the applicant in group D post. They also denied that workman name included in the seniority list.
According to Party No.1, the workman did not report before the railway/screening authorities in the year 2001 so his
name was not considered for regularisation in Group D post.
9.
According to party no. 1, the workman wants to enter into the service of railway administration through
backdoor entry. Railway administration has recruited the persons in the Group D post other than decasualization scheme
through the selection conducted by the railway recruitment board. They also denied that the workman is entitled for
regularisation for permanent post and to give continuity in service so they pray that the workman service answered
negative and claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
10.
Points of determination
1)
Whether the action of the management of the Central Railway, Nagpur in not regularizing the service of
the workman is legal and justified?
2)
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
Reasons of determination
11.
On behalf of the union, he relied on the following case laws; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and
Another Versus Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana (2009) 8 Supermen Court Cases 556 and Divisional
Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Versus A. Sankaralingam (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 55,
in which following principles is laid down :-
(i)
That a workman employed on a part-time basis but under the control and supervision of an employer is a
workman in terms of Section 2 (s) of the Act, and is entitled to claim the protection of Section 25-F thereof.
(ii)
The Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in matters of public employment where the
employees have been engaged as contractual, temporary or casual workers not based on proper selection as
recognized by rules or procedure and yet orders of their regularisation and conferring them status of
permanency have been passed.”
(iii) Court cannot direct creation of posts—Further held, status of permanency cannot also be granted by court
where post does not exist.”
12.
I relied on the following case laws:-M.P. Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chand 2005 SCC (L&S) 417, Mihir
Kumar Vs LIC (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 875, State bank of Bikaner Vs Nemi Chand (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 584, Divisional
Manager Plantation Vs Munnu (2005) SCC (L&S) 200, Deputy Commissioner Vs J. Hussani (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 833,
Union Bank of India Vs Vishaw Mohan (1998) 4 SCC 310, State of Assam Vs Mahendra Kumar AIR 1970 SC Page
No.1255, Union of India Vs Parma Nanda AIR 1989 SC Page No.1185 and State Bank Vs Samarendra Kishore 1994
SCC (L&S) 687, in which following principal are laid down :-
i)
Supreme Court as appellate court cannot sit over finding of Enquiry Officer and find fault in it, nor can
appreciate evident of witness examined in departmental enquiry.
ii)
Held courts will not interfere except where findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly
perverse – Test of perversity i.e. whether authority concerned could have reasonably arrived at such
conclusion or finding based on material on records is to be applied – Courts will interfere if principles of
natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated of if order is arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or
based on extraneous consideration.
iii)
Held, Courts should not be guided by misplaced sympathy or continuity ground as a factor in judicial review
while examining quantum of punishment – In all cases dealing with penalty of removal, dismissal or
compulsory retirement, hardship would result, which cannot be a ground to interdict with penalty.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6033
iv)
Held, Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a
statutory provision in this behalf - Moreover, Industrial Courts must act within the four corners of the statute
concerned, in terms of the provisions thereof.
I fully agree with the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now, I want to see the factual arguments
with reference to the evidence produced by the both parties.
13.
On behalf the workman it was argued that the workman was appointed monthly rated casual worker and he
worked for 407 days for the period from 05.04.1986 to 30.06.1991. He fulfilled all the criteria of absorption in regular
port in Class IV but the management denied his legitimate claim. On behalf of the workman, Mohammed Sharif Safi
Hussain was examined and in the para of 12 to 16 in his cross examination he admitted that he passed Class Vth and he
did not filed any documents regarding his education, he also admitted that department had published list of workers
whose name were in the live register, he also know about the publication of the list, he filed an application before
screening committee, he relied on document W-II to W-VIII. On the contrary on behalf of the management Mr. Sanjay
Kumar (MW 1) was examined and he relied on documents i.e. M-1 to M-VI. Now, I see the documents parts.
14.
Exhibit W-II to W-VII relating to the experience to the workman which was issued by the management but
that fact not denied in any reliable evidence so it appears to be true. Both parties relied on Exhibit W-VIII circular dated
25/05/2001 and railway board circular dated 28/02/2001 (E/M-VI) which shows that Party No.1 implemented
the regularisation under the decasualization scheme. On the perusal of the documents filed by the management M-I to M-
V i.e. workman filed two applications on 14/05/2003 & 08/05/2003 (E/M-I & E/M-III) and two affidavits E/M-II and
E/M-IV regarding age and qualification. According to the management he is not qualified for regularisation for the post
of Class IV Category Group D because he is only Vth pass.
15.
On behalf of the management it was argued that any time of decasualization scheme workman was not qualified
because he is only Vth pass so he did not appear before the screening committee and Hemlata case is not applicable
because it concern with parcel porter worker but this case is concerned with regularisation of casual labour so argument
was that this case is not covered under Hemlata case.
16.
Both parties did not produce copy of the award dated 06.11.2009 which is said to be passed by this Tribunal and
Hon’ble High Court. On this case, pleading and statement of claim and written statement also not produced by the union.
On contrary, it was argued by the management that Party No. 1 i.e. Hemlata case based on Parcel Porter Case but present
case is based on casual labour regularization. In this case, workman did not prove their age proof by calling concerned
school teacher so this fact is proved so that in the eye of evidence that he eligible at the time of screening
committee on the count of age as well as qualification.
In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where
principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if
termination of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu Udhyog
Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was held that:-
“no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by
Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as
well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing
as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to
satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” These principles are also laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh (2016) 7
SCC-571, UPSRTC Vs. Gopal Shukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017) 13 SCC
269, V.D. Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School Vs. A.
Harnoon (2017) 2 SCC 510.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in above case laws: Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited
versus A. Sankaralingam, held that, “The preponderance of judicial opinion is that a workman working even on a part-
time basis would be entitled to benefit of Section of 25-F of the Act”.
17.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as laid down above, I found that the
workman was not eligible as per guidelines issued by Railway Board in Circular dated 28/02/2001 and found that he is
not eligible for regularisation to the post of Class IV Category Group D. So, in my opinion, the union fails to prove that,
he is eligible for the post of Class IV, but, I found that, the workman worked with the Railway near about 5 years, so I
came to conclusion on the basis of the above case laws that, he is entitled a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- U/s 25-F of
the above Act. Considering the present economical condition, liabilities of his family and present age for further job,
management/Party No. 1 is directed that, workman may be considered, for any suitable temporary or part time job, if it is
possible. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Central Railway, Nagpur through its Divisional Railway Manager, Central
Railway, Nagpur by not regularizing the services or giving Ty. Status to Shri Mohd. Sharif Shafi Hussain, Hot Weather
6034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MRCL Waterman is legal and justified, but the workman is entitled for Lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) U/s 25-F of the above Act, which is payable within one month from the publication of
this award in official gazette, failing which, amount due to workman will carry interest of 6% per annum from the date
of due to the workman to the date of actual payment of the amount to the workman. He is not entitled for any further
relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1475-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 44@2013&14½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-10-2018 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011/29/2013- vkbZ vkj ¼ch-&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1475.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 44/2013-14) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05.10.2018.
[No. L-12011/29/2013– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/44/2013-14
Date: 06.09.2018
Party No.1
: The Assistant General Manager (Admn.)
State Bank of India,
Administrative Office,
S.V. Patel Marg, Kingsway,
Nagpur-440 001.
Versus
Party No.2
: The Zonal Secretary,
State Bank of Workers Organization,
542, Dr. Munje Marg, Congress Nagar,
Nagpur-440012.
AWARD
(Dated: 6th September, 2018)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their’s Union State Bank of
Workers Organization, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12011/29/2013-IR (B-I) dated 23.07.2013, with the following
schedule:-
“Whether the action of the Assistant General Manager (Admn.), State of India, Administrative Office,
Nagpur & Disciplinary Authority in imposing the penalty of “Be brought down to lower stage in the scale
of pay by 2 stages” on Shri B.S. Fultankar, Special Assistant posted at State Bank of India, Khamgaon
Branch vide order dated 08.04.2010 and turned down the appeal by the Appellate Authority & Deputy
General Manager (O & C-III), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Nagpur vide his order dated 31/08/2010,
are just, fair & legal? To what the relief the concerned employee is entitled?”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6035
2.
On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the workman Shri B.S. Fultankar, (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim and the
management of State Bank of India (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.
3.
Workman filed a statement of claim through the union by asserting that, he was appointed in the bank through
exam in the year 1976 as a clerk-cum-typist. The management issued charge sheet against him on the ground of gross
misconduct and he filed reply. Mr. B.S. Vaidya appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Workman suggested Mr. D.S. Joshi,
retired bank employee as a defence representative, but it was refused by the management.
4.
Mr. R.S. Lote was appointed as second Enquiry Officer and workman suggested Shri S.L. Bhisikar as a defence
representative, but enquiry concluded exparte. The Disciplinary Authority had sent enquiry report. He replied on
10.11.2017, but without issuing second show cause notice, Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of
bringing down a lower stage.
5.
He filed departmental appeal, in which order of disciplinary authority was cancelled and the case was remanded
for imposing of proper punishment. According to the workman, the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer have
patently violated the provisions of Awards and bipartite settlements by not allowing the retired person as a defence
representative. There was no documentary proof to establish the monetary gain or to support the business of the wife. So,
he prayed that, enquiry proceeding declared to be null and void and to be quashed and set aside and also prayed that,
punishment imposed against him is illegal, so he prayed that, quash the all punishments imposed against him.
6.
Management by filing reply in form of written statement by asserting that, union has no right under law to raise
a dispute in case of lowering down in the scale of pay or warning. According to the management, workman has already
adjusted the remedy of appeal. Bank is already ready to fulfill of his part of bipartite agreement.
7.
According to the management, retired employee was not allowed to defend the workman during the enquiry, so,
Mr. Joshi was not allowed to defend on behalf of the workman. Mr. Bhishikar was third defendant representative but he
did not appear. They also asserted that, workman given strike notice to the bank. According to the management, there
are no such provisions in service conditions to allow such person to defend the bank employee.
8.
According to the management, they followed the all principles of natural justice in conduction of the
departmental enquiry. They gave proper opportunity to the workman to defend his case, so, he prayed that, workman is
not entitled for any relief.
9.
Workman filed a rejoinder, mainly asserting those facts which were raised in the statement of claim. It also
asserted that, the statement of claim has been drafted in the form of appeal. According to the workman, written statement
is far away from the facts on record. He is entitled to allow a defence representative as per desire of the workman. So, on
filing of rejoinder, workman repeated his prayer as mentioned in the statement of claim.
10.
Point of determination:
A) “Whether action of management in imposing penalty to the workmen Shri B.S. Fultankar is just, fear and
legal?
B) Whether workmen entitled?
Reasons of determination
11.
On behalf of the workman, they relied on the following case laws:- D. Inbavalli Vs State bank of India Writ
Appeal No.280 of 2014, Anandram Jiandrai Vaswani Vs Union of India (1983) II LLJ 122 Cal, Rajinder Kumar Kindra
Vs Delhi administration 1984 AIR 1805, Anil Kumar vs Presiding Officer And Ors. AIR 1985 SC1121, Hindusthan
Steel Ltd., vs Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha And Ors. AIR 1969 Ori 209, R.P. Bhatt vs Union of India 1986 AIR 1040, Ram
Chander vs Union of India & Ors 1986 SCC (4) 12 and Hans Raj vs Union of India :-.
a.
It was held that, “Employee in a departmental proceedings, the technical or narrow interpretation cannot
be given that such a representative will have to be a member. Clause 12 does not prohibit a retired
employee from representing an existing one; On the contrary, it only stipulates that the representative will
have to be a member of the registered Trade Union”.
b.
The enquiry officer should not exclude materials which are relevant and he should not take into
consideration any materials which are irrelevant. Also, he should not base his findings on conjectures and
surmises and suspicion. If he does so his conclusion should be perverse and it cannot be sustained.
c.
The enquiry suffers from the informative on non application of mind and stands, vitiated--------------- the
conclusion is not only not a plausible but it is wholly perverse.
d.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the enquiry officer did not apply his mind to the evidence, but
merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges were proved; he did not permit a peep into his mind as to
why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by
the employee.
6036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
e.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the appellate order itself there must be indication that the
appellate authority applied it’s mind.
f.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mechanical reproduction of the phraseology of the rule relating
to appeals is not sufficient.
g.
The Hon’ble supreme court have time and again emphasized that orders in the disciplinary proceedings
which are quasi judicial in nature, must be speaking orders and must give clear indications that the
appellate authority has applied its mind to the grounds urged by the appellant.
12.
On behalf of the management, they relied on following case laws:-M.P. Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chand
2005 SCC (L&S) 417, Mihir Kumar Vs LIC (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 875, State bank of Bikaner Vs Nemi Chand (2011) 1
SCC (L&S) 584, Divisional Manager Plantation Vs Munnu (2005) SCC (L&S) 200, Deputy Commissioner Vs J. Hussani
(2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 833, Union Bank of India Vs Vishaw Mohan (1998) 4 SCC 310, State of Assam Vs Mahendra
Kumar AIR 1970 SC Page No.1255, Union of India Vs Parma Nanda AIR 1989 SC Page No.1185 and State Bank Vs.
Samarendra Kishore 1994 SCC (L&S) 687, in which following principal are laid down :-
i)
Supreme Court as appellate court cannot sit over finding of Enquiry Officer and find fault in it, nor can
appreciate evident of witness examined in departmental enquiry.
ii)
Held courts will not interfere except where findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly
perverse – Test of perversity i.e. whether authority concerned could have reasonably arrived at such
conclusion or finding based on material on records is to be applied – Courts will interfere if principles of
natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated of if order is arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or
based on extraneous consideration.
iii)
Held, Courts should not be guided by misplaced sympathy or continuity ground as a factor in judicial
review while examining quantum of punishment – In all cases dealing with penalty of removal, dismissal
or compulsory retirement, hardship would result, which cannot be a ground to interdict with penalty.
iv)
Held, Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a
statutory provision in this behalf - Moreover, Industrial Courts must act within the four corners of the
statute concerned, in terms of the provisions thereof.
I fully agree with principle laid down by Hon’ble High Court & Supreme Court. Now I want to see the factual
argument with reference to the evidence produced by the both parties.
13.
On behalf of workmen it was argued that in disciplinary proceeding proper procedure did not follow so on
behalf of workmen she pray that departmental enquiry to be declared as avoid, illegal and improper she relied in
following case laws: D. Inbavalli Vs State bank of India Writ Appeal No.280 of 2014, it was held that, “Employee in a
departmental proceedings, the technical or narrow interpretation cannot be given that such a representative will have to
be a member. Clause 12 does not prohibit a retired employee from representing an existing one; On the contrary, it only
stipulates that the representative will have to be a member of the registered Trade Union”.
14.
On the contrary, on behalf of the management, it was argued that, proper opportunity was given to the workmen
in the departmental enquiry, but the workman has conveniently avoided to place on record the complete enquiry
proceeding and papers with ulterior motive. He also argued that workman may not be allowed to adopt pick and choose
policy and place on record only selected papers of his choice. Now I want to see evidence part.
15.
Mr. B.S. Fultankar (Workman) in his court statement admitted that, the S.B.W.O. Union is not recognized in
S.B.I. He also admitted that he was aware about the service condition applicable to him but he did not know whether
Shastri Award, Desai Award and various bipartite settlements are applicable to every bank employee or not. He did not
remember whether management issued any warning punishment in the year of 1998. He also admitted that Charge-sheet
was issued against him and Bank charged him for wrong posting. He also admitted that he received copy of brief of
presenting officer, written note of argument and copy of the enquiry report in enquiry proceeding. He also gave
contradictory statement about knowledge of service rules prevailing for bank employee. In this circumstances argument
of the workman is not appeared to be genuine that bipartite settlement and provision of the award are not followed by the
Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority.
16.
On behalf of workman, it is also argued that tribunal has only revisional power and also argued that
departmental enquiry conducted ex-party, Charges as whole vague and finding also perverse and full opportunity not
given to rebut evidence of management. On the contrary, on behalf of management it was argued that workmen neither
pleaded specifically nor furnish any proof of prejudice their relied above case law- Divisional Manager Plantation Vs
Munnu (2005) SCC (L&S) 200. Now we see evidence part.
17.
Mr. B.S. Fultankar (workman) in his court evidence admitted that, he also admitted in para 17 of his court
statement that, he had received information about the date of enquiry and he has signed on every date of proceeding of
the departmental enquiry and received copy. It shows that, he participated in enquiry proceeding but he did not avail the
opportunity of cross-examination. He also admitted that he filed an appeal, which was admitted and second time the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6037
disciplinary issued show cause notice and he replied them, then final order was passed by Exhibit W-16. On this point,
his statement appears to be true now we see the document part.
18.
On behalf of the workman, it was argued in his written arguments, Page No 10, A to A portion that, CSE did not
have any opportunity to appear as witness, but ongoing Court Statement, it appears that he was given full opportunity to
file reply of the show cause notice before framing charge, punishment and at the time of hearing of the Appeal. So, this
argument is not sustainable.
19.
On behalf of the workman, it was argued that, (Regarding charge No.1- Page 10 B to B, C to C and on Page No.
11 – D to D) Enquiry Officer also mentioned on his report that, prosecution did not submit any document to proof of
actual receipt of commission by the workman, so charge No.1 is not proved. This argument was denied by the
management. On going the evidence of the workman, it appears that, he admitted in his argument that, prosecution had
submitted some bank account’s details and some credit slips. He also admitted in his argument that, Enquiry Officer
asserted that, workman pointed out some technical defect, but he did not deny the charges of various debit- credit entries
in his account, which are not commensurate with known income of the workman. In this way, observation made out by
the Enquiry Officer or Appellate Authority not appears to be absurd. So, in my humble opinion, above argument of the
workman is not sustainable.
20.
On behalf of the workman, it was argued that, (Regarding charge No.4- Page 12 E to E and G to G) – “A
workman found guilty of misconduct whether gross or minor shall not be given more than one punishment in respect of
any one charge. She also argued that, punishment of warning was already given to the workman, but as per Court
statement, workman did not admit that fact. Nor it was proved by reliable evidence. Even he denied the punishment
imposed by the bank in 1998. Moreover, Enquiry Officer proved charge No. 1 and 4 and partly charge No. 3 and
Disciplinary Authority imposed Lumpsum punishment. So in my view, this argument is not sustainable in the eye of
law.
21.
On behalf of the workman, it was argued that, (Regarding punishment- Page 13 F to F and H to H) – “Enquiry
Officer has himself observed so many lapses of management ------ as puppet in the hand of the management -------
finding of enquiry declared as perverse ------- finding to be quashed and set aside”. This argument was denied by the
Party No. 1. As I discussed above, no genuine document was filed regarding previous punishment and punishment was
passed after hearing of the workman. As I already observed in order dated 07.05.2018, “Sufficient opportunity was given
to the workman and he was really prejudice”. I also observed that, workman did not prove any fact which shows in
which way he was prejudice. When he appeared in every date of hearing before the Enquiry Officer and availed all
opportunities regarding appeal, then how he can say that, he was prejudice some way or other way.
22.
After seeing the charge memo, it reveals that there are four charges against the workman, first order of the
punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 23/01/2008 which was set aside by Appellate Authority on
10/03/2010. Fresh show cause notice was issued in compliance of Appellate Authority and Workman filed reply to show
cause notice in detailed. After considering this facts, Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 08/04/2010, then he filed
appeal which was decided against the workman on 26/05/2010 i.e. appeal of the workman is dismissed on 31/08/2010 in
which punishment of Disciplinary Authority was maintained. As the principle laid down in above Case Laws it so that
this court neither appellate authority nor Revisional Authority. Power of this court is very limited.
23.
On behalf of management, it was argued that the workman has not performed the duties with full honesty,
integrity and devotion while dealing with Bank customers. Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhary Case Law, Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that “the departmental proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law by following the principle
of natural justice in which the appellant duly participated. The appellate neither set up any defence nor denied the factum
of charges, yet the respondent proved the charges with the aid of relevant evidence, which found acceptance with the
Division Bench and this Court too. As an appellate Court, neither we can sit over the findings of the enquiry officer and
find fault in it nor can we re-appreciate the evidence of witnesses examined in departmental enquiry”.
24.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as laid down above, I observed that
management followed the basic rules as per prevail in their departmental enquiry and full opportunity was given to the
workman in conduction of the departmental enquiry. He also availed opportunity in filing departmental appeal. He
presented his case before the Departmental Authority but unfortunate part of the workman was that he was tried to
pressurize the management. Nothing in records shows that punishment was awarded by the management too harsh and it
is also appeared that punishment awarded to the workmen not to disproportionate as regard their misconduct because
Bank employee cannot conduct a personal business either by himself or their spouse with their official duty. So I do not
want to interfere in punishment passed by the management (Party No 1). Hence, this order:—
ORDER
The action of the Assistant General Manager (Admn.), State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Nagpur &
Disciplinary Authority in imposing the penalty of “Be brought down to lower stage in the scale of pay by 2 stages” on
Shri B.S. Fultankar, Special Assistant posted at State Bank of India, Khamgaon Branch vide order dated 08.04.2010 and
turned down the appeal by the Appellate Authority & Deputy General Manager (O & C-III), State Bank of India, Zonal
Office, Nagpur vide his order dated 31/08/2010, are just, fair & legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
6038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1476-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 04@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@151@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.09.2018.
[No. L-22012/151/2011– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 04 OF 2012
PARTIES : The management of Kunustoria Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.
v/s
Shri Ramakant Yadav
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : Shri Ramakant Yadav, Concerned Workman
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 07.08.2018
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.
L-22012/151/2011–IR (CM-II) dated 01.03.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the disputant Union for regularization with all financial benefits in respect of
Shri Ramakant Yadav, Fitter in Cat. IV w.e.f. the date on which he was successfully completed training period
as well as trade test is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/151/2011–IR (CM-II) dated 01.03.2012 of the above said reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 04 of 2012 was
registered on 03.04.2012. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2. Case called out. Both of the parties were absent.
3. On perusal of the case record I find that the concerned workman last appeared before the Tribunal on 15.12.2014 and
filed his written statement. Thereafter neither the workman nor his representative never appeared before the Tribunal in
spite of giving 11 (Eleven) opportunities. It seems to me that the workman / union is not at all interested to contest this
case further. As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6039
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1477-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@45@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1477.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.09.2018.
[No. L-22012/45/2009– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 05 OF 2010
PARTIES : The management of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery of M/s. ECL
v/s
Shri Nabin Chattaraj dependent son of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, the ex-workman
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management : Shri P. K. Goswami, Learned Advocate
For the union (Workman) : Shri Sayantan Mukherjee, Learned Advocate
INDUSTRY: COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 28.08.2018
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.
L-22012/45/2009–IR(CM-II) dated 22.01.2010 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management in denying employment to the dependent of ex-workman namely
Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is legal and justified? To what relief the claimant entitled for? ”
1. Having received the Order NO. L-22012/45/2009–IR(CM-II) dated 22.01.2010 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 05 of 2010 was
registered on 05.02.2010. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2.
The applicant Shri Nabin Chattaraj has filed written statement. He has alleged that his father Shri Bisheswar
Chattaraj was a permanent employee at Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
as a Mechanical Helper being Unique Man No. 616030. The ex-workman, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj performed his duty
6040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
with full satisfaction of the management. Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, the father of applicant did not return to his residence
since 11.02.1999. The applicant and dependent family members began to search Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj to all possible
places but could not find the whereabouts of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, the ex-workman. The family members and the
applicant left no stone unturned in searching Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj. Dependent family members searched all possible
places were Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj could be traced. But Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj could not be traced. Ultimately the
family members lodged the Missing Diary at Faridpur Police Station vide G.D. No. 322 dated 11.02.1999 in respect of
the missing ex-workman Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj and requested the police authority to take necessary steps for finding
out the said workman. The ex-workman, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj has not been heard for 7 (Seven) years from the date
of missing i.e. 11.02.1999. After expiry of 7 (Seven) years since 11.02.1999 the dependent family members applied to
the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited to provide employment to one of the dependent of the ex-workman,
Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj and for releasing all other terminal benefit in respect of service rendered by the ex-workman,
Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj treating him as a dead person. The management kept themselves mum. As per rules one of the
dependent family members is entitled to get employment in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery
under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited dismissed the ex-workman, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj vide Letter
No. AGENT/KB/PD/02/DISS/6336 dated 17.12.2002 without following the rules of Natural Justice. The dependent
family members filed a Title Suit No. 29 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at
Durgapur for decree of declaration that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is dead and for decree of declaration that plaintiff is
entitled for service benefit of ex-workman Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, from the employer. The management of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited contested the Title Suit and the Hon’ble Civil Judge decreed the Title Suit 29 of 2006 against
the management. In Title Suit No. 29 of 2006 the management has not preferred any appeal, challenging the judgement
and decree passed by the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Durgapur. The management has
released the payment of Gratuity and other terminal benefits in respect of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj treating him as dead,
but so far has not provided employment to one of the dependent of the ex-workman, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj. The
action of the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in denying the employment to the dependent family
member of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is arbitrary, illegal and not in conformity to the rules of the management. One of the
dependent family members of the said ex-workman, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is entitled for employment in M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited as per provisions of the management with retrospective effect with full back wages.
3.
The Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has filed written
statement. The Agent has alleged in written statement that one Shri Nabin Chattaraj and others brought a Title Suit No.
29 of 2006 praying for a declaration that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj who was an employee under the management is
missing since 11.02.1999 and he is deemed to be dead under the Act. The Hon’ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second
Court at Durgapur has been pleased to hear and further been pleased to pass an order dated 01.03.2007 declaring that the
plaintiffs are entitled to get the service benefit of their father Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, who is presumed to be dead in the
eye of law. The applicant has no right to get an employment. Employment is usually provided to one of the dependent of
the deceased as per clause incorporated in National Coal Wage Agreement. Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj was an employee
and he cannot be said to be deceased. The court has declared the civil death of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj in the eye of
law. The dispute is not maintainable under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal is not empowered to execute the
order passed by the Hon’ble Civil Court. The management of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited has prayed that the action of the management in not providing employment to the dependent
of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is fair and justified and the claimant is not entitled to any relief.
4.
The applicant, Shri Nabin Chattaraj has filed the following documentary evidences :
(i) Photocopy of the Identity Card of the ex-workman, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, (ii) Photocopy of the G.D.E. No. 322
dated 11.02.1999 regarding missing of the ex-workman, (iii) Photocopy of the Certified copy of the Hon’ble Civil
Court’s Judgement and Decree, (iv) Photocopy of the Letter of dismissal dated 17.12.2002, (v) Photocopy of the Petition
dated 29.04.2005, (vi) Photocopy of the Letter of Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited,
(vii) Photocopy of the Information to the management of M/s. ECL by the applicant dated 20.07.2005, (viii) Photocopy
of the Petition dated 03.03.2006, (ix) Photocopy of the Letter to the Office-in-Charge, Faridpur Police Station dated
10.05.2005, (x) Photocopy of the Letter issued by the Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery, (xi) Photocopy of the
Appointment Letter of Shri Madan Bagdi on missing ground.
The applicant, Shri Nabin Chattaraj has filed affidavit on his oral evidence. He has been cross-examined by the learned
advocate of the management of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
The management of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed oral or
documentary evidence.
5.
I have heard both the arguments of Shri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate of the management of Kumardihi ‘B’
Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Shri Sayantan Mukherjee, learned advocate of the
applicant, Shri Nabin Chattaraj.
6.
Shri P. K. Goswami, learned advocate of the management of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has argued that on this basis that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, father of the applicant is
missing, the applicant Shri Nabin Chattaraj is not entitled for employment in M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He has
also argued that though court has declared that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is deemed to be dead but it is not proved that
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6041
Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is physically dead. Shri Sayantan Mukherjee, learned advocate of the applicant, Shri Nabin
Chattaraj has argued that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, the ex-workman was missing form 11.02.1999, Missing Diary was
lodged to this effect in concerned Police Station. The death of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj has been declared as civil death
by the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Durgapur in the Title Suit No. 29 of 2006. As per
provision of National Coal Wage Agreement the dependent son is entitled for employment.
7.
It is admitted fact that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj was in employment of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola
Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited has admitted this fact in Para - 5 of his written statement, besides that the applicant has filed copy of
the Identity Card issued by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. This document also confirms that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj
had been in employment of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It is not
disputed that Shri Nabin Chattaraj is son of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj.
8.
The applicant has filed the copy of judgment in the Title Suit No. 29 of 2006 passed by the Hon’ble Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Second Court at Durgapur. In this Title Suit the plaintiff and others have filed Suit for declaration of
civil death of his father Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj as well as for other consequential relief. The suit has been filed against
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Defendant, the Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited has contested the Suit and filed written statement in Title Suit No. 29 of 2006. In his written
statement the Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited had admitted that
Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj was in employment of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited who had been dismissed. Though the allegation of the applicant, Shri Nabin Chattaraj in Para - 7 of his written
statement that his father, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj has been dismissed vide Letter No. AGENT/KB/PD/02/DISS/6336
dated 17.12.2002 without following the rules of Natural Justice. This fact has not been controverted in the written
statement filed by the Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
9.
It is settled law that if any fact is alleged by either party in the written statement and that fact has not been
specifically controverted by another party then it will be presumed that fact is correct. The allegation of Shri Nabin
Chattaraj in his written statement that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj has been dismissed by the management of Kumardihi ‘B’
Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited without following the rules of natural justice. This fact
has not been denied by the Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in
his written statement. Then in law it will be presumed that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, the ex-workman has been dismissed
without following the rules of natural justice.
10.
The Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed the
Dismissal Order as well as copy of Enquiry Proceeding. The Enquiry Proceeding is conducted by the department against
the employee. This document will be in possession of the management of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited could have submitted the copies of Enquiry Proceeding and Dismissal Order so that the Tribunal could verify
the grounds of dismissal, but by withholding this document, the court will draw adverse presumption under Section
114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that concerned employee has been dismissed from service by M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited on the ground of regular absence from duty.
11.
Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed the Dismissal
Order. The Hon’ble Civil Court in Page - 5 of the Title Suit No. 29 of 2006 has observed that :
“ because the documents themselves contain the factum of such missing since 11.02.1999, and furthermore, the dismissal
order dated 17.12.2002 itself removes all such doubt as he was dismissed in the year 2002 for his continuous absence
from service. ”
12.
The observation of court as well as withholding the dismissal order passed by Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under
Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited against the ex-workman, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj indicates that
Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has dismissed Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj
on ground of his continuous absent. This circumstance also supports that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, the ex-workman is
missing from 11.02.1999. As such the court has passed the Order :
“ That the suit be and the same is decreed on contest against defendant, but without cost.
The Plaintiffs do get a decree of declaration that they are entitled to get the service benefits of their father Shri
Bisweswar Chattaraj, who is presumed to be dead in the eye of law, from the employer of the dismissed employee as per
rules of the defendant company. ”
13.
The Agent of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has contested the Title Suit No. 29 of 2006, Shri Nabin Chattaraj
& Others v/s. Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited but he did not lead
evidence in that Title Suit in the Hon’ble Civil Court at Durgapur that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj was still alive. Even the
Agent of Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited did not lead any evidence in
the reference before the Tribunal that Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is still alive.
6042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not filed any appeal against
the judgment and decree passed by the Hon’ble Civil Judge in the Title Suit No. 29 of 2006, Shri Nabin Chattaraj &
Others v/s Kumardihi ‘B’ Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Therefore the decree and
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Durgapur has got finality. It will be
binding upon both the parties.
15.
In chapter Social Security of N.C.W.A.-V the relevant provisions are described :
“ Clause 9.3.2 of N.C.W.A.-V refers to appointment of dependants of the deceased employees working in the coal mines’
sub-clause (iii) of Clause 9.5.0 whereof reads as under:
“ (iii) In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no
employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 12 years and above in age he will be
kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he attains
the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster, the female dependant will be paid monetary
compensation as per rates at Para (i) and (ii). This will be effective from 01.01.2000.”
16.
The term ‘settlement’ has been defined under section 2 (p) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as under :
“‘settlement’ means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement
between the employer and workman arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such
agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent
to [an officer authorized in this behalf by] the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.”
As per section 18 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and the
workman shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
17.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain and others V/s Union of India and others, 1989 (59) FLR page 626
has held that:
“We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there
should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate
the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is not suitable
post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. ”
18.
Shri Nabin Chattaraj has alleged in his affidavit that as per rules and circular of the employer one of the
dependent family members of the said ex-workman, Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is entitled to get employment against the
death of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj because Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj will be presumed to be dead as he is missing for
more than 7 (Seven) years. In Page - 2, Para - 8 of his affidavit he alleged that the management has not entertained the
claim of plaintiff and other family members due to reason best known to them and kept themselves mum. In Page - 4,
Para - 11 of his affidavit Shri Nabin Chattaraj dependent son of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj has alleged that other family
members have already passed their “No Objection” in his favour for getting employment but till date the management
has not provided him employment. There is no reason for refusing employment to the dependent family member of Shri
Bisheswar Chattaraj. As per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement he is entitled for employment with
retrospective effect with full back wages. In cross-examination Shri Nabin Chattaraj has alleged that he has knowledge
that if a workman is missing for more than 7 (Seven) years on that ground dependent get employment on compassionate
ground. Some of these employees already got such service.
19.
The learned counsel of the applicant has drawn my attention in respect of Appointment Letter dated 18.02.1991
issued by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in favour of Shri Madan Bagdi, filed by the applicant. It reflects that M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited has provided employment to Shri Madan Bagdi son of Shri Tara Pada Bagdi on ground of
missing case as per provision of National Coal Wage Agreement. This supports the argument of Shri Sayantan
Mukherjee, learned counsel of the applicant that M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited had been providing employment as per
provision of National Coal Wage Agreement in case of missing workman during the course of employment.
20.
The date of birth of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj is recorded as 25.11.1955 on the Identity Card issued by the M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited, filed by the applicant. He has been missing since 11.02.1999. His civil death has been
declared by the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Durgapur in Title Suit No. 29 of 2006 on
13.04.2007. Had he been alive he would have retired in 2015. His civil death has been declared in 2007. It is apparent
that at the time of declaration of his civil death he would have been in employment if he would not had been missing. He
was less than 60 years old in 2007. Therefore provision of National Coal Wage Agreement is applicable.
21.
The applicant has moved for employment by letter dated 29.04.2005 addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. The receipt of this letter has been acknowledged by letter Ref. No.
Agent/KB/PD/07/Nabin/1319 dated 20/25.12.2007.
22.
In view of above discussion the action of the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in denying
employment to the dependent son of Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, ex-workman is illegal and unjustified. Shri Nabin
Chattaraj the dependent son of the ex-workman Shri Bisheswar Chattaraj, is entitled for employment.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6043
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1478-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/krar= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2014½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@78@2014&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1478.—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 Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 24.09.2018.
[No. L-22012/78/2014– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 12 OF 2014
PARTIES : The management of Mohanpur Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.
V/s
Shri Kanai Sharma and 57 others
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the Union (Workmen) : None
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 18.09.2018
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.
L-22012/78/2014–IR (CM-II) dated 25.11.2014 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the claim of the Khadan Thikadar Mazdoor Sabha (CITU) in regularizing Shri Kanai Sharma and 57
other Security Personnel (list attached) to regularize the services in ECL management as master servant
relationship exists and the action of the Management in awarding a sham contract to deprive the security
personnel from regularization is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned security personnel are
entitled to? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/78/2014–IR (CM-II) dated 25.11.2014 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case
No. 12 of 2014 was registered on 16.12.2014. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the
registered post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written
statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said
order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through
their representative.
6044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Case called out. Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the management of Mohanpur Colliery
of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited but none appeared on behalf of the union / workmen.
3.
On perusal of the case record I find that neither the union nor the workmen ever appeared before the court
despite 2 (Two) registered notices issued on 06.01.2015 and 26.08.2015. So far 11(Eleven) adjournments were granted
but to no effect. It seems that union has now no interest left to proceed with the case further. As such the case is closed
and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1479-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@38@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1479.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.09.2018.
[No. L-22012/38/2012– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 16 OF 2012
PARTIES : The management of 1 & 2 Incline of Jhanjra Project of M/s. E.C.L.
V/s
Shri Jitendra Nath Paul
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : Shri S. K. Pandey, Learned Union Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 08.08.2018
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.
L-22012/38/2012–IR (CM-II) dated 18.04.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of 1 & 2 Incline of Jhanjra Project of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited in denying of appointment in respect of Sri Jitendra Nath Paul, Foreman-In Charge, U.M.No.
691658 as 25.06.1974 instead of 25.06.1979 is legal and justified? To what relief the concerned
workman is entitled? ”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6045
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/38/2012–IR (CM-II) dated 18.04.2012 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 16 of 2012 was
registered on 08.05.2012. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2.
Case called out. Both of the parties were absent.
3.
On perusal of the case record I find that Shri S. K. Pandey, learned union representative appeared several times
before the Tribunal but has not filed written statement till date. Till date 35 (Thirty Five) adjournments were granted and
3 (Three) registered notices on 22.05.2012, 08.08.2014 and 11.08.2015 were issued to the parties but to no effect. It
seems to me that the neither the workman nor the union is at all interested to contest the case further. As such the case is
closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1480-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/krar= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@26@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1480.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.09.2018.
[No. L-22012/26/2012– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra,Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2012
PARTIES : The management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.
V/s
Shri Amar Kumar Routh
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : None
For the Union (Workman) : Shri D. K. Routh, Learned Union Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 10.08.2018
6046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.
L-22012/26/2012–IR (CM-II) dated 19.04.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL in not payment HRA @ 10% of
Basic Pay to Sri Amar Kumar Routh is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/26/2012–IR (CM-II) dated 19.04.2012 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 20 of 2012 was
registered on 08.05.2012. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2.
On perusal of the case record I find that my predecessor (Late. J. K. Sen, the then Presiding Officer) had
reserved No Dispute Award in this case because Shri D. K. Routh, learned Branch Secretary of the union had endorsed
on the Order Sheet that the case may be closed as the workman is now no more interested to proceed with the case
further. Since the workman was not interested to proceed with the case I think it is not reasonable to keep this record
pending. As such the case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1481-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@40@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1481.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.09.2018.
[No. L-22012/40/2012– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 22 OF 2012
PARTIES : The management of Madhaipur Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.
V/s
Kumari Sunita
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : None
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6047
For the Union (Workman) :
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Learned Union Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 13.08.2018
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.
L-22012/40/2012–IR (CM-II) dated 25.04.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Madhaipur Colliery, Pandeveshwar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited, in denying employment to Kumari Sunita dependent daughter of Late Chamari Lohar, Ex-Blacksmith
U.M. 776572 of Madhaipur Colliery is legal and justified? To what relief the claimant is entitled to? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/40/2012–IR (CM-II) dated 25.04.2012 of the above said reference from
the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 22 of 2012 was
registered on 16.05.2012. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to
the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2.
Case called out. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned union representative appeared on behalf of the claimant, Kumari
Sunita daughter of Late Chamari Lohar, Ex-Blacksmith. None appeared on behalf of the management of Madhaipur
Colliery, Pandeveshwar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.
3.
On perusal of the case record I find that since inception of the reference 14 (Fourteen) dates were granted to the
claimant / union for filing written statement. On 24.02.2015 last chance was given to the claimant / union for filing
written statement but to no effect. It seems that the claimant / dependent has no interest to contest the case. This fact is
also endorsed by Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned representative of the clamant / dependent on the order sheet. Since the
claimant was not interested to proceed with the case I think it is not reasonable to keep this record pending. As such the
case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1482-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 23@2013½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@148@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1482.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.09.2018.
[No. L-22012/148/2013– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
6048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 23 OF 2013
PARTIES : The management of Bhanora West Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.
V/s
Shri Tulu Majhi
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Learned Union Representative
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 30.08.2018
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/148/2013–IR (CM-II) dated
12.11.2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bhanora West Colliery, M/s. E. C. Limited not to re-instate in service Shri Tulu
Majhi violating the Memorandum of Settlement of dated 22.05.2007 is proper, fair and justified. If not, so what relief
management can provide to him? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/148/2013–IR (CM-II) dated 12.11.2013 of the above said reference from the Govt.
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 23 of 2013 was registered on
14.02.2014. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned,
directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list
of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their representative.
2.
Case called out Shri P. K. Das, learned advocate was present on behalf of the management. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned
union representative was present on behalf of the workman.
3.
Shri Rakesh Kumar submits that the case may kindly be closed as another case of Shri Tulu Majhi, the concerned workman
is pending before the Tribunal. Since Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned representative of the workman pressing for closing this reference. I
have no option left but to close the case. Hence, the reference is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1483-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ bZLVuZ dksyQhYM fyfeVsM ds izca/krar= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@144@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1483.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. E.C.L, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 17.09.2018.
[No. L-22012/144/2012– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6049
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 40 OF 2012
PARTIES : The management of Jambad Colliery of M/s. E.C.L.
V/s
Shri Keshwar Bhuia
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Shri P. K. Das, Learned Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : Shri S. K. Pandey, Learned Union Representative
INDUSTRY : COAL
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Dated : 29.08.2018
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-
22012/144/2012–IR (CM-II) dated 25.10.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Jambad Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in
dismissing Shri Keshwar Bhuia, U. G. Loader, from service w.e.f. 03.01.2000 is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled to? ”
1. Having received the Order No. L-22012/144/2012–IR (CM-II) dated 25.10.2012 of the above said reference
from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference Case No. 40 of 2012
was registered on 19.11.2012. Accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post
to the parties concerned, directing them to appear in the court, on the date fixed and to file their written statements along
with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by
the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Both the parties appeared in the Tribunal, through their
representative.
2.
On perusal of the case record I find that case record was tagged with Reference No. 27 of 2001 as ‘The
Schedule’ of both the reference cases are almost same, even the sufferer workman is the same person. Shri S. K. Pandey,
learned union representative on behalf of the workman submits that the case may be closed as the same dispute has
already been decided by this Tribunal in Reference No. 27 of 2001. He has also endorsed this on the order sheet.
3.
Since Shri S. K. Pandey, learned representative of the workman submits that this dispute has already been
decided by the Tribunal earlier this reference case is closed and accordingly a ‘No Dispute Award’ is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1484-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
esllZ ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds izca/krar= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 52@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22011@22@2017&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
6050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018
S.O. 1484.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2017) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. F.C.I., and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.09.2018.
[No. L-22011/22/2017– IR(CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SH. AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, GOVERNMENT
PRESS EXTENSION BUILDING, SECTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH-160018.
ID No.52/2017
Dr. Lakshman Singh, General Secretary, Food Corporation of India,
Handling Workers Union 8651, Arakashan Road, Pahargunj, New Delhi-110055.
…Workmen-Union
Versus
1.
General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Sector 31-A, Bay No.34-38, Chandigarh-160017.
2.
Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Distt. Office Jalandhar(Punjab).
…Respondents
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter No.
L-22011/22/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 26.02.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
“WHETHER THE FCI MANAGEMENT ACTION OF WITHDRAWING THE DEPARTMENTAL,
DPS AND NO WORK AND NO PAY LABOUR FROM PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION DEPORS OF NAKODAR, NOORMAHAL, AMLOH, DASAYU, MUKERIAN,
JALANDHAR, KARTARPUR, PHILLOUR, SHAKOT AND JAGRAON IN PUNJAB REGION IS
LEGAL, FAIR AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE UNION AND WORKMAN ARE
ENTITLED TO AND FROM WHICH DATE?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved
in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen-union as well as to the managements. The
registered notice was sent on the address mentioned in the letter of reference. There is no other address of
workmen-union available to this Court. Moreover, there is a presumption that a registered letter sent to the
addressee i.e. workmen-union herein has been received by such addressee and rebuttal presumption of service of
notice arises in such a case. Despite service of the notice, workmen-union opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement has been filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workmen-union is not
interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the claimant has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim Award’.
Since there is no adjudication of reference or case on merits as such, it would not preclude the workmen-union
from seeking fresh reference or filing fresh case in accordance with Law.
5.
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer –Cum-Link-Officer
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 04.09.2018
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6051
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1485-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
dksydÙkk iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydÙkk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 09-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&32011@11@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2018
S.O. 1485.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.10.2018.
[No. L-32011/11/2004–IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 02 of 2005
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Kolkata Port Trust
AND
Their workmen
Present : Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. M.K. Das, Industrial Relations Officer.
On behalf of the Workmen
: Mr. Sikandar Bus, General Secretary of the Union.
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Port & Dock
Dated: 28th September, 2018
AWARD
On factual score it appears that the concerned workman, Shri Swapan Kumar Ghosh was working as a Driver at
Mechanical Engineering Department of Kolkata Port Trust where he was charged for illegal consumption of electricity
by way unauthorized tapping of electricity from main source. A chargesheet was served on him and after conclusion of
departmental enquiry the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment against him of reducing his pay by five
stages for five years with cumulative effect. However, it was modified by appellate authority to reduction of pay by three
states for three years with cumulative effect. Against this order of punishment the union espoused the cause of the
concerned workman and ultimately the Government of India vide order No. L-32011/11/2004-IR(B-II) dated 08.12.2004
referred following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Kolkata Port Trust in awarding punishment of reducing pay by three
stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect and not allowing to draw increment for the above
period in respect of Shri Swapan Kumar Ghosh on the basis of such inspection and enquiry reports is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
It was again depicted by the union that no specific date of inspection was mentioned either in inspection report
or enquiry report. The inspection team did not go inside the quarters to ascertain use of socalled additional wire. They
also did not call anyone from the concerned quarters or any neghbours to witness inspection. It is also pleaded that the
enquiry proceeding and punishment order are vindictive.
3.
In reply, the management filed its written statement stating that in August, 2000 an official inspection of
quarters in different mazdoor lines were conducted by team of officers of Kolkata Port Trust to detect unauthorized
tapping of electricity and during inspection the concerned workman was found using unauthorized electricity by way of
6052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
tapping from main source. Due to this misconduct, an enquiry was held in which the workman concerned was found
guilty. The report of the Enquiry Officer was based on oral and documentary evidence adduced during enquiry.
4.
As the validity of enquiry was challenged by the union, this Tribunal tried this question as preliminary issue in
which the workman concerned was examined as WW-01 and on behalf of the management MW-01, Shri Dilip Kumr
Roy was examined. After appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties and arguments advanced by them, this
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workman concerned participated in the enquiry by way of examining himself
and also defended himself by cross-examining the witness of the management. He was offered full opportunity to defend
himself during enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry was found to be legal and proper.
5.
Authorised representative of the management has contended that after the enquiry was held to be valid and
proper, nothing is left except the appreciation of punishment, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to
the misconduct. Relying on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohanlal Gupta and others, 2001 LAB.I.C. 2122
he has submitted that the Tribunal cannot substitute finding and conclusion of employer with that of its own.
6.
Above case law cited by the authorized representative of the management has no application to the present case
as the same relates to termination of workman concerned and also based on provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. A bare perusal of Section 11A of the Act goes to show that it applies only7 in case of dismissal or
discharge of workman and not in any other case. Now in order to find out the scope of interference by Tribunal after the
enquiry is held to be valid, we have to travel back to the period when Section 11A of the Act was not on the statute, as
Section 11A has been especially incorporated by way of amendment to meet the need of workman who has been
dismissed or discharged by the employer.
7.
The extent of jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal to interfere with domestic enquiry was initially very limited.
The domestic enquiry was the prerogative of the management, but gradually the concept started developing and Hon’ble
the Apex Court in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. workmen, 1958-I-LLJ 260 laid down that the power of the
management in respect of its internal administration and discipline is not unlimited; it may be interfered with in course of
industrial adjudication in order to justify the action and to grant appropriate relief. However, the jurisdiction of the
Industrial Tribunal was held not that of an appellate court. Hon’ble the Apex Court in above mentioned case of Indian
Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) has held as follows:
“Undoubtedly, the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and
discipline; but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, Industrial Tribunals have been given
power to see whether the termination of service of workman is justtified to give appropriate relief. In cases of
dismissal on misconduct, Tribunal does not, however, act as an court of appeal and substitute its own
judgment for that of the management. It will interfere (i) when there is want of good faith; (ii) when there is
victimization or unfair labour practice; (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation
of a principle of natural justice and (iv) when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse.”
8.
Hon’ble the Apex Court in above mentioned case was of the view that the possibility of arrest of workman at the
instance of company for the purpose of victimization in order to get rid of him on the ostensible pretext of continued
absence, cannot be ruled out and in that case the position would be different. Such exercise by employer was held to be
colourable and mala fide exercise of power. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal has been given power to interfere when
there is want of good faith or victimization/unfair labour practice. In this background Section 11A was introduced in the
statute and the Industrial Tribunal was given power to reappraise the evidence and to pass appropriate orders. However,
this power of the Tribunal is limited in case of only discharge or dismissal.
9.
The above position of law has been further reiterated by Hon’ble the Apex Court in General Secretary, South
Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union v. Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. &
Others, AIR 2006 SC 2208 where Hon’ble the Apex Court had the occasion to distinguish the legal position which
existed before and after introduction of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relevant portion of the
judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court may be quoted below:
“16.
The Labour Court had earlier held that the enquiry was properly held and there was no violation of
the principles of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. The vitiating facts found by the Labour
Court against the enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. If enquiry is fair and proper, in the
absence of any allegations of victimization or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to
interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to re-
appraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in
imposing punishment. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or
discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the Section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11A in
India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their workmen, (1958) SCR 667 this Court held that the Tribunal does not act
as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management and that the Tribunal will
interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimization, unfair labour practice, etc., on the part of the
management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimization etc., in this case. The power of the
Labour Court in the absence of Section 11A is illustrated by this Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and
Rubber Co. of India (Pvt) Ltd. v. The Management, (1973) 1 SCC 813. When enquiry was conducted fairly and
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6053
properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimization or mala fides or unfair labour practice,
Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since Section 11A
is not applicable, Labour Court has no power to re-appraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of
the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course,
Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, here there is a clear finding, that
findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry.”
(Emphasis supplied by me)
10.
Admittedly, this case is not a case of dismissal or discharge of the workman concerned. The punishment given
to the workman is only reduction of pay by three stages for three years. Therefore, Section 11A does not apply in the
instant case. In view of above, the case is only to be examined on the anvil of victimization and unfair labour practice, if
any by the employer. But, unfortunately, there is not a whisper of allegation of victimization and unfair labour practice or
mala fide action by the workman concerned in the statement of claim. There is nothing in his statement also that the
punishment is result of mala fide, victimization or unfair labour practice of employer.
11.
From the perusal of record it appears that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are supported with reasons.
The management has adduced evidence during enquiry that during inspection by officers of the management the
workman concerned was found using unauthorized electricity by way of bypassing meter. It is not disputed by the
workman concerned that the house was not occupied by him or his family. Thus the findings of the Enquiry Officer were
based on legal evidence and it cannot be said that a reasonable person could have arrived to a conclusion different from
what has been drawn by the Enquiry Officer. Thus the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse.
12.
In view of above, where exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not
permissible under the law, where there is no allegation of victimization, unfair labour practice or mala fide action by the
employer, the punishment awarded on the misconduct of the workman concerned cannot be set aside by the Tribunal.
Therefore, action of the management of Kolkata Port Trust in awarding punishment of reducing pay by three stages for a
period of three years with cumulative effect and not allowing draw increment for the above period in respect of the
concerned workman, Shri Swapan Kumar Ghosh is legal and justified. The concerned workman is not entitled to any
relief.
Award is passed accordingly.
Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata,
The 28th September, 2018.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 vDrwcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1486-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]
vksfj;.Vy cSad vkQ dkelZ ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 91@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-10-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2017&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2018
S.O. 1486.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 91/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.10.2018.
[No. L-39025/01/2017– IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
6054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR
COURT No.1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI – 110 075
ID No.91/2014
Shri S Shiv Kumar
S/o. Shri K. Srinivasan,
R/o. BA-13/F, DDA Flats,
Munirka, New Delhi 110067.
…Workman
Versus
1.
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Through its Chairman & Managing Director,
Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110091.
2.
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Through its General Manager (Personnel),
Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110091.
…Management
AWARD
Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present case are that the workman joined the services of the
Management Bank as a clerk in the year 1982. The conduct of the workman was stated to be excellent and his working
was to the satisfaction of his superiors. There was no complaint against him. It has been alleged that some officials of the
Management Bank who were in possession of the record including the electronic data manipulated things with the result
that disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him. He received a charge-sheet in Hindi on 8/2/97. Domestic
enquiry was initiated against him and pursuant to the enquiry report, the Management issued him show cause notice for
imposing penalty of punishment and thereafter issued an order dated 30/3/2000, thereby dismissing the workman from
service. The workman moved the Appellate authority which confirmed the order of dismissal on 26/4/2000. Thereafter,
Shri S. Shiv Kumar claimant herein had filed writ petition bearing CWP NO.6357 of 2000 before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 30.3.2000 and also order dated
06.04.2000 of the Appellate Authority and praying that the aforesaid order dated 30.3.2000 and 6.4.2000 be quashed. He
also prayed for reinstatement in service with full consequential benefits. The management had filed detailed reply to the
above writ petition, stating that the claimant had committed a fraud, causing loss of more than Rs.24 lakhs to the bank,
for which detailed investigation was conducted, charge-sheet was issued and the fraud committed by the
workman/claimant was established on investigation by the CBI authorities also. Inquiry proceedings were just and fair
and that dismissal order dated 30/3/2000 was rightly passed against the workman/claimant. After considering pleadings
of the parties, Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 11.07.2016 observed that the claimant herein has got proper
efficacious remedy before the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence
the matter referred to this Tribunal vide order dated 11/7/2016.
2.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the case was taken up by this Tribunal and
with the consent of both the parties, it was considered appropriate by this Tribunal there is no need to file separate
statement of claim and the writ petition filed by the claimant would be treated as the statement of claim. Accordingly,
counter affidavit filed in the above writ petition by the management before the Hon’ble High Court was agreed to be
treated as written statement so that matter could be decided expeditiously.
3.
Against this background, this Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties vide order dated 16.01.2017
framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the claimant is fair and is in accordance with
principles of natural justice?
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6055
(ii)
Whether punishment awarded does not commensurate to the gravity of misconduct?
(iii)
Relief
4.
Issue No.1 was treated as preliminary issue. Thereafter, opportunity was afforded to both the parties to adduce
evidence on this issue. After recording of evidence of both the parties and having arguments advanced by Shri Rajat
Arora, A/R for the management and Shri U.K. Sharma, A/R for the claimant, this Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2017
had held that the enquiry conducted by the management against the claimant herein is in violation of principles of natural
justice and the same has been conducted in an unfair manner. An application was moved at that time by the management
for granting opportunity to the management to adduce evidence on merits. The said application was also allowed as the
charges leveled against the claimant herein were grave and serious in nature.
5.
Since this Tribunal had already held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is against the
principles of natural justice, as such, any evidence recorded by the management during the course of domestic enquiry
cannot be taken into consideration so as to prove the charges against the claimant herein. Management was, thus,
required to adduce fresh evidence so as to prove the charges against the claimant. This procedure was adopted in view
of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurukshetra University Vs. Prithvi Singh, 2018 Lab.L.C.
1437.
6.
It is revealed from the records that the charge sheet dated 08.02.1997 in Hindi was served upon the claimant.
On the request of the claimant/workman he was also provided with English translation of Charge-sheet on 12/3/1997 but
the workman has contended that it was the modified charge-sheet. During the course of hearing it was also urged on
behalf of the claimant that the charge sheet filed against the claimant, both in Hindi and English, was not accompanied by
Article of Charges, list relied upon by the management as well as list of witnesses. To my mind, there is no merit in this
contention as the enquiry conducted in the above charge sheet has been vitiated and the same has been held to be
contrary to the principles of natural justice. Hindi version of the charge sheet is required to be in consonance with the
English version and there should not be any variation in both the versions, so as to avoid any kind of prejudice to the
claimant. English version of the charge sheet contains following charges against the workman/claimant herein :—
Period
Actual amount charged in
different
Cash
Credit
Accounts
Amount
deposited
in
interest received accounts
Difference
amount
misappropriated
December 1995
Rs.44,37,961.80
Rs.43,28,461.80
Rs.1,09,500.00
March 1996
Rs.48,96,449.00
Rs.45,34,619.00
Rs.3,61,830.00
June 1996
Rs.62,20,930.10
Rs.55,52,830.10
Rs.6,68,100.00
September 1996
Rs.56,26,925.00
Rs.49,08,425.00
Rs.7,18,500.00
Total
Rs.211,82,265.90
Rs.193,24,335.90
Rs.18,57,930.00
7.
Management in order to prove the charges against the claimant had filed affidavits of two witnesses, i.e.
Shri Prakash and Shri Kamal Manchanda. However, Shri Kamal Manchanda was examined first and Shri Prakash
Advani was dropped as such his affidavit cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose. Shri Kamal Manchanda
filed his affidavit Ex.MW2/A and relied on the documents Ex. MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/26. On the other hand, Shri S. Shiv
Kumar, the claimant, in order to rebut the case of the management, examined himself as WW1 and filed affidavit
Ex.WW1/A and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/26 . I would be referring to the statement of the claimant
as well as other witness in the subsequent paras while drawing my conclusions.
8.
It is clear from the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties as well as evidence on record that the
basic charge against the claimant is that the claimant was an ALEPM Operator and he had in fact charged more interest
from the various accounts and excess proceeds of the same were deposited in one particular account of M/s Micro Serve
(Current Account No.3815). In fact this is a finance company whose proprietor was one Shri Anand Chaudhary and the
said company was being operated by Shri Anand Chaudhary as well as his brother Shri Kalyan Chaudhary. Management
has also tried to place reliance on the account statement of the said company viz. Ex.MW2/24 and there is mention of the
same in para 12 of the affidavit of Shri Kamal Kishore Manchanda. However, the said exhibit is not on the court file.
9.
During the course of arguments, it was not disputed on behalf of either of the parties that onus to prove the
charges against the claimant is always upon the Management, particularly when the domestic enquiry has been set aside
and opportunity has been granted to the management to adduce evidence on merits qua the charges mentioned in the
charge sheet dated 08.02.1997.
10.
MW2 Shri Kamal Kishore Manchanda in his testimony has deposed that the workman S.Sivakumar while
working as AELPM Operator at the Nehru Place Branch was entrusted with the work relating to Machine No.3 relating
to CC Accounts of various parties, including the interest application part and generation of reports quarterly for interest
charged from them and to credit the same to Interest Received Account. After the approval of the Incharge on the
6056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vouchers, he was supposed to charge the same amount from the parties. Though the workman/claimant credited the
actual total interest received amount on the basis of report generated and vouchers prepared but debited the Parties
account with inflated amount and credited the difference amount to the Account of M/s Micro Serve and subsequently
withdrew the same with connivance of the account holders. He filed on record various credit transfer vouchers as well as
debit transfer vouchers for different dates/quarters as Ex.MW2/2 to Ex.MW2/22. It is worthwhile to mention here that
in all these credit and/or debit vouchers as relied relied upon by the management, there is no certification of the same as
required under the Bankers Book of Instructions. Even original of the same were not produced before this Tribunal.
11.
The entire case, in fact, hinges upon the testimony of Shri Kamal Kishore Manchanda, who has filed a detailed
affidavit Ex.MW2/A and he has been subject to lengthy cross examination. He has tried to explain the various terms
used in banking transactions, viz. Audit Trail Report, Cash Credit Account, interest calculation etc. This witness has
clearly deposed that Audit Trail Report is generated on the same day and it contains the days transactions. In response to
a question, MW2 has clearly explained that interest calculation sheet shows the interest to be charged and contains
relevant details of the account. He has, further stated that claimant had asked for the interest calculation sheets in his
application dated 13.11.2017. However, these document, though important, were never supplied. It is not out of place
to mention here that an application was filed by the claimant for production of various documents, details of which are
mentioned in the application vis-à-vis Interest vouchers, Interest calculations sheet, Long B ook maintained by the Bank,
Debit transfer scrolls , Audit Trial Report etc.etc.. But the management has not filed most of these documents as sought
by the claimant and this Court vide order dated 07.12.2017 held that the question of drawing adverse inference, if any,
would be seen at the time of final arguments as at that stage this Tribunal would be in a better position to appreciate the
entire evidence on record. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the Management as to why these documents
were not placed on record. MW 2 Kamal Kumar Manchanda has explained in his cross examination that Audit Trial
Report is a statement which gives details of the transactions being carried out and it gives details of account number,
amount and nature of transaction. In fact, interest calculation sheet contains the product, number of days, interest to be
charged, overdue interest, penal interest and total number of days, total amount of interest charged alongwith names of
the parties. There is also mention of the date when this interest calculation sheet is generated. At this stage, it is
necessary to point out that Shri Kamal Kishore Manchanda MW2, in his cross examination, has admitted that charge
sheet dated 08.02.1997 (Hindi) and charge-sheet dated 30.03.1997(English) were served upon the claimant by the
Disciplinary Authority, whereas the date of generation of the document is 19.05.1997. Logically speaking, all these
documents are required to be in existence and produced when an official is being charge-sheeted for a gross misconduct
involving financial transactions.
12.
It is further evident from the affidavit of Ex.MW2 Shri Kamal Kishore Manchanda that he has in fact
introduced modified charge sheet by reducing the period of siphoned amount to specified dates, i.e. 18.12.1995 and
30.12.1995 amounting to Rs.1,09,500.00, 14.03.1996 and 29.03.1996 amounting to Rs.3,61,830. It is noteable that the
documents are photocopies & unattested and hence cannot be read in evidence .
13.
There is another aspect of the matter. MW2 Shri Kamal Kishore Manchanda had never worked in the Nehru
Place Branch of the Management Bank wherein the transactions were allegedly manipulated/fabricated by the workman
who is claimed to be working as ALEPM Operator. Though there is no evidence on record that the claimant was
working as ALEPM Operator but the workman has clarified that he was simply working as reliever. Even assuming that
the workman had made all the relevant entries, even then it was the duty of the Supervisor and other higher official like
Manager to verify the same. This fact has amply been clarified by Shri Kamal Kishore Manchanda, MW2 who has
admitted that in the branch, there is an operator and behind the operator is the Supervisor who verifies the transactions
entered by the operator in the system. The Loans Incharge is responsible for the sanction of limit, drawing power and
interest. He admitted that rate of interest within the drawing limit is different from the rate of interest when the limit is
exceeded and it is penal interest. The interest rates are as per the loan policy of the bank applicable to the stocks. He
admitted that loans policy document has not been placed on record.
14.
The Management has not examined any higher official viz.Supervisor and/or Manager who were working
during the relevant period 1995 to 1996 at the said Branch, to prove the alleged manipulations/tampering by the
workman/claimant, as MW 2 in his cross examination has admitted that it is the Supervisor who verifies the transactions
entered by the operator in the system.
15.
It is also clear from the record that no ledger sheet has been filed by the management as the interest is
reflected/mentioned in the ledger accounts of the account holder. There is also no mention of the account number of the
account holder in the charge sheet.
16.
MW 2 admitted in his cross examination that there are three types of interest – one is normal interest which is
upto drawing power, second, above drawing power 2 per cent penal interest is charged and above the sanctioned limit,
maximum charged is that of clean interest rate, details of which are given in the circulars. This witness admitted that he
had not seen the individual vouchers in respect of interest credited to interest received account and there is a debit scroll
which is on record for charging interest in individual borrower’s account. It is manifest from the cross examination that
in his affidavit, this witness had not referred to interest calculation sheet but referred to supplementary sheet showing the
interest computation. He also admitted that he himself had not seen the individual party’s account in which the interest
was debited and has referred to debit scrolls. He also did not file nor did see 48 vouchers in which interest was charged
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6057
from different parties as total sum of which was given in the consolidated voucher. To a specific query as to whether
money can be transferred from one Cash Credit Account to the Current Account without any voucher, this witness
replied that same is done on the strength of vouchers and admitted that money can not be transferred from Cash Credit
Account to Current Account, (without vouchers). This witness also admitted that there is a supervisor or a second key
person/incumbent who monitors and checks the interest charged on various parties. He expressively answered that the
supervisor verifies the above said transactions. MW2 also deposed that master change can only be done by the Branch
Manager or head of the branch, for which supervisory password is required. It has also come in the evidence of MW2
that there was no complaint against the claimant herein from any quarter regarding overcharging of interest. MW 2
admitted that documents as mentioned in his affidavit were not generated in his presence and that the same are not
certified by any officials of the Bank as per Banker’s Evidence Act. There is also no evidence that original documents
are in fact in possession of CBI or that the same have been filed in any court of law. Management has not tried to
examine any witness nor the counsel has satisfied the Tribunal as to how the original of the above documents were not
filed by the management.
17.
Non production of the important documents like Audit Trial Report and Interest Calculation Sheet which
were/are supposed to be in possession of the Management and which could throw proper light relating to the transactions
allegedly manipulated/fabricated by the workman so as to favour M/s Micro Serve (A/c No.3815) leads this Tribunal to
draw adverse inference against the Management as per Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.
18.
From the evidence on record, as discussed above, it is crystal clear that (i) there was no complaint against the
claimant/workman herein from any quarter regarding overcharging of interest, ii) the workman was simply working as
reliever of ALEPM Operator to make entries in the computer system on the basis debit/credit vouchers; iii) it is the
Supervisor or a second key person/incumbent who monitors, checks and verifies the transactions relating to interest
charged on various parties and the concerned supervisor/second key person verifies such transactions. iv) money can not
be transferred from Cash Credit Account to Current Account, (without vouchers) and (v) master change can only be
done by the Branch Manager or Head of the branch, for which supervisory password is required. In the light of
aforesaid procedure, it will be improper to conclude that the workman simply working as reliever of ALEPM Operator
alone could forge/fabricate the entries without any aid/assistance of any Bank Officer having supervisory power over
him. The Management has not proved on record any material documents viz. Interest Calculation Sheet, Day’s Log
Book, Audit Trial Report and/or Loan Policy Document in support of the debit or credit Transfer Vouchers relating to
interest transactions allegedly forged by the workman.
19.
It is worthwhile to mention here that in the charge-sheet Ex.WW1/1 (dated 8/2/1997) issued in Hindu language,
it was specifically mentioned that a complaint was received against the workman herein but the Management has neither
filed on record copy of the complaint which was stated to have been received against the workman, nor the said
complainant has been examined. MW2 – sole witness of the Management admitted that there was no complaint against
the claimant herein from any quarter regarding overcharging of interest. In the charge sheet Ex.WW1/1 it has been
alleged that the workman had misappropriated a sum of Rs.18,57,930/- by transferring the same on various dates under
the head “difference of interest recoverable and recoverable” into Current Account No3815 of M/s Micro Serve. But
statement of the said CA No.3815 has not been filed on record to substantiate the alleged misappropriation of funds.
Furthermore, the Enquiry Officer in his report has been able to pin-point that an amount of Rs.1,06,550/- being the
aggregate of difference amount dated 18.12.1995 and 30.12.1995 has been siphoned off through the account of M/s
Micro Serve. It was submitted on behalf of the claimant that the workman could be attributed only for the
loss/misappropriate of Rs.1,06,550/-. Further, as against the said loss/misappropriation, the Management has already
adjusted a sum of Rs.71,0003.38 paise against the gratuity amount which was payable to the workman herein.
20.
During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management strenuously argued that since the criminal
court vide its judgement dated 22/2/2011 has already convicted the workman for offences under Section 420, 477-A read
with Section 120-B of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, this
Tribunal may uphold the punishment awarded to the workman vide impugned order dated 30/3/2000. In this regard, it is
worthwhile to mention here that firstly, the Management has not filed on record copy of the said judgement on record
and lastly, the findings given by the criminal court is not binding on this Tribunal, moreso because this Tribunal is to
arrive at a conclusion only on the basis of evidence adduced before it.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Management has not been
able to duly prove the charges as leveled against the workman vide chargesheet dated 8/2/1997 and resultantly, the action
of the Management in terminating the services of the workman vide impugned order dated 30/3/2000 was unjustified and
illegal and same is liable to be set aside.
Relief :-
22.
As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the action of the Management
in passing the impugned order of dismissal of the workman from service is illegal and void under the law.
23.
Now the residual question is as to whether the workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is undisputed fact that the workman joined the services of
the Management bank as a clerk in the year 1982, whereas impugned dismissal order was passed on 30/3/2000 and thus,
6058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 13, 2018/ASVINA 21, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he had rendered 18 years of continuous service with the Management against a post of regular and permanent character
prior to his dismissal from service. Perusal of the record shows that the workman/claimant must have by now
attained the age of his superannuation. The claimant while appearing as WW1 before this Tribunal on 29/3/2017
disclosed his age as 59 years and testified that he has been unemployed since after his dismissal from services and
dependent on his family members. Management has not led any evidence to show that the workman was gainfully
employed anywhere since after his dismissal from service.
24.
Law is fairly well settled that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination
of service is found to be invalid. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya” reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
(i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
(ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or
was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads
gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to
the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the
existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically
plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.”
25.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of
termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the
mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se,
sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that
termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one
month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the
action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not
terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
20.
A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken
away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that
eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the
removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
21.
However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh,
reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :—
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination
of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy
or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered
with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are
wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age
and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,
where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the
complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is
often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be
compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 13] 2018@vkf'ou 21] 1940
6059
27.
Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of
illegal termination and reinstatement held as under :—
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation
of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the
employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment
of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or
136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because
there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get
full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same The courts must always keep in view that
that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the
sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of
his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman his dues in the form
of full back wages.”
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-
2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or
payment of one month’s salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference
held the action of the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award
was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under :—
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not
on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties
as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,
of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of
service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his
termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages
which he would have drawn had he continued to serve the petitioner…..”
23-
Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a
post of regular and permanent character, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for relief of
reinstatement with continuity of service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages & all consequential benefits,
inasmuch as termination/ dismissal of the claimant/workman from service is per-se illegal. Award is passed accordingly.
Date :18.09.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed
by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2018.11.15
14:40:09 +05'30'