7209 GI/2018
(6869)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 50]
ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 16—fnlEcj 22] 2018] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 25—ikS"k 1] 1940
No. 50]
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 16—DECEMBER 22, 2018, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 25— PAUSA 1, 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)
गृह
गृह
गृह
गृह मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई द ली, 11 दस बर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1790
1790
1790
1790.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 (यथा
संशोिधत, 1987) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म', गृह मं*ालय के िन निलिखत काया-लय म' िह दी का
काय-साधक /ान रखने वाले कम-चा2रय क सं3 या 80% से अिधक हो जाने के फल5 व6प इन, काया-लय को एत:ारा
अिधसूिचत करती है:—
सश
सश
सश
सश सीमा बल
सीमा बल
सीमा बल
सीमा बल
1.
उप महािनरी<क काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
यू जलपाईगुड़ी, डाकघर-पांगा, साहेबाड़ी, िजला-जलपाईगुड़ी (पि?म बंगाल)-735121
2.
उप महािनरी<क काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
गया, डाकघर-गया, िजला-गया ( िबहार) -823004
3.
उप महािनरी<क काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
बेितया, प2रसर-नरक2टयागंज, डाकघर-नरक2टयागंज, िजला-पि?म च पारण (िबहार)- 845455
6870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
C वान िश<ण एवं जनन के , डेरा, डाकघर-डेरा, िजला-अलवर (राज5 थान)-301409
5. उप महािनरी<क काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
िश<ु िश<ण के , मौजपुर, डाकघर- मौजपुर, िजला-अलवर (राज5 थान)-321633
6. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
7वF वािहनी, बटोट, डाकघर-बटोट, िजला-रामबन (ज मू और कC मीर)-182143
7. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
8वF वािहनी, खपड़ेल, डाकघर- यू चुमटा, िजला-दाIजJलग (पि?म बंगाल)-734009
8. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल, कमाA ड'ट काया-लय,
10वF वािहनी, Mीनगर, डाकघर-गोले माकNट, िजला-Mीनगर, (ज मू और कC मीर)-190010
9. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
16वF वािहनी, पाकरी, जमुई, डाकघर-खैरा, िजला-जमुई (िबहार)-811317
10. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
18वF वािहनी, राजनगर, डाकघर-राजनगर, िजला-मधुबनी (िबहार)-847235
11. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
19वF वािहनी, ठाकुरगंज, डाकघर-ठाकुरगंज, िजला-कशनगंज (िबहार) -855116
12. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
21वF वािहनी, बगहा, डाकघर-मंगलपुर, िजला-पि?म च पारण (िबहार)-845105
13. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
22वF वािहनी, दोमुहानाघाट, डाकघर-नौतनवा, िजला-महाराजगंज (उR तर देश)-273164
14. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
29वF वािहनी, गया, डाकघर-बोधगया, िजला-गया (िबहार)-823004
15. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
30वF वािहनी, दरांग, डाकघर-T योितनगर, िजला-पि?म काम'ग (अUणाचल देश)-790101
16. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
32वF वािहनी, बेला, डाकघर-एम0 के0 बेला, िजला-मुT जफरपुर (िबहार)-842005
17. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
33वF वािहनी, केवटी, डाकघर-भानुताप, िजला-कांकेर (छR तीसगढ़)-494669
18. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
38वF वािहनी, तवांग, डाकघर-तवांग, िजला-तवांग (अUणाचल देश)-790104
19. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
39वF वािहनी, पिलया कलां, डाकघर-पिलया कलां, िजला-लखीमपुर खीरी (उR तर देश)-262902
20. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
42वF वािहनी, नानपारा, डाकघर-नानपारा, िजला-बहराइच (उR तर देश)-271865
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6871
21. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
43वF वािहनी, िसWाथ-नगर, डाकघर-भीमपुर, िजला-िसWाथ-नगर (उR तर देश)-272207
22. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
44वF वािहनी, नरक2टयागंज डाकघर-नरक2टयागंज, िजला-पि?म च पारण (िबहार)-845455
23. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
46वF वािहनी, मालबाजार, डाकघर-माल, िजला-जलपाईगुड़ी (पि?म बंगाल)-735221
24. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
47वF वािहनी, पनटोका डाकघर-रX सौल, िजला-पूवZ च पारण (िबहार)-845305
25. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
48वF वािहनी, जयनगर डाकघर-जयनगर, िजला-मधुबनी (िबहार)-847226
26. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
49वF वािहनी, पीलीभीत, डाकघर-ललौरी खेरा, िजला-पीलीभीत (उR तर देश)-262001
27. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
50वF वािहनी, तुलसीपुर, डाकघर-तुलसीपुर, उR तरोला, िजला-बलरामपुर (उR तर देश)-271208
28. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
52वF वािहनी, अर2रया, डाकघर-अर2रया, िजला-अर2रया (िबहार)-854311
29. कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
56वF वािहनी, बथनाहा, डाकघर-बथनाहा, िजला-अर2रया (िबहार)-854316
30.
कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
57वF वािहनी, अमृतपुर, डाकघर-अमृतपुर, िजला नैनीताल (उR तराखंड)-263126
31.
कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
59वF वािहनी, नानपारा, डाकघर-नानपारा, िजला-बहराइच (उR तर देश)-271865
32.
कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
62वF वािहनी, Jभगा, डाकघर-पटना खरगौरा, Jभगा, िजला-Mाव5 ती (उR तर देश)-271831
33.
कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
66वF वािहनी िसWाथ-नगर, डाकघर-नौतनवा, िजला-महाराजगंज (उR तर देश) -273164
34.
कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
70वF वािहनी, बहराइच-।।, डाकघर-माहेवगंज, िजला-लखीमपुर खीरी (उR तर देश)-262701
35.
कमाA ड'ट काया-लय, सश5 * सीमा बल,
71वF वािहनी, मोितहारी, डाकघर-िपपरा फैX टरी, िजला-पूवZ च पारण (िबहार)-845429
36.
काया-लय महािनरी<क,
सश5 * सीमा बल, सीमांत मु3 यालय,
शासिनक भवन, टी.सी./35, वी-2 िवभूित खA ड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ
(उR तर देश)-226010
6872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
वा
वा
वा
वापक िनयंण यू
पक िनयंण यू
पक िनयंण यू
पक िनयंण यूरो
रो
रो
रो
<े*ीय िनदेशक,
जोधपुर <े*ीय इकाई, 5 वापक िनयं*ण ] यूरो,
सेX टर-18 ई, चौपासनी हाऊJसग बोड-,
जोधपुर (राज5 थान)-342 008
[सं. 11029/01/2017-िह दी]
सहेली घोष रॉय, संयुX त सिचव
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1790.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry
of Home Affairs, wherein the percentage of the staff, having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%:—
Sashastra Seema Bal
1.
Office of the Deputy Inspector General, SSB
New Jalpaiguri, P.O.Panga,Sahebari
Distt- Jalpaiguri, (W.B.)-735121
2.
Office of the Deputy Inspector General, SSB
P.O- Gaya Distt-Gaya (Bihar)-823004
3. Office of the Deputy Inspector General, SSB
P.O-Narkatiaganj, Distt-West Champaran-(Bihar)-845455
4. Office of the Commandant, SSB
Dog Training & Breeding Centre
P.O.-Dera, Distt-Alwar (Rajasthan)-301409
5.
Office of the Deputy Inspector General, SSB
Recruit Training Centre, P.O.-Maujpur, Distt-Alwar (Rajasthan)-321633
6.
Office of the Commandant,
7th Bn.SSB, P.O-. Batote, Distt-Ramban (J&K)-182143
7.
Office of the Commandant,
8 th Bn SSB, Khaprail ,P.O.-New Chumta,Distt-Darjeeling (W.B.)-734009
8.
Office of the Commandant, 10th Bn SSB, P.O.-Gole Market,
Distt-Srinagar (J&K)-190010
9.
Office of the Commandant, 16th Bn SSB, Pakri, P.O.-Khaira,Distt-Jamui (Bihar)-811317
10.
Office of the Commandant, 18th Bn SSB, Rajnagar P.O.-Rajnagar
Distt-Madhubani (Bihar)- 847235
11.
Office of the Commandant, 19th Bn SSB, Thakurganj, P.O.-Thakurganj, Distt-Kishanganj (Bihar)-855116
12.
Office of the Commandant, 21st Bn SSB, Bagaha,P.O.-Mangalpur,
Distt West Champaran(Bihar)-845105
13.
Office of the Commandant, 22nd Bn SSB,Domuhanaghat, P.O.-Nautanwa, Distt-Maharajganj(UP)-273164
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6873
14.
Office of the Commandant, 29th Bn SSB,Gaya, P.O.-Bodhgaya,Distt-Gaya
(Bihar)-823004
15.
Office of the Commandant, 30th Bn SSB, Dirang,P.O.-Jyotinagar, Distt-West Kameng (Arunachal Pradesh)-
790101
16.
Office of the Commandant, 32nd Bn SSB,Bela,P.O.-M.K.Bela, Distt- Muzaffarpur,(Bihar)-842005
17.
Office of the Commandant, 33rd Bn SSB, Kewti, P.O.-Bhanupratap Pur
Distt-Kankar,(Chhatish Garh) Pin-494669
18.
Office of the Commandant,
8th Bn SSB, Tawang, P.O-Tawang. Distt-Tawang (Arunachal Pradesh) -790104
19.
Office of the Commandant,
39th Bn SSB, Palia Kalan, P.O- Palia Kalan. Distt-Lakhimpur Kheri (UP) -262902
20.
. Office of the Commandant,
42nd Bn SSB, Nanpara, P.O- Nanpara. Distt-Bahraich (UP)-272207
21.
21. Office of the Commandant,
43rd Bn SSB, Siddharthnagar, P.O- Bhimpur. Distt-Siddharth Nagar (UP)-272207
22.
Office of the Commandant,
44th Bn SSB, Narkatiaganj, P.O- Narkatiaganj. Distt-West Champaran
(Bihar) -845455
23.
Office of the Commandant,
46th Bn SSB, Malbazar, P.O- Malbazar. Distt-Jalpaiguri (W.B)-735221
24.
Office of the Commandant,
47th Bn SSB, Pantoka, P.O- Raxual. Distt-East Champaran (Bihar) -845305
25.
Office of the Commandant,
48thth Bn SSB, Jaynagar, P.O- Jaynagar. Distt-Madhuban (Bihar) -847226
26.
Office of the Commandant,
49th Bn SSB, Piliphit, P.O- Lalouri Khera. Distt-Pilibhit (UP) -262001
27.
Office of the Commandant,
58th Bn SSB, Tulsipur, P.O- Tulsipur, Utraula, Distt-Balrampur (UP) -271208
28.
Office of the Commandant,
52nd Bn SSB, Araria, P.O- Araria. Distt-Araria (Bihar) -854311
29.
Office of the Commandant,
56th Bn SSB, Bathana, P.O- Bathana. Distt-Araria (Bihar) -854316
30.
Office of the Commandant,
57th Bn SSB, Amritpur, P.O- Amritpur. Distt-Nainital (UK) -263126
31.
Office of the Commandant,
59th Bn SSB, Nanpara, P.O- Nanpara. Distt-Bahraich (UP) -271865
32.
Office of the Commandant,
62nd Bn SSB, Bhinga, P.O- Patna Kharguara., Bhinga Distt-Shrawasti
(UP) -271831
6874
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
33.
Office of the Commandant,66th Bn SSB, Siddharthnagar, P.O- Nautanwa.
Distt-Maharajganj (UP) -273164
34.
Office of the Commandant,
70th Bn SSB, Bahraich-II, P.O- Mahevganj. Distt-Lakhimpur (UP) -262701
35.
Office of the Commandant,
71th Bn SSB, Motihari, P.O- Pipra. Distt-East Champaran (Bihar) -845429
36.
Office of the Inspector Genetal FTR,SSB,
Administrative Building, T.C,/35,V-2 Vibhuti Block
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow(U.P.)-226010
Narcotics Control Bureau
Zonal Director
Zonal Unit Jodhpur
Sector-18,Chauasani Housing Board, Jodhpur
Rajasthan-342008
[No. 11029/01/2017-Hindi]
SAHELI GHOSH ROY, Jt. Secy.
वा
वा
वा
वा य
य
य
य और
और
और
और परवार
परवार
परवार
परवार क या
क या
क या
क याण मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
( वा
वा
वा
वा य
य
य
य और
और
और
और परवार
परवार
परवार
परवार क या
क या
क या
क याण िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग)
नई द ली, 9 अX तूबर, 2018
का
का
का
का.आ. . . . 1791
1791
1791
1791.—भारतीय आयुIव/ान प2रषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2)
`ारा दR त शिX तय का योग करते aए के सरकार, , , , भारतीय आयुIव/ान प2रषद से परामश- करके उb अिधिनयम क
थम अनुसूची म', , , , िनcिलिखत, , , , और संशोधन करती है, , , , अथा-त्:
उb थम अनुसूची म' ‘‘एमजेपी रोिहलाखंड िवeिवfालय, , , , बरेली’’’’’’’’ के पC चात ‘‘रोिहलाखंड मेिडकल कॉलेज व अ5 पताल, , , ,
बरेली’’’’’’’’ जोड़ा जाएगा तथा ‘मायता ाg आयुIव/ान अह-ता’ शीष-क के अधीन कालम (2) म'] “बरेली अंतरा-h iीय
िवeिवfालय, , , , बरेली के सामने और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<िgकरण’
[कालम (3) म'] शीष-क के अधीन िनcिलिखत
अंत:5थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा-त्:—
(2)
(3)
बैचलर ऑफ मेिडिसन व बैचलर ऑफ सज-री
एम.बी.बी.एस.
(यह एक मायता ाg आयुIव/ान अह-ता होगी जब
यह रोिहलाखंड मेिडकल कॉलेज व अ5 पताल, बरेली
म' िशि<त कए जा रहे छा* के संबंध म' अX तूबर
2017 को या बाद म', बरेली अंतरा-h iीय
िवeिवfालय, बरेली `ारा दl होगी।)
[सं. जेड-20015/80/2018-एमई-I (एफटीएस.3164777)]
अिमत िब5 वास, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6875
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2018
S.O. 1791.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes
the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—
In the said First Schedule after “MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly” “Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital,
Bareilly” shall be added and against “Bareilly International University, Bareilly” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical
Qualification’ [in column (2)] and under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration”[in column (3)], the following shall
be inserted, namely:-
(2)
(3)
Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery
M.B.B.S.
(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when
granted by Bareilly International University, Bareilly in
respect of students being trained at Rohilkhand Medical
College & Hospital, Bareilly on or after, October 2017.
[No. Z-20015/80/2018-ME –I (FTS.3164777)]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
isVªksfy;e ,oa izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1792-&dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds i'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la- dk- vk- 1583 ¼v½ rkjh[k 29@06@2017 tks
Hkkjr ds jkti= la- 27 rkjh[k 02@07@2017 ls 08@07@2017 rFkk vf/klwpuk la- dk- vk- 2515¼v½ rkjh[k
11@10@2017 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= la- 43 rkjh[k 22@10@2017 ls 28@10@2017 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml
vf/klwpuk esa layXu vuqlwph eas fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es dsjy jkT; esa Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp
fjQkujh ls lsye rd æfor isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds
ek/;e ls dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh;
vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks Øe'k% rkjh[k 18@08@2017 ls 08@09@2017 rFkk 28@12@2017 ls
18@01@2018 ds chp miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh ;
vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu ] dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS ;
vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu
fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS ;
vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk
djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu
fd;k tkrk gS ;
vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd
mä Hkwfe es mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj es fufgr gksus fd ctk,] lHkh
foYyaxeksa ls eqä ] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM es fufgr gksxkA
vuqlwph
jkT;: dsjy
ftyk: ,sjukdqye
rkyqd: dqUukFkqukMw
uke xzke
losZ uEcj
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,fj;k
Áfr oxZehVj
iqFkSudqfjLlw ¼[k.M la- 37½
94/2
0
01
53
94/3
0
01
91
94/11
0
04
53
6876
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iqFkSudqfjLlw ¼[k.M la- 37½
94/16
0
04
89
dqUukFkqukMw ¼[k.M la- 36½
300/10
0
00
20
301/4
0
02
94
301/5
0
03
61
301/6
0
00
84
301/7
0
05
18
301/8
0
02
41
301/9
0
01
03
301/10
0
02
30
301/11
0
01
17
301/14
0
02
13
301/15
0
01
14
301/16
0
01
17
301/17
0
00
95
301/18
0
02
20
301/19
0
08
00
305/1
0
09
72
305/6
0
08
78
305/12
0
03
08
305/13
0
03
80
306/2
0
04
09
306/3
0
06
93
323/3
0
05
01
324/1
0
16
25
325/1
0
06
00
325/2
0
15
33
325/3
0
03
65
325/4
0
01
33
326/3
0
06
79
326/4
0
10
33
326/5
0
02
14
326/7
0
01
99
327/9
0
15
06
330/6
0
09
83
330/7
0
06
84
336/1
0
05
38
336/2
0
06
98
336/3
0
06
65
336/4
0
05
19
336/6
0
05
51
336/8
0
03
12
336/9
0
04
40
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6877
dqUukFkqukMw ¼[k.M la- 36½
339/3
0
15
86
350/1
0
03
70
350/2
0
05
78
350/3
0
06
56
350/4
0
07
60
350/5
0
03
91
350/6
0
03
40
350/7
0
08
06
354/1
0
08
02
354/2
0
02
48
354/3
0
06
27
354/5
0
11
45
357/2
0
52
64
358/2
0
00
39
360/1
0
10
64
360/2
0
03
53
360/3
0
02
86
360/4
0
06
90
378/10
0
02
81
383/5
0
00
48
385/1
0
03
85
385/2
0
05
49
385/3
0
10
34
385/4
0
00
43
385/5
0
11
42
385/7
0
06
90
385/8
0
10
44
jkT;: dsjy
ftyk: ,sjukdqye
rkyqd: vkyqok
uke xzke
losZ uEcj
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,fj;k
Áfr oxZehVj
rsDdqEckxe ¼[k.M la- 30½
149/3
0
00
23
151/8
0
03
10
155/1
0
10
90
155/4
0
02
40
155/5
0
09
31
156/3
0
04
70
156/4
0
04
21
156/5
0
05
17
156/9
0
00
80
157/2
0
00
38
6878
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rsDdqEckxe ¼[k.M la- 30½
157/3
0
00
30
157/8
0
02
62
194/1
0
02
14
194/2
0
01
52
194/16
0
01
82
194/17
0
04
65
195/2
0
06
54
195/6
0
02
10
195/8
0
03
27
195/9
0
07
69
195/10
0
04
21
195/13
0
00
46
205/4
0
01
12
205/5
0
00
16
205/12
0
01
96
206/7
0
03
08
207/2
0
08
84
215/1
0
01
64
215/2
0
01
27
215/3
0
01
06
215/4
0
00
82
215/5
0
00
19
226/11
0
00
18
226/12
0
00
19
228/1
0
00
18
229/3
0
00
69
229/4
0
00
86
229/10
0
00
68
230/3
0
01
47
ewDdUuwj ¼[k.M la- 15½
21/5
0
03
00
252/5
0
03
01
djqdqfV ¼[k.M la- 2½
358/4
0
00
63
366/11
0
02
91
djqdqfV ¼[k.M la- 3½
59/3
0
00
51
oMDdqEckxe ¼[k.M la- 28½
206/6
0
02
02
[Qk- la- vkj&12031@196@2017&vksvkj–I/bZ&19746]
Ukksol fdUMks] voj lfpo
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6879
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S. O. 1792.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas SO No. 1583 dated 29.06.2017 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 27 dated 02.07.2017
to 08.07.2017 and SO. No. 2515 dated 11.10.2017 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 43 dated
22.10.2017 to 28.10.2017 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said
Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the
schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied
Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of Kerala to Salem
in the State of Tamilnadu.
AND, Whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications have been made available to the public
between 18.08.2017 to 08.09.2017 and 28.12.2017 to 18.01.2018 respectively.
AND, Whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub section (1) of section 6 of the said Act
has submitted his report to the Central Government.
AND, Whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the Right
of User in the said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act,
the Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended
to this notification are hereby acquired.
AND, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government vest free from all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.
SCHEDULE
STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : KUNNATHUNADU
VILLAGE
SURVEY NUMBERS
AREA
HECTARES
ARES
SQ MTRS
PUTHENKURISSU
BLOCK NO. 37
94/2
0
01
53
94/3
0
01
91
94/11
0
04
53
94/16
0
04
89
KUNNATHUNADU
BLOCK NO. 36
300/10
0
00
20
301/4
0
02
94
301/5
0
03
61
301/6
0
00
84
301/7
0
05
18
301/8
0
02
41
301/9
0
01
03
301/10
0
02
30
301/11
0
01
17
301/14
0
02
13
301/15
0
01
14
301/16
0
01
17
301/17
0
00
95
301/18
0
02
20
301/19
0
08
00
6880
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
KUNNATHUNADU
BLOCK NO. 36
305/1
0
09
72
305/6
0
08
78
305/12
0
03
08
305/13
0
03
80
306/2
0
04
09
306/3
0
06
93
323/3
0
05
01
324/1
0
16
25
325/1
0
06
00
325/2
0
15
33
325/3
0
03
65
325/4
0
01
33
326/3
0
06
79
326/4
0
10
33
326/5
0
02
14
326/7
0
01
99
327/9
0
15
06
330/6
0
09
83
330/7
0
06
84
336/1
0
05
38
336/2
0
06
98
336/3
0
06
65
336/4
0
05
19
336/6
0
05
51
336/8
0
03
12
336/9
0
04
40
339/3
0
15
86
350/1
0
03
70
350/2
0
05
78
350/3
0
06
56
350/4
0
07
60
350/5
0
03
91
350/6
0
03
40
350/7
0
08
06
354/1
0
08
02
354/2
0
02
48
354/3
0
06
27
354/5
0
11
45
357/2
0
52
64
358/2
0
00
39
360/1
0
10
64
360/2
0
03
53
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6881
KUNNATHUNADU
BLOCK NO. 36
360/3
0
02
86
360/4
0
06
90
378/10
0
02
81
383/5
0
00
48
385/1
0
03
85
385/2
0
05
49
385/3
0
10
34
385/4
0
00
43
385/5
0
11
42
385/7
0
06
90
385/8
0
10
44
STATE : KERALA
DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM
TALUK : ALUVA
VILLAGE
SURVEY NUMBERS
AREA
HECTARES
ARES
SQ MTRS
THEKKUMBHAGAM
BLOCK NO. 30
149/3
0
00
23
151/8
0
03
10
155/1
0
10
90
155/4
0
02
40
155/5
0
09
31
156/3
0
04
70
156/4
0
04
21
156/5
0
05
17
156/9
0
00
80
157/2
0
00
38
157/3
0
00
30
157/8
0
02
62
194/1
0
02
14
194/2
0
01
52
194/16
0
01
82
194/17
0
04
65
195/2
0
06
54
195/6
0
02
10
195/8
0
03
27
195/9
0
07
69
195/10
0
04
21
195/13
0
00
46
205/4
0
01
12
205/5
0
00
16
205/12
0
01
96
206/7
0
03
08
6882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
THEKKUMBHAGAM
BLOCK NO. 30
207/2
0
08
84
215/1
0
01
64
215/2
0
01
27
215/3
0
01
06
215/4
0
00
82
215/5
0
00
19
226/11
0
00
18
226/12
0
00
19
228/1
0
00
18
229/3
0
00
69
229/4
0
00
86
229/10
0
00
68
230/3
0
01
47
MOOKKANNOOR
BLOCK NO. 15
21/5
0
03
00
252/5
0
03
01
KARUKUTTY
BLOCK NO. 2
358/4
0
00
63
366/11
0
02
91
KARUKUTTY
BLOCK NO. 3
59/3
0
00
51
VADAKKUMBHAGAM
BLOCK. NO.
28
206/6
0
02
02
[F. No. R. 12031/ 196 /2017-OR-I/E-19746]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2018
dk-vk- 1793-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd rfeyukMw jkT; ds lsye dks dsjy
jkT; esa Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM+ dh dksfPp fjQkbujh ls rjyhd`r isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy,] ,d
ikbiykbZu dksfPp lsye ikbiykbZu çkbosV fyfeVsM+ }kjk fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,;
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa] tks blls
mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, ;
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] IksVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962
dk 50½] dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus
ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS;
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti= dh
izfr;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy;s mlesa
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh c'khjdqatw ,] l{ke çkf/kdkjh] dksfPp lsye ikbi ykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM] d#.k
,aDyso] f}rh; ry] Mksj u- ch&2] ,l ,u taD'ku] fjQkbZujh jksM] ;wfu;u cSad v‚Q bafM;k ds lkeus] f=iqfuFkqjk] ftyk
,sjukdqye] dsjy & 682301 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6883
vuqlwph
jkT;: dsjy
ftyk: ,sjukdqye
rkyqd: dqUukFkqukMw
uke xzke
losZ uEcj
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,fj;k
Áfr oxZehVj
fdt+kDdEcye ¼[k.M la- 25½
118/9
0
09
37
141/5
0
00
84
148/12
0
00
22
254/10
0
00
27
398/2
0
00
21
401/5
0
00
32
401/7
0
00
14
402/2
0
00
29
405/19
0
00
15
429/14
0
01
29
430/6
0
00
91
EkkjefifYy ¼[k.M la- 23½
1/11
0
05
36
1/12
0
00
06
3/9
0
11
81
3/10
0
05
22
jkT;: dsjy
ftyk: ,sjukdqye
rkyqd: vkyqok
eVwj ¼[k.M la- 27½
1/12
0
00
34
[Qk- la- vkj&12031@196@2017&vksvkj@vkbZ@bZ&19746]
uksol fdUMks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1793.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transport of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of
Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the a pipeline should be laid by M/S. Kochi – Salem pipeline
Private Ltd;
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipelines, it is necessary
to acquire the right of user in the lands under which such pipelines are proposed to be laid described in the schedule
annexed to this notification;
Now therefore in the exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) the Central Government hereby
declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.
Any person, interested in land described in the said schedule may, within 21 days from the date on which the copies of
this notification, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the
acquisition of the right of user therein or laying or the pipeline under the land to Sri. Basheerkunju. A, Competent
Authority, Kochi-Salem Pipeline Private Ltd, Karun Enclave 2nd floor, Door No. B2, S.N. Junction, Refinery Road, Opp:
Union Bank of India, Tripunithura, Pin – 682 301.
6884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
STATE : KERALA
DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : KUNNATHUNADU
VILLAGE
SURVEY NUMBERS
AREA (APPROXIMATE)
HECTARES
ARES
SQ:METERS
KIZHAKKAMBALAM
BLOCK. NO. 25
118/9
0
09
37
141/5
0
00
84
148/12
0
00
22
254/10
0
00
27
398/2
0
00
21
401/5
0
00
32
401/7
0
00
14
402/2
0
00
29
405/19
0
00
15
429/14
0
01
29
430/6
0
00
91
MARAMPILLY
BLOCK. NO. 23
1/11
0
05
36
1/12
0
00
06
3/9
0
11
81
3/10
0
05
22
STATE : KERALA
DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM
TALUK : ALUVA
MATTOOR
BLOCK. NO. 27
1/12
0
00
34
[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1794-&dsUæh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e
1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti= ds Hkkx II] [kaM 3, mi&[kaM ¼ii½ ds varxZr
18@03@2018 & 24@03@2018 dks çdkf'kr] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa çk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k
dk- vk- 473¼v½ rkjh[k 15@03@2018 dh bl vf/klwpuk ds vaxzsth ikB es la'kks/ku djrh gS fd i`"B la- 2261 ij losZ la[;k
8@4 xzke dqUukFkqukMw ¼Cykd la 36½ ds LFkku ij losZ la[;k 18@4 xzke dqUukFkqukMw ¼Cykd la 36 ½ i<k tk,
[Qk- la- vkj&12031@196@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&19746]
uksol fdUMks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1794.—In exercise of the powers conferred sub section (1) of section 6 of Petroleum and Minaral Pipeline
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the
following amendment in the notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas SO. 473
dated 15.03.2018 published in page No. 2261 in part II section 3 subsection (ii) Gazette of India No.11 dated 18.03.2018
to 24.03.2018 namely.
In the notification SO. No. 473 dated 15.03.2018 published in the Gazette on 18.03.2018 to 24.03.2018 at page
No. 2261 Survey No. 8/4 published under Kunnathunadu Village, Block No. 36 shall be considered and read Survey
No. 18/4 under Kunnathunadu Village, Block No. 36 in English Version.
[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6885
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
नई दली, 13 दस बर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 17
17
17
1795
95
95
95.—केीय सरकार को यह तीत होता है क, इससे उपाबW अनुसूची म' वIणत प2र<े* क
भूिम म' से कोयला अिभाg कये जाने क संभावना है;
और उb अनुसूची म' वIणत भूिम के <े* म' अंतIवn करने वाला रेखांक सं3या पीबीसीबी/राज5व योजना /2018-
19/01ए, तारीख 15 नव बर, 2018 का िनरी<ण, महाबंधक (भू-स पदा), भारत कोpकग कोल िलिमटेड, कोयला भवन,
कोयला नगर, धनबाद- 826005 या महाबंधक, िवqमिशला <े*/ िनदेशक (तकनीक ) योजना और प2रयोजना के तकनीक
सिचव, भारत कोpकग कोल िलिमटेड, कोयला भवन, कोयला नगर, धनबाद- 826005 या उपायुb िजला गोrा, झारखA ड
या िजला कलXटर, भागलपुर, िबहार या महाबंधक (गवेषण भाग), आर.आई.-II, केीय खान योजना एवं िडजाइन
सं5थान, कोयला भवन का पलेXस, कोयला नगर धनबाद-826005 या कोयला िनयं*क, 1, कांउिसल हाउस 5iीट,
कोलकाता- 700001 के काया-लय म' कया जा सकता है ;
अतः अब, केीय सरकार, कोयला धारक <े* (अज-न और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम'
इसके प?ात उb अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उपधारा (1) `ारा दl शिbय का योग करते aए, उb
अनुसूची म' वIणत भूिम म' कोयले का पूवN<ण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ।
उपयु-b अनुसूची म' उिलिखत भूिम म' िहतबW कोई t यिX त -
(i)
संपूण- भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या उb भूिम म' या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अज-न पर आ<ेप कर सकेगा;
या
(ii)
उसक धारा 4 क उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क गयी कसी कार-वाई से aई या होने वाली संभािवत कसी <ित
के िलए उb अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या
(iii)
उX त अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन पूवN<ण अनु/िg के भावहीन होने के संबंध म' या
उX त अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (4) के अधीन खनन पuे के भावहीन होने के िलए ितकर का दावा
कर सकेगा और उसे उX त अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म' िविनvदh ट मद
क बाबत उपगत t यय को उपदIशत करने के िलए पूवwX त भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिच*, चाटx और अ य
द5 तावेज को प2रदR त कर सकेगा,
इस अिधसूचना के राजप* के काशन के तारीख से न]बे दन के भीतर महाबंधक, िवqमिशला <े*/ िनदेशक (तकनीक)
योजना एवं प2रयोजना के तकनीक सिचव, भारत कोpकग कोल िलिमटेड, कोयला भवन, कोयला नगर, धनबाद - 826005,
अथवा महाबंधक (भू-स पदा), भारत कोpकग कोल िलिमटेड, कोयला भवन, कोयला नगर, धनबाद -826005 (झारखंड) के
काया-लय को भेज'गे।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िपरपती
िपरपती
िपरपती
िपरपती- बाराहाट कोल खनन लाक
बाराहाट कोल खनन लाक
बाराहाट कोल खनन लाक
बाराहाट कोल खनन लाक
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला - गो ा (झारख#ड) और िजला
गो ा (झारख#ड) और िजला
गो ा (झारख#ड) और िजला
गो ा (झारख#ड) और िजला भागलपुर (िबहार)
भागलपुर (िबहार)
भागलपुर (िबहार)
भागलपुर (िबहार)
(रेखांक सं3या पीबीसीबी/राज5व योजना /2018-19/01ए, तारीख 15 नव बर, 2018 )
1.
1.
1.
1. िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला – गो ा
गो ा
गो ा
गो ा, , , , झारखंड
झारखंड
झारखंड
झारखंड
(म
(म
(म
(म
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
थाना
थाना
थाना
थाना
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
िजला का
िजला का
िजला का
िजला का
नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
(एकड़
(एकड़
(एकड़
(एकड़ म2)
म2)
म2)
म2)
(लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
1
िसवनपुर/ िसमानपुर महगामां
09
गोrा
91.104
225.118
भाग
2
िखरyधी
महगामां
10
गोrा
99.117
244.918
भाग
6886
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(म
(म
(म
(म
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
थाना
थाना
थाना
थाना
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
िजला का
िजला का
िजला का
िजला का
नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
(एकड़
(एकड़
(एकड़
(एकड़ म2)
म2)
म2)
म2)
(लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
3
खथZ
महगामां
11
गोrा
79.606
196.706
संपूण-
4
परसा
महगामां
12
गोrा
185.175
457.567
संपूण-
5
अमौर
महगामां
13
गोrा
242.029
598.054
संपूण-
6
नदीवान
महगामां
14
गोrा
26.730
66.050
संपूण-
7
िखरyधा
महगामां
15
गोrा
108.725
268.659
भाग
8
सुरनी
महगामां
16
गोrा
10.00
24.710
भाग
9
दोई
महगामां
321
गोrा
167.271
413.327
भाग
10
द2रयाचक
महगामां
330
गोrा
23.747
58.680
भाग
11
घो2रचक
महगामां
331
गोrा
23.927
59.124
संपूण-
12
गौसी तापपुर
महगामां
336
गोrा
26.00
64.246
भाग
13
कुमारडीहा
महगामां
338
गोrा
99.00
244.629
संपूण-
14
उदवाचक
महगामां
339
गोrा
19.00
46.949
संपूण-
15
चौरा
महगामां
340
गोrा
120.953
298.875
संपूण-
16
फुदूिलयाकता
महगामां
341
गोrा
4.610
11.391
संपूण-
17
लकड़मारा
महगामां
342
गोrा
266.604
658.778
संपूण-
18
मजगैन
महगामां
343
गोrा
25.00
61.775
संपूण-
19
नीमा
महगामां
344
गोrा
51.00
126.021
संपूण-
20
उदयपुर बेहरा
महगामां
345
गोrा
59.00
145.789
संपूण-
21
िचतरसेन बेहरा
महगामां
346
गोrा
29.00
71.659
संपूण-
22
मसुदनपुर घो2रकता
महगामां
347
गोrा
79.50
196.445
आंिशक
23
िजताचz
महगामां
348
गोrा
8.00
19.768
संपूण-
24
द2रयापुर
महगामां
349
गोrा
86.985
214.940
संपूण-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6887
(म
(म
(म
(म
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
मौजा/,ाम
थाना
थाना
थाना
थाना
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
,ाम/थाना
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
िजला का
िजला का
िजला का
िजला का
नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(हे1टेयर म2)
(लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
(एकड़
(एकड़
(एकड़
(एकड़ म2)
म2)
म2)
म2)
(लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
लगभग)
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
25
धनकु2रया
महगामां
354
गोrा
143.648
354.955
भाग
26
Jसगारपुर
महगामां
371
गोrा
73.581
181.819
भाग
कुल
कुल
कुल
कुल ेफल:
ेफल:
ेफल:
ेफल:
2149.312
2149.312
2149.312
2149.312
5310.952
5310.952
5310.952
5310.952
2.
2.
2.
2. जला Ð भागलपुर, बहार:
qम
सं3या
मौजा/{ाम
थाना
सं3या
{ाम/
थाना
सं3या
िजला का नाम <े*फल
(हेXटेयर म')
(लगभग)
<े*फल
(एकड़ (म')
(लगभग)
2ट|पिणयां
1.
कै2रया
कोलगंग
312
भागलपुर
140.594
347.408
भाग
2.
महगावां
कोलगंग
313
भागलपुर
145.733
360.106
संपूण-
3.
िवशुनपूर
महगावां
िमिलक
कोलगंग
314
भागलपुर
17.00
42.007
संपूण-
4.
करहरा
बसंतपुर
िमिलक
कोलगंग
315
भागलपुर
1.00
2.471
संपूण-
5.
वाशुदेवपुर
भलुआ
अराजी
कोलगंग
316
भागलपुर
18.00
44.478
संपूण-
6.
करहरा
वाशुदेवपुर
िमिलक
कोलगंग
317
भागलपुर
12.00
29.652
संपूण-
7.
भलुआ
कोलगंग
318
भागलपुर
70.00
172.970
भाग
8.
भलुआ सुजान
कोलगंग
319
भागलपुर
51.00
126.021
भाग
9.
महगावां िमिलक
कोलगंग
332
भागलपुर
13.00
32.123
भाग
10.
सेमा2रया
कोलगंग
333
भागलपुर
140.00
345.940
भाग
11.
कै2रया िमिलक
कोलगंग
334
भागलपुर
16.00
39.536
संपूण-
कुल .ेफल:
कुल .ेफल:
कुल .ेफल:
कुल .ेफल:
624.327
624.327
624.327
624.327
1542.712
1542.712
1542.712
1542.712
कुल
कुल
कुल
कुल .ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल (2149.312
2149.312
2149.312
2149.312 हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर +
+
+
+ 624.327
624.327
624.327
624.327 हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर ) =
) =
) =
) = 2773.639
2773.639
2773.639
2773.639 हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर (लगभग
लगभग
लगभग
लगभग)
या
या
या
या (5310.952
5310.952
5310.952
5310.952 एकड़
एकड़
एकड़
एकड़ +
+
+
+ 1542.712
1542.712
1542.712
1542.712 एकड़
एकड़
एकड़
एकड़ ) =
) =
) =
) = 6853.664
6853.664
6853.664
6853.664 एकड़
एकड़
एकड़
एकड़ (लगभग
लगभग
लगभग
लगभग)
6888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
सीमा
सीमा
सीमा
सीमा-वण6न:
वण6न:
वण6न:
वण6न:
1.
1-2 कै2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘1’ से रेखा शु6 होकर दि<ण-पूव- दशा क ओर कै2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. 2 तक जाती
है ।
2.
2-3 कै2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘2’ से रेखा शु6 होकर उR तर-पूव- दशा क ओर कै2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. 3 तक जाती
है ।
3.
3-4 कै2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘3’ से रेखा शु6 होकर उR तर-पूव- दशा म' मौजा कै2रया म' धुिलया नाला के Jबदु सं. 4
तक जाती है ।
4.
4-24 मौजा कै2रया म' धुिलया नाला के Jबदु सं. ‘4’ से रेखा शु6 होती है मौजा - कै2रया, िखरyधी, िशवानपुर,
िखरyधा, अमौर, नदयावा एवं दोई होते aए धुिलया नाला के साथ-साथ दि<ण-पूव- दशा क ओर दोई म' राh iीय
उ च माग- (एनएच) - 133 पर Jबदु सं. 24 तक जाती है ।
5.
24-28 मौजा दोई म' Jबदु सं. ‘24’ से रेखा शु6 होती है और राीय राजमाग- 133 के साथ-साथ दि<ण दशा क
ओर मौजा दोई, कुमारिडहा, गौसी तापपुर, घोड़ीचक और द2रयाचक होते aए द2रयाचक मौजा म' Jबदु सं. 28 तक
जाती है ।
6.
28-29 Jबदु सं. '28' से रेखा शु6 होती है और मौजा द2रयाचक, Jसगारपुर, धनकु2रया से होते aए दि<ण-पि?म
दशा क ओर धनकु2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. 29 तक जाती है ।
7.
29-30 धनकु2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘29’ से रेखा शु6 होती है और धनकु2रया, द2रयापुर, मसुदनपुर घो2रकता तथा
भलुआसुजान मौजा से होते aए उR तर-पि?म दशा क ओर भलुआसुजान मौजा म' Jबदु सं. 30 तक जाती है ।
8.
30-31 भलुआसुजान मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘30’ से रेखा शु6 होती है तथा भलुआसुजान एवं भलुआ होते aए उR तर-
पि?म दशा क ओर भलुआ मौजा म' Jबदु सं. 31 तक जाती है ।
9.
31-35 भलुआ मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘31’ से रेखा शु6 होती है तथा भलुआ और बासदेवपुर भलुआ अराजी मौजा होते
aए उR तर-पि?म दशा क ओर बासदेवपुर भलुआ अराजी मौजा म' Jबदु सं. 35 तक जाती है ।
10.
35-39 बासदेवपुर भलुआ अराजी मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘35’ से रेखा शु6 होती है तथा बासदेवपुर भलुआ अराजी,
महागावां िमिलक तथा िसम2रया मौजा से होते aए उR तर-पि?म दशा क ओर मौजा िसम2रया म' Jबदु सं. 39 तक
जाती है ।
11.
39-40 िसम2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘39’ से रेखा शु6 होती है तथा िसम2रया मौजा से होते aए उR तर दशा क ओर
िसम2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘40’ तक जाती है ।
12.
40-1 िसम2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. ‘40’ से रेखा शु6 होती है तथा िसम2रया एवं कै2रया मौजा aते aए उR तर-पूव-
दशा क ओर (सीमा के ारंिभक Jबदु से ) कै2रया मौजा म' Jबदु सं. 1 म' जाकर िमलती है ।
[ फा. सं. 43015/17/2018—एलए एAड आईआर]
आर.एस. सरोज, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 13th December, 2018
S.O. 1795.ÑWhereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in
the locality described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
And, whereas the plan bearing number PBCB/Revenue plan/2018-19/01A,dated the 15th November, 2018,
containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Bharat Coking
Coal Limited (Estate Department), Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005 or at the office of the General
Manager, Vikramshila Area/TS to D(T) P&P, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad -
826005 or Deputy Commissioner, District Godda (Jharkhand) and District Collector, District Bhagalpur (Bihar) or at the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6889
office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), Regional Institute(II), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute,
Koyla Bhawan Complex , Koyla Nagar , Dhanbad - 826005 or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House
Street, Kolkata-700001;
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 lands 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
(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 thereof,
to the office of the General Manager, Vikramshila Area/TS to D(T)P&P, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan,
Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005 (Jharkhand) or General Manager (Estate) , Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan,
Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-826005 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this
notification.
SCHEDULE
PIRPAINTI-BARAHAT COAL MINING BLOCK
DISTRICT GODDA (JHARKHAND) AND DISTRICT BHAGALPUR (BIHAR)
(Plan bearing number PBCB/Revenue Plan/2018-19/01A, dated the 15th November, 2018)
1. DISTRICT – GODDA, JHARKHAND:
Sl.
No.
Mouza/Village
Thana
number
Village/Thana
number
Name of
District
Area (in
hectares)
(Approx.)
Area (in
acres)
(Approx.)
Remarks
1
Shiwanpur/
Shimanpur
Mahagama
09
Godda
91.104
225.118
PART
2
Khiroundhi
Mahagama
10
Godda
99.117
244.918
PART
3
Khatti
Mahagama
11
Godda
79.606
196.706
FULL
4
Parsa
Mahagama
12
Godda
185.175
457.567
FULL
5
Amour
Mahagama
13
Godda
242.029
598.054
FULL
6
Nadiwan
Mahagama
14
Godda
26.730
66.050
FULL
7
Khiroundha
Mahagama
15
Godda
108.725
268.659
PART
8
Surni
Mahagama
16
Godda
10.00
24.710
PART
9
Doi
Mahagama
321
Godda
167.271
413.327
PART
10
Dariachak
Mahagama
330
Godda
23.747
58.680
PART
11
Ghorichak
Mahagama
331
Godda
23.927
59.124
FULL
12
Gousi Pratappur
Mahagama
336
Godda
26.00
64.246
PART
13
Kumardiha
Mahagama
338
Godda
99.000
244.629
FULL
14
Udwachak
Mahagama
339
Godda
19.00
46.949
FULL
15
Chaura
Mahagama
340
Godda
120.953
298.875
FULL
16
Fuduliakita
Mahagama
341
Godda
4.610
11.391
FULL
17
Lakarmara
Mahagama
342
Godda
266.604
658.778
FULL
18
Majgain
Mahagama
343
Godda
25.00
61.775
FULL
19
Nima
Mahagama
344
Godda
51.000
126.021
FULL
20
Udaypur Behra
Mahagama
345
Godda
59.00
145.789
FULL
21
Chitarsen Behra
Mahagama
346
Godda
29.000
71.659
FULL
22
Masudanpur
Ghorikita
Mahagama
347
Godda
79.50
196.445
PART
23
Jitachak
Mahagama
348
Godda
8.000
19.768
FULL
24
Dariapur
Mahagama
349
Godda
86.985
214.940
FULL
25
Dhankuria
Mahagama
354
Godda
143.648
354.955
PART
26
Singarpur
Mahagama
371
Godda
73.581
181.819
PART
Total area:
2149.312
5310.952
6890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR, BIHAR:
Sl.
No.
Mouza/ Village
Thana
number
Village/Thana
number
Name of
District
Area
(in hectares
(approxi-
mately)
Area
(in acres)
(approxi-
mately)
Remarks
1
Kairia
Kolgang
312
Bhagalpur
140.594
347.408
PART
2
Mahagawa
Kolgang
313
Bhagalpur
145.733
360.106
FULL
3
Bishunpur
Mahagawa Milik
Kolgang
314
Bhagalpur
17.00
42.007
FULL
4
Karhara
Basantpur
Milik
Kolgang
315
Bhagalpur
1.00
2.471
FULL
5
Basdeopur
Bhalua
Arazi
Kolgang
316
Bhagalpur
18.00
44.478
FULL
6
Karhara Basdeopur
Milik
Kolgang
317
Bhagalpur
12.00
29.652
FULL
7
Bhalua
Kolgang
318
Bhagalpur
70.00
172.970
PART
8
Bhalua Suzan
Kolgang
319
Bhagalpur
51.00
126.021
PART
9
Mahagawa Milik
Kolgang
332
Bhagalpur
13.00
32.123
PART
10
Semaria
Kolgang
333
Bhagalpur
140.00
345.940
PART
11
Kairia Milik
Kolgang
334
Bhagalpur
16.00
39.536
FULL
Total Area:
624.327
1542.712
Grand Total: (2149.312 hectares + 624.327 hectares)= 2773.639 hectares (approximately)
or (5310.952 acres + 1542.712 acres) = 6853.664 acres (approximately)
Boundary Description:
1. 1-2 Line starts from point no.-‘1’ in Mouza - Kairia towards South-East direction up to point no.- 2 in Mouza
Kairia.
2. 2-3 Line starts from point no.-‘2’ in Mouza Kairia towards North -East direction up to point no.-3 in Mouza Kairia.
3. 3-4 Line starts from point no.-‘3’ in Mouza Kairia towards North -East direction up to point no.-4 at Dhulia Nala in
Mouza Kairia.
4. 4-24 Line starts from point no.-‘4’ at Dhulia Nala in Mouza Kairia and passing towards South-East direction along
Dhulia Nala through Mouza-Kairia, Khiraundhi, Shiwanpur, Khiraundha, Amour,Nadiawa and Doi up to point
no.-24 at National Highway – 133 in Mouza Doi.
5. 24-28 Line starts from point no.-‘24’ in Mouza Doi and passes along National Highway - 133 towards Southward
direction through Mouza- Doi, Kumardiha, Gousi Pratapur, Ghorichak and Dariachak up to point no.-28 in Mouza –
Dariachak.
6. 28-29 Line starts from point no.-‘28’ passing towards South West direction through Mouza-Dariachak, Singarpur,
Dhankuria up to the point no. - 29 in Mouza – Dhankuria.
7. 29-30 Line starts from point no.-‘29’ in Mouza –Dhankuria and passing towards North-West direction through
Mauza- Dhankuria, Dariyapur, Masudanpur Ghorikita and Bhaluasujan up to point no.-30 in Mouza- Bhalua Sujan.
8. 30-31 Line starts from point no.-‘30’ in Mouza- Bhalua Sujan passing towards North-West direction through Mouza
Bhalua Sujan & Bhalua upto point no. - 31 in Mouza-Bhalua.
9. 31-35 Line starts from point no.-‘31’ in Mouza-Bhalua and passes towards North-West direction through Mouza -
Bhalua and Basdeopur Bhalua Arazi up to point no.-35 in Mouza Basdeopur Bhalua Arazi.
10. 35-39 Line starts from point no.-‘35’ in Mouza Basdeopur Bhalua Arazi and passes towards North-West direction
through Mouza Basdeopur Bhalua Arazi ,Mahagama Milik and Semaria up to point no.- 39 in Mouza Semaria.
11. 39-40 Line starts from point no.-‘39’ in Mouza Semaria passing towards North direction through Mouza- Semaria up
to point no.-‘40’ in Mouza Semaria.
12. 40-1 Line starts from point no.-‘40’ in Mouza Semaria and passes towards North-East direction through Mouza
Semaria and Kairia and meets the point no.-1 in Mouza Kairia (Starting point of boundary).
[ F. No. 43015/17/2018-LA&IR]
R.S. SAROJ, Under Sey.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6891
नई द ली, , , , 13 दसबर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1796
1796
1796
1796.—केीय सरकार को यह तीत होता है क, इससे उपाबW अनुसूची म' वIणत प2र<े* क भूिम म'
से कोयला अिभाg कये जाने क संभावना है;
और, उ अनुसूची म वणत भूिम के े म अंतव" करने वाला रेखांक सं% या यूपीआरवीयूएनएल/4(1)/योजना/राज)व/01,
तारीख 24 िसतबर, , , , 2018 का िनरीण मु% य इंजीिनयर का काया.लय, उ/ तर 0देश रा2 य िव3ुत उ/ पादन िनगम िलिमटेड, चौथा
तल टीसी, 46/वी, समाज क याण भवन, िवभूित खंड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ-226010(उ7र 0देश) के काया.लय अथवा मु% य महा
0बंधक (खोज 0भाग), के= >ीय खनन योजना और िडजाइन सं) थान िलिमटेड, गAडवाना B लेस, कांके रोड, रांची (झारखंड) के
काया.लय अथवा कोयला िनयं क का काया.लय, 1, काउंिसल हाउस ) Dीट, कोलकाता-700001 अथवा उपायु का काया.लय, , , ,
कलEटरी काया.लय, दुमका िजला, दुमका, झारखंड-814101 म कया जा सकता है।
अतः अब, केीय सरकार, कोयला धारक <े* (अज-न और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम'
इसके प?ात उb अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उपधारा (1) `ारा दl शिbय का योग करते aए, उb
अनुसूची म' विणत भूिम म' कोयले का पूवN<ण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ।
उb अनुसूची म' उिलिखत भूिम म' िहतबW कोई t यिX त -
(i)
संपूण- भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या उb भूिम म' या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अज-न पर आ<ेप कर सकेगा;
अथवा
(ii)
उसक धारा 4 क उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क गई कसी कार-वाई से aई या होने वाली संभािवत कसी <ित के
िलए उb अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा ; अथवा
(iii)
उb अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन पूवN<ण अनु/िg के भावहीन होने के संबंध म' या
उb अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (4) के अधीन खनन पuे के भावहीन होने के िलए ितकर का दावा
कर सकेगा और उसे उb अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म' िविनvदn मद क
बाबत उपगत य को उपदIशत करने के िलए पूवwb भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिच*, चाटx और अय
द5तावेज को प2रदl कर सकेगा,
इस अिधसूचना के राजप* के काशन के तारीख से न]बे दन के भीतर मु% य इंजीिनयर का काया.लय, उ/ तर 0देश रा2 य िव3ुत
उ/ पादन िनगम िलिमटेड, चौथा तल टीसी, 46/वी, समाज क याण भवन, , , , िवभूित खंड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ-226010 के
काया-लय को भेजेग'।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
सहारपुर
सहारपुर
सहारपुर
सहारपुर – जापानी कोयला लॉ
जापानी कोयला लॉ
जापानी कोयला लॉ
जापानी कोयला लॉक
िजला दुमका
िजला दुमका
िजला दुमका
िजला दुमका, , , , झारखंड
झारखंड
झारखंड
झारखंड
( रेखांक सं% या यूपीआरवीयूएनएल
/4
)
1
/(
योजना/राज)व
/
01 , तारीख 24 िसतबर, , , , 2108)
(. सं.
(. सं.
(. सं.
(. सं.
,ा
,ा
,ा
,ाम का नाम
म का नाम
म का नाम
म का नाम
पटवारी
पटवारी
पटवारी
पटवारी
सक6ल
सक6ल
सक6ल
सक6ल
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
सं)या
/थाना
/थाना
/थाना
/थाना
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
.ेफल
हे1 टे
हे1 टे
हे1 टे
हे1 टेयर म2 (लगभग)
यर म2 (लगभग)
यर म2 (लगभग)
यर म2 (लगभग)
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
ट3पिणयां
1.
कौ2रगढ़
32
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
48.53
भाग
2.
धोलकाटा
1
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
124.73
भाग
3.
पहारमचुआन
2
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
6.60
भाग
4.
िसमािनजोर
4
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
40.50
भाग
5.
डलडली
5
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
125.14
भाग
6.
लगालभांग
7
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
49.28
पूण-
6892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
पटपहाड़ी
6
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
47.26
पूण-
8.
पोख2रया
4
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
16.10
भाग
9.
मािझलािडह
6
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
143.20
भाग
10.
िनझोर
5
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
87.76
पूण-
11.
पहाड़पुर
13
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
17.45
भाग
12.
पोराबंसरी
14
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
16.52
भाग
13.
सारसदंगा
12
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
164.44
भाग
14.
जाोपानी
11
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
179.70
भाग
15.
छोटा चािप2रया
14
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
2.50
भाग
16.
बड़ा चािप2रया
15
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
5.09
भाग
17.
लताकंदर
10
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
13.13
भाग
18.
मqापहाड़ी
8
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
282.93
भाग
19.
aलसडांगा
2
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
48.56
भाग
20.
माaलबाना
25
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
26.05
भाग
21.
िच6िडह
3
िशकारीपाड़ा
दुमका
64.55
भाग
कुल .ेफल
कुल .ेफल
कुल .ेफल
कुल .ेफल :-1510.02
1510.02
1510.02
1510.02 हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर
हे1टेयर (लगभग
लगभग
लगभग
लगभग) ) ) ) अथवा
अथवा
अथवा
अथवा 3731.26
3731.26
3731.26
3731.26 एकड़
एकड़
एकड़
एकड़ (लगभग
लगभग
लगभग
लगभग)
सीमा
सीमा
सीमा
सीमा-वण6न
वण6न
वण6न
वण6न :
1)
रेखा 1-2: रेखा, कौ2रगढ़ {ाम (थाना सं3 या 04/0032) के म य भाग म' िबदु '1' से ारंभ होती है, जो पूवZ दशा म'
मुड़ते aए {ाम िसमानीजोड़ (थाना सं3 या 01/0004) से गुजरती है और डालडाली {ाम (थाना सं3 या 01/0005) के
दि<ण-पि?म भाग म' िबदु '2' पर समा| त होती है ।
2)
रेखा 2-3: रेखा, डालडाली {ाम (थाना सं3 या 01/0005) के दि<ण-पि?म भाग म' िबदु '2' से ारंभ होती है, जो
उR तरी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम िसमानीजोड़ (थाना सं3 या 01/0004) और िचUिडह (थाना सं3 या 01/0003) से
गुजरती है और माaलबना {ाम (थाना सं3 या 04/0025) के म य भाग म' िबदु '3' पर समा| त होती है।
3)
रेखा 3-4: रेखा, माaलबना {ाम (थाना सं3 या 04/0025) के म य भाग म' िबदु '3' से ारंभ होती है, जो उR तर-पूवZ
दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम aलासदांगा (थाना सं3 या 01/0002) के म य भाग म' िबदु '4' पर समा| त होती है।
4)
रेखा 4-5: रेखा, {ाम aलासदांगा (थाना सं3 या 01/0002) के म य भाग म' िबदु '4' से ारंभ होती है, जो पूवZ दशा
म' मुड़ते aए {ाम aलासदांगा (थाना सं3 या 01/0002) के म य भाग म' िबदु '5' पर समा| त होती है।
5)
रेखा 5-6: रेखा, {ाम aलासदांगा (थाना सं3 या 01/0002) के म य भाग म' िबदु '5' से ारंभ होती है, जो दि<ण-पूवZ
दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम मqपहाड़ी (थाना सं3 या 01/0008) के उR तरी भाग म' िबदु '6' पर समा| त होती है।
6)
रेखा 6-7: रेखा, {ाम मqपहाड़ी (थाना सं3 या 01/0008) के उR तरी भाग म' िबदु '6' से ारंभ होती है, जो दि<ण-पूवZ
दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम मqपहाड़ी (थाना सं3 या 01/0008) के म य भाग म' िबदु '7' पर समा| त होती है।
7)
रेखा 7-8: रेखा, {ाम मqपहाड़ी (थाना सं3 या 01/0008) के म य भाग म' िबदु '7' से ारंभ होती है, जो दि<ण-पूवZ
दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम जापानी (थाना सं3 या 01/0011) के उR तर-पि?मी भाग म' िबदु '8' पर समा| त होती है।
8)
रेखा 8-9: रेखा, {ाम जापानी (थाना सं3 या 01/0011) के उR तर-पि?मी भाग म' िबदु '8' से ारंभ होती है, जो
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6893
उR तर-पूवZ दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम लताकंदर (थाना सं3 या 01/0010) के दि<ण-पि?मी भाग म' {ाम लताकंदर (थाना
सं3 या 01/0010) और {ाम जापानी (थाना सं3 या 01/0011) क सीमा के िनकट िबदु '9' पर समा| त होती है।
9)
रेखा 9-10: रेखा, {ाम लताकंदर (थाना सं3 या 01/0010) क दि<ण-पि?मी सीमा म' {ाम लताकंदर (थाना सं3 या
01/0010) और {ाम जापानी (थाना सं3 या 01/0011) क सीमा के िनकट िबदु '9' से ारंभ होती है, जो उR तर-पूवZ
दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम लताकंदर (थाना सं3 या 01/0010) के म य भाग म' िबदु '10' पर समा| त होती है।
10) रेखा 10-11: रेखा, {ाम लताकंदर (थाना सं3 या 01/0010) के म य भाग म' िबदु '10' से ारंभ होती है, जो दि<ण-
पूवZ दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम बड़ा चपि़डया (थाना सं3 या 01/0015) के दि<ण-पूवZ भाग म' {ाम बड़ा चपि़डया (थाना
सं3 या 01/0015) और छोटा चपि़डया (थाना सं3 या 01/0014) क सीमा के िनकट िबदु '11' पर समा| त होती है।
11) रेखा 11-12: रेखा, {ाम बड़ा चपि़डया (थाना सं3 या 01/0015) के पूवZ भाग म' बड़ा चपि़डया (थाना सं3 या
01/0015) और छोटा चपि़डया (थाना सं3 या 01/0014) क सीमा के िनकट िबदु '11' से ारंभ होती है, जो दि<ण
दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) के उR तर-पूवZ भाग म' िबदु '12' पर समा| त होती है।
12) रेखा 12-13: रेखा, {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) के उR तर-पूवZ भाग म' िबदु '12' से ारंभ होती है, जो
दि<ण दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) के दि<ण-पि?मी दशा म' िबदु '13' पर समा| त
होती है।
13) रेखा 13-14: रेखा, {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) के म य भाग म' िबदु '13' से ारंभ होती है, जो दि<ण-
पि?म दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) के दि<ण-पि?मी भाग म' िबदु '14' पर समा| त
होती है ।
14) रेखा 14-15: रेखा, {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) के दि<ण-पि?म भाग म' िबदु '14' से ारंभ होती है,
जो दि<ण-पूवZ दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) के दि<ण-पूवZ भाग म' िबदु '15' पर
समा| त होती है।
15) रेखा 15-16: रेखा, {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) के दि<ण-पूवZ भाग म' िबदु '15' से ारंभ होती है, जो
दि<ण-पि?मी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम पोराबंसारी के उR तर-पूवZ भाग म' {ाम पोराबंसारी (थाना सं3 या 05/0014)
और {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) क सीमा के िनकट िबदु '16' पर समा| त होती है।
16) रेखा 16-17: रेखा, {ाम पोराबंसारी (थाना सं3 या 05/0014) के उR तर-पूवZ भाग म' {ाम पोराबंसारी (थाना सं3 या
05/0014) और {ाम सारसदंगल (थाना सं3 या 01/0012) क सीमा के िनकट िबदु '16' से ारंभ होती है, जो पि?मी
दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम पहाड़पुर (थाना सं3 या 05/0013) से गुजरते aए {ाम मािझलािडह (थाना सं3 या 05/0006) के
पूवZ भाग म' िबदु '17' पर समा| त होती है।
17) रेखा 17-18: रेखा, {ाम मािझलािडह (थाना सं3 या 05/0006) के पूवZ भाग म' िबदु '17' से ारंभ होती है, जो उR तर-
पि?मी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम मािझलािडह (थाना सं3 या 05/0006) के पि?मी भाग म' िबदु '18' पर समा| त होती
है।
18) रेखा 18-19: रेखा, {ाम मािझलािडह (थाना सं3 या 05/0006) के पि?मी भाग म' िबदु '18' से ारंभ होती है, जो
उR तर-पि?मी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम पोख2रया (थाना सं3 या 05/0004) के म य भाग म' िबदु '19' पर समा| त होती
है।
19) रेखा 19-20: रेखा, {ाम पोख2रया (थाना सं3 या 05/0004) के म य भाग म' िबदु '19' से ारंभ होती है, जो उR तर-
पूवZ दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम डालडाली (थाना सं3 या 01/0005) के दि<ण-पूवZ भाग म' {ाम डालडाली (थाना सं3 या
01/0005) और पटपहाड़ी (थाना सं3 या 01/0006) क सीमा के िनकट िबदु ‘20’ पर समा| त होती है।
20) रेखा 20-21: रेखा, {ाम डालडाली (थाना सं3 या 01/0005) के दि<ण-पूवZ भाग म' {ाम डालडाली (थाना सं3 या
01/0005) और पटपहाड़ी (थाना सं3 या 01/0006) क सीमा के िनकट िबदु ‘20’ से ारंभ होती है, जो उR तर-
6894
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
पि?मी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम डालडाली (थाना सं3 या 01/0005) के म य भाग म' िबदु ‘21’ पर समा| त होती है।
21) रेखा 21-22: रेखा, {ाम डालडाली (थाना सं3 या 01/0005) के म य भाग म' िबदु ‘21’ से ारंभ होती है, जो दि<णी-
पि?मी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम डालडाली (थाना सं3 या 01/0005) के दि<णी-पि?मी भाग म' िबदु ‘22’ पर समा| त
होती है।
22) रेखा 22-23: रेखा, {ाम डालडाली (थाना सं3 या 01/0005) के दि<णी-पि?मी भाग म' िबदु ‘22’ से ारंभ होती है,
जो दि<णी-पि?मी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम धोलकाटा (थाना सं3 या 05/0001) के पूवZ भाग म' िबदु ‘23’ पर समा| त
होती है।
23) रेखा 23-24: रेखा, {ाम धोलकाटा (थाना सं3 या 05/0001) के पूवZ भाग म' िबदु ‘23’ से ारंभ होती है, जो दि<णी-
पि?मी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम पहारमचुआन (थाना सं3 या 05/0002) के उR तर-पूवZ भाग म' िबदु ‘24’ पर समा| त
होती है।
24) रेखा 24-25 : रेखा, {ाम पहारमचुआन (थाना सं3 या 05/0002) के उlर-पूवZ भाग म' {ाम धोलकाटा (थाना सं3 या
05/0001) और {ाम पहारमचुआन (थाना सं3 या 05/0002) क सीमा के िनकट िब दु ‘24’ से ारंभ होती है, जो
उlर-पि?मी दशा म' मुड़ते aए {ाम को2रगढ (थाना सं3 या 04/0032) के म य भाग म' िब दु ‘25’ पर समा| त होती
है।
25) रेखा 25-1 : रेखा, {ाम को2रगढ़ (थाना सं3 या 04/0032) के म य भाग म' िब दु ‘25’ से ारंभ होती है, जो उlर दशा
म' मुड़ते aए {ाम को2रगढ (थाना सं3 या 04/0032) के उlर-पि?मी भाग म' िब दु ‘1’ पर समा| त होती है।
[फा. सं. 43015/16/2018-एलए एA ड आईआर]
आर. एस. सरोज, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 13th December, 2018
S.O. 1796.—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 UPRVUNL/ 4(1) / Plan / Revenue / 01, dated the 24th September, 2018
containing details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Chief Engineer,
Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, 4th Floor TC, 46/V, Samaj Kalyan Building, Vibhuti Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010 (Uttar Pradesh) or at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division),
Central Mine 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 Deputy Commissioner,
Collectorate Office, Dumka District, Dumka, Jharkhand - 814101.
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 of 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 Act in respect of prospecting licenses ceasing to
have effect or under sub - section (4) of section 13 of the Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and
deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of
items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub- section (1) of section 13 thereof,
to the officer of the Chief Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, 4th Floor TC, 46/V, Samaj
Kalyan Building, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow - 226010 within a period of ninety days from the date of
publication of this notification.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6895
SCHEDULE
SAHARPUR – JAMARPANI COAL BLOCK
DISTRICT DUMKA, JHARKHAND
[ Plan bearing number UPRVUNL/4(1)/Plan/Revenue/01,dated the 24th September, 2018]
Sl.
No.
Name of villagePatwari Circle
number /
Thana
number
Tahesil
District
Area in
hectare (approxi-
mately)
Remarks
1.
Kourigarh
32
Shikaripada
Dumka
48.53
Part
2.
Dholkata
1
Shikaripada
Dumka
124.73
Part
3.
Paharamchuan
2
Shikaripada
Dumka
6.60
Part
4.
Simanijor
4
Shikaripada
Dumka
40.50
Part
5.
Daldali
5
Shikaripada
Dumka
125.14
Part
6.
Langalbhanga
7
Shikaripada
Dumka
49.28
Full
7.
Patpahari
6
Shikaripada
Dumka
47.26
Full
8.
Pokharia
4
Shikaripada
Dumka
16.10
Part
9.
Majhiladih
6
Shikaripada
Dumka
143.20
Part
10.
Nijhor
5
Shikaripada
Dumka
87.76
Full
11.
Paharpur
13
Shikaripada
Dumka
17.45
Part
12.
Porabansri
14
Shikaripada
Dumka
16.52
Part
13.
Sarasdanga
12
Shikaripada
Dumka
164.44
Part
14.
Jamropani
11
Shikaripada
Dumka
179.70
Part
15.
Chhota Chapiria
14
Shikaripada
Dumka
2.50
Part
16.
Bara Chapiria
15
Shikaripada
Dumka
5.09
Part
17.
LataKander
10
Shikaripada
Dumka
13.13
Part
18.
Makrapahari
8
Shikaripada
Dumka
282.93
Part
19.
Hulasdanga
2
Shikaripada
Dumka
48.56
Part
20.
Mahulbana
25
Shikaripada
Dumka
26.05
Part
21.
Chirudih
3
Shikaripada
Dumka
64.55
Part
Total area : 1510.02 hectares (approximately) or 3731.26 acres (approximately)
Boundary description:
1) Line 1-2: The line starts at point ‘1’ in the middle part of the Kourigarh village (Thana Number 04/0032) trending in
easterly direction passing through village Simanijor (Thana number 01/0004) and ends at point ‘2’ in the south west
part of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005).
6896
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2)
Line 2-3: The line starts at point ‘2’ in the south west part of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005) trending in
northerly direction passing through village Simanijor (Thana number 01/0004) & Chirudih (Thana number
01/0003) and ends at point ‘3’ in the middle part of Mahulbana village (Thana Number 04/0025).
3)
Line 3-4: The line starts at point ‘3’ in the middle part of Mahulbana village (Thana Number 04/0025) trending in
north-easterly direction and ends at point ‘4’ in the middle part of Hulasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0002).
4)
Line 4-5: The line starts at point ‘4’ in the middle part of Hulasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0002) trending in
easterly direction and ends at point ‘5’ in the middle part of Hulasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0002).
5)
Line 5-6: The line starts at point ‘5’ in the middle part of Hulasdanga village (Thana Number 01/0002) trending in
south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘6’ in the northern part of Makrapahari village (Thana Number 01/0008).
6)
Line 6-7: The line starts at point ‘6’ in the northern part of Makrapahari village (Thana Number 01/0008) trending
in south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘7’ in the middle part of Makrapahari village (Thana Number
01/0008).
7)
Line 7-8: The line starts at point ‘7’ in the middle part of Makrapahari village (Thana Number 01/0008) trending
south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘8’ in the north-west part of Jamorpani village (Thana Number 01/0011).
8)
Line 8-9: The line starts at point ‘8’ in the north-western part of Jamorpani village (Thana Number 01/0011)
trending north-easterly direction and ends at point ‘9’ in the south western part of Latakander village (Thana
Number 01/0010) close to the village boundary of Latakander village (Thana Number 01/0010) and Jamorpani
village (Thana Number 01/0011).
9)
Line 9-10: The line starts at point ‘9’ in the south western boundary of Latakander village (Thana Number
01/0010) close to the village boundary of Latakander village (Thana Number 01/0010) and Jamorpani village
(Thana Number 01/0011) trending north-easterly direction and ends at point ‘10’ in the middle part of Latakander
village (Thana Number 01/0010).
10)
Line 10-11: The line starts at point ‘10’ in the middle part of Latakander village (Thana Number 01/0010) trending
south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘11’ in the south-eastern part of Bara Chaparia (Thana Number 01/0015)
close to the village boundary of Bara Chaparia (Thana Number 01/0015) and Chota Chaparia (Thana Number
01/0014).
11)
Line 11-12: The line starts at point ‘11’ in the eastern part of Bara Chaparia (Thana Number 01/0015) close to the
village boundary of Bara Chaparia (Thana Number 01/0015) and Chota Chaparia (Thana Number 01/0014)
trending southerly direction and ends at point ‘12’ in the north-eastern part of Sarasdangal village (Thana Number
01/0012).
12)
Line 12-13: The line starts at point ‘12’ in the north-eastern part of Sarasdangal village (Thana Number 01/0012)
trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘13’ in middle part of Sarasdangal village (Thana Number
01/0012).
13)
Line 13-14: The line starts at point ‘13’ in the middle part of Sarasdangal village (Thana Number 01/0012)
trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘14’ in the south-western part of Sarasdangal village (Thana
Number 01/0012).
14)
Line 14-15: The line starts at point ‘14’ in the south-western part of Sarasdangal village (Thana Number 01/0012)
trending south-easterly direction and ends at point ‘15’ in the south-eastern part of Sarasdangal village (Thana
Number 01/0012).
15)
Line 15-16: The line starts at point ‘15’ in the south-eastern part of Sarasdangal village (Thana Number 01/0012)
trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘16’ in the north-eastern part of Porabansri village close to the
village boundary of Porabansri village (Thana Number 05/0014) and Sarasdangal village (Thana Number
01/0012).
16)
Line 16-17: The line starts at point ‘16’ in the north-eastern part of Porabansri village (Thana Number 05/0014)
close to the village boundary of Porabansri village (Thana Number 05/0014) and Sarasdangal village (Thana
Number 01/0012) trending westerly direction passing through village Paharpur (Thana number 05/0013) and ends
at point ‘17’ in the eastern part of Majhiladih village (Thana Number 05/0006).
17)
Line 17-18: The line starts at point ‘17’ in the eastern part of Majhiladih village (Thana Number 05/0006) trending
north-westerly direction and ends at point ‘18’ in the western part of Majhiladih village (Thana Number 05/0006).
18)
Line 18-19: The line starts at point ‘18’ in the western part of Majhiladih village (Thana Number 05/0006)
trending north-westerly direction and ends at point ‘19’ in the middle part of Pokharia village (Thana Number
05/0004).
19)
Line 19-20: The line starts at point ‘19’ in the middle part of the Pokharia village (Thana Number 05/0004)
trending north-easterly direction and ends at point ‘20’ in the south-eastern part of Daldali village (Thana Number
01/0005) close to the village boundary of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005) and Patpahari village (Thana
Number 01/0006).
20)
Line 20-21: The line starts at point ‘20’ in the south-eastern part of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005) close
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6897
to the village boundary of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005) and Patpahari village (Thana Number 01/0006)
trending north-westerly direction and ends at point ‘21’ in the middle part of Daldali village (Thana Number
01/0005).
21)
Line 21-22: The line starts at point ‘21’ in the middle part of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005) trending
south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘22’ in the south-western part of Daldali village (Thana Number
01/0005).
22)
Line 22-23: The line starts at point ‘22’ in the south-western part of Daldali village (Thana Number 01/0005)
trending south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘23’ in the eastern part of Dholkata village (Thana Number
05/0001).
23)
Line 23-24: The line starts at point ‘23’ in the eastern part of Dholkata village (Thana Number 05/0001) trending
south-westerly direction and ends at point ‘24’ in the north-eastern part of Paharamchuan village (Thana Number
05/0002).
24)
Line 24-25: The line starts at point ‘24’ in the north-eastern part of Paharamchuan village (Thana Number
05/0002) close to village boundary of Dholkata village (Thana Number 05/0001) and Paharamchuan village
(Thana Number 05/0002) trending north-westerly direction and ends at point ‘25’ in the middle part of Kourigarh
village (Thana Number 04/0032).
25)
Line 25-1: The line starts at point ‘25’ in the middle part of Kourigarh village (Thana Number 04/0032) trending
northerly direction and ends at point ‘1’ in the north-western part of Kourigarh village (Thana Number 04/0032).
[ F. No. 43015/16/2018-LA&IR ]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.
उपभो:ा
उपभो:ा
उपभो:ा
उपभो:ा मामले
मामले
मामले
मामले, , , , खा;
खा;
खा;
खा; और
और
और
और साव6जिनक
साव6जिनक
साव6जिनक
साव6जिनक िवतरण
िवतरण
िवतरण
िवतरण मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(खा;
खा;
खा;
खा; और
और
और
और साव6जिनक
साव6जिनक
साव6जिनक
साव6जिनक िवतरण
िवतरण
िवतरण
िवतरण िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग)
नई दली, 12 नव बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1797.
1797.
1797.
1797.—केीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, , , , 1976 के िनयम 10
के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म' उपभोbा मामले, , , , खाf और साव-जिनक िवतरण मं*ालय (खाf और साव-जिनक िवतरण
िवभाग) के शासिनक िनयं*णाधीन िनcिलिखत काया-लय, , , , िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम-चारीवृद ने िहदी का
काय-साधक /ान ाg कर िलया है, , , , को राजप* म' अिधसूिचत करती है:-
1. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, िभवानी,| लांट नं. 75, सेX टर-21,एनसीसीएफ दाल िमल, इ ड5 iीयल ए2रया, िभवानी
2. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, असंध, यू {ेन माकNट, िसरसल रोड, असंध – 132039
3. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, फतेहाबाद
माकNट कमेटी गोदाम, यू {ेन माकNट के पास, एसबीआई, फतेहाबाद-125050, िजला - फतेहाबाद
4. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, पलवल
डायमA ड हाि5 पटल के सामने, गांव अगवानपुर, एनएच-2, पो5 ट आफस बगोला, पलवल - 121102
5. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, मंडी नेर चौक, मंडी - 175008 (िहमाचल देश)
6898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, देहरा,
खाबली डोसारका, पो5 ट आफस- बरवारा, देहरा, िजला- कांगड़ा, िहमाचल देश - 177101
7. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, गोहाना
मोर वेअरहाउJसग कॉ पलेX स, जFद रोड, खंडारा मोड़ गोहाना के पास,िजला - सोनीपत
8. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, बरही `ारा एचएसआईडीसी कॉ पलेX स जीटी रोड, | लांट न. 475-478,
तहसील – गनोर, बरही, िजला – सोनीपत
9. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, कुU<े*, पीपली कुU<े* रोड, िजला जेल के सामने, सेX टर-5, कुU<े*
10. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, सोलनगांव काथक, पो5 ट ऑफस – च बाघाट, सोलन - 173213
11. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, रोहतक, लाल गोदाम, नई अनाज मA डी, क चा बेरी रोड, रोहतक - 124001
12. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम, स'iल वेयरहाउस, िहसार, िसरसा रोड, िहसार - 125001
13. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, टोहाना
`ारा एचएसआईडीसी कॉ पलेX स, रेलवे 5 टेशन के सामने, टोहाना – 125120, िजला – फतेहाबाद
14. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, सोनीपत िनयर कालुपुर चुंगी, पुरानी रोहतक रोड, सोनीपत - 130001
15. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, िसरसा
| लांट नं. 7-22 एचएसआईडीसी कॉ पलेX स, द ली पुल के पास, िहसार रोड, िसरसा- 125055
16. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, मंडी आदमपुर, िजला - िहसार 125052
17. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, करनाल - III, बिजदा जाटन रोड, जंदला गेट के बाहर, करनाल - 132001
18. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, नरवाना, यू अनाज मंडी, नरवाना, िजला - जFद - 126116
19. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, कैथल,
सनशाईन 5 कूल के सामने, जFद रोड, पो5 ट बॉX स न. 26, कैथल - 136027
20. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, उकलाना, {ेन माकNट के पास, माvकट कमेटी गोदाम, िसरसा रोड, उकलाना
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6899
21. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, चरखी दादरी, बस 5 टैA ड के पास, चरखी दादरी,िजला – िभवानी 127306
22. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, जगाधरी, एचएसआईडीसी कॉ पलेX स, मानकपुर, जगाधरी - 135001
23. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, इंी, स'iल वेअरहाउस, यू अनाज मंडी के पास, इंी, िजला - करनाल - 132041
24. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, नारायणगढ़, गवन-म'ट कॉलेज के पास, कुलरपुर रोड, नारायणगढ़, - 134203
25. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, करनाल-I, यू अनाज मंडी के पास, मटक मजारी, करनाल -132001
26. क'ीय भंडारण िनगम,
स'iल वेयरहाउस, लाडवा, िहनोरी रोड, लाडवा, िजला- कुU<े*
[सं. ई-11011/1/2008-िहदी]
कमल दlा, , , , संयुb सिचव
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Food & Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 12th November, 2018
S.O. 1797.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department Of Food & Public Distribution), whereof more
than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
1. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Bhiwani
Plant No 75, Sector-21, NCCF Dal Mill, Industrial Area, Bhiwani
2. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Assandh
New Grain Market, Sirsal Road, Assandh-132039
3. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Fatehabad
Market Committee Godown, Near New Grain Market, SBI,
District Fatehabad, Fatehabad – 125050
4. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Palwal
In front of Diamond Hospital, Village Agawanpur,
NH-2, Post office Bagola, Palwal – 121102
5. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Mandi, Ner Chowk Mandi-175008 (Himachal Pradesh)
6. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Dehra,
Khabli Dosaraka, Post Office – Barwara, Dehara,
District- Kangra,Himachal Pradesh – 177101
7. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Gohana
More Warehousing Complex, Jind Road, Khandara mod, Gohana, District – Sonipat
8. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Barahi
C/o HSIDC Complex, GT Road, Plant no 475-478,
Barahi, Tehsil – Ganor, District – Sonipat
6900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Pipli Kurukshetra Road, in front of the District Jail, Sector-5, Kurukshetra
10. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Solan
Village Kathak, Post Office – Chambaghat, Solan – 173213
11. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Rohtak
Lal Godam, Nayi Annaj Mandi, Kachcha Beri Road, Rohtak – 124001
12. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Hisar, Sirsa Road, Hisar – 125001
13. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Tohana
C/o HSIDC Complex, In front of the Railway Station,
Tohana – 125120, District – Fatehabad
14. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Sonipat
Near Kalupur Chungi, Old Rohtak Road, Sonipat – 130001
15. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Sirsa
Plant no 7-22 HSIDC Complex, Near Delhi Bridge, Hisar Road, Sirsa- 125055
16. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Mandi Adampur, District – Hisar- 125052
17. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Karnal –III
Bajida Jaatan Road, Outside Jandla Gate, Karnal -132001
18. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Narvaana
New Grain Market, Narvaana, District- Jind- 126116
19. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Kaithal
In front of Sunshine School, Jind Road, Post Box No.26, Kaithal – 136027
20. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Uklaana
Near the Grain Market, Market Committee Godown, Sirsa road, Uklana
21. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Charkhi Dadri
Near Bus Stand, Charkhari Dadri, District – Bhiwan – 127306
22. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Jagadhari
HSIDC Complex, Manakpur, Jagadhari – 135001
23. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Indri
Central Warehouse, Near New Grain Market, Indri, District-Karnal- 132041
24. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Narayangarh
Near Government College, Kularpur Road, Narayangarh – 134203
25. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Karnal-I
Near New Grain Market, Matak Majari,
Karnal – 132001
26. Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse, Ladwa
Hinori Road, Ladwa, District-Kurukshetra
[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]
KAMAL DATTA, Jt. Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6901
व
व
व
व मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई द ली, 12 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 1798
1798
1798
1798.—के सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के
उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म', व5 * मं*ालय के अंतग-त आने वाले िन निलिखत काया-लय, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक
कम-चा2रय ने Jहदी का काय-साधक /ान ा| त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है :
बुनकर सेवा के , िवकास आयुX त (हथकरघा) का काया-लय, खानपारा, गुवाहाटी – 781022
[सं. ई-11016/1/2015-Jहदी]
जया दूबे, संयुX त सिचव
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S. O. 1798.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Official Language (Use for the official purpose of the
union) Rules, 1976, the central Government, hereby notifes the following office of the Ministry of Textiles, more than
80% staff where of have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :
Weavers Service Center, Office of Development Commissioner (Handlooms) Khanapara, Guwahati-781022.
[No. E-11016/1/2015-Hindi)
JAYA DUBEY, Jt. Secy.
मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय
मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय
मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय
मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय
(उ चतर िश<ा िवभाग)
नई द ली, 13 दस बर, 2018
का. आ
का. आ
का. आ
का. आ. . . . 1799
1799
1799
1799.—इस मं*ालय क दनांक 23 नव बर, 2016 और 29 जून, 2017 क समसं3 यक अिधसूचना के
अनुसरण म' और ओरोिवले ितh ठान अिधिनयम 1988 (1988 का 54) क धारा 12 के साथ प2ठत धारा 11 `ारा दR त
शिbय का योग करते aए, के सरकार एतद`ारा डॉ. के. परमेC वरन, िविध एसोिसएट ोफेसर िविध और पूव- डीन,
अकादिमक काय- गुजरात राh iीय िविध िवC विवfालय, गांधीनगर, गुजरात को इस अिधसूचना क तारीख से भावी अविध
के िलए और 23 नव बर, 2016 क समसं3 यक अिधसूचना के ज2रए अिधसूिचत ओरोिवले ितh ठान के शासी बोड- के
आरंिभक गठन के काय-काल तक ओरोिवले ितh ठान के शासी बोड- का सद5 य मनोनीत करती है।
2.
29 जून, 2017 क समसं3 यक अिधसूचना के ज2रए अिधसूिचत ओरोिवले ितh ठान के शासी बोड- के चार सद5 य
का काय-काल एतद`ारा इस अिधसूचना क तारीख से भावी अविध के िलए और 23 नव बर, 2016 क समसं3 यक
अिधसूचना के ज2रए अिधसूिचत ओरोिवले ितh ठान के शासी बोड- के आरंिभक गठन के काय-काल तक संशोिधत करती है।
[फा. सं. 27-9/2012-यूयू]
डॉ. एन. सरवण कुमार, संयुX त सिचव
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
New Delhi, the 13th December, 2018
S. O. 1799.—In continuation of this Ministry’s Notifications of even number dated 23rd November, 2016 and
29th June, 2017 and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 read with section 12, of the Auroville Foundation
Act, 1988 (54 of 1988), the Central Government hereby nominates Dr. K . Parameswaran, Associate Professor of Law &
Former Dean of Academic Affairs, Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat as member of the Governing
Board of the Auroville Foundation for a period effective from the date of notification and up to the term of the initial
6902
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
constitution of the Governing Board of Auroville Foundation, notified vide Notification of even number dated 23rd
November, 2016.
2.
The term of the four members of the Governing Board of Auroville Foundation notified vide notification of
even number dated 29th June, 2017 is hereby rectified as ‘for a period effective from the date of notification and up to the
term of the initial constitution of the Governing Board of Auroville Foundation, notified vide Notification of even
number dated 23rd November, 2016’.
[F. No. 27-9/2012-UU]
DR. N. SARAVANA KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
परमाणु
परमाणु
परमाणु
परमाणु ऊजा6
ऊजा6
ऊजा6
ऊजा6 िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
(पावर अनुभाग
पावर अनुभाग
पावर अनुभाग
पावर अनुभाग)
मु बई, 20 नव बर, 2017
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 1800
1800
1800
1800.—केीय सरकार, केीय िवfुत ािधकरण के परामश- से, िवfुत अिधिनयम, 2003 के खAड 45
के उप-खAड (1) के साथ प2ठत परमाणु ऊजा- अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 33वाँ) के खAड 22 के उप-खAड (1) क धारा
(ख) `ारा दl शिbय का योग करते aए एत:ारा नीचे दए अनुसार वे मानदAड िनधा-2रत करती है िजनके अनुसार
परमाणु िबजलीघर `ारा राTय िवfुत बोड- को और अय िbय को िबq क जाने वाली िबजली का शुक िनधा-2रत कया
जाएगा:
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
तकनीक>
तकनीक>
तकनीक>
तकनीक> मानद#ड
मानद#ड
मानद#ड
मानद#ड :
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
थािपत
थािपत
थािपत
थािपत .मता
.मता
.मता
.मता
परमाणु ऊजा- आयोग `ारा अनुमोदत िबजलीघर क यथाथ-वादी ाgयोय <मता अपनाई जाएगी।
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
संयं
संयं
संयं
संयं भार
भार
भार
भार गुणक
गुणक
गुणक
गुणक
दािबत भारी पानी 2रएXटर
68.5% (िजसक पुनरी<ा इन टै2रफ मानदंड क अिधसूचना क
ितिथ से 2 वष- बाद क जाएगी)
केकेएनपीपी 1 एवं 2
68.5% (िजसक पुनरी<ा इन टै2रफ मानदंड क अिधसूचना क
ितिथ से 2 वष- बाद क जाएगी)
बीड]यूआर – टीएपीएस 1 एवं 2
68.5%
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
िथरीकरण
िथरीकरण
िथरीकरण
िथरीकरण क>
क>
क>
क> अविध
अविध
अविध
अविध
नये ौfोिगक वाले 2रएXटर तथा 700 मेगावाट क पहली इकाई के िलए एक वष- क ि5थरीकरण अविध
िनधा-2रत क जाती है।
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
अितर: खपत
अितर: खपत
अितर: खपत
अितर: खपत
िबजली क अित2रb खपत, िविभ कार के 2रएXटर के िलए मानकय उRपादन के ितशत के 6प म' िनcानुसार
मानी जाएगी :
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
मानक>य उCपादन का Bितशत
मानक>य उCपादन का Bितशत
मानक>य उCपादन का Bितशत
मानक>य उCपादन का Bितशत
बॉयJलग वाटर 2रएXटर यूिनट टीएपीएस 1 तथा 2
9%
पीएचड]यूआर 220 MW
(कूल'ट टावर के िबना)
10.50%
पीएचड]यूआर 220 MW (कूल'ट टावर सिहत)
11.75%
पीएचड]यूआर 540 एवं 700 MW
10.20%
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6903
(कूल'ट टावर के िबना)
पीएचड]यूआर 700 MW (कूल'ट टावर सिहत)
11.25%
साधारण जल 2रएXटर – केकेएनपीपी इकाई 1 एवं 2
7.8% (िजसक पुनरी<ा इन टै2रफ मानदंड क
अिधसूचना क ितिथ से 2 वष- बाद क जाएगी)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
वाDषक
वाDषक
वाDषक
वाDषक Fधन
Fधन
Fधन
Fधन Bित
Bित
Bित
BितBा
Bा
Bा
BािG
िG
िG
िG संबंधी
संबंधी
संबंधी
संबंधी Bभार
Bभार
Bभार
Bभार (एएफआरसी)
एएफआरसी)
एएफआरसी)
एएफआरसी)
दािबत भारी पानी 2रएXटर के मामले म' वाIषक धन ितािg संबंधी भार का िनधा-रण इस कार से कया जाएगा क
वत-मान मूय 15 वष- क अविध म' 12% क 2रयायती दर पर धन के आधे भार के मूय के बराबर हो जाए। केकेएनपीपी
हेतु ईएमसीसीआर/ईएमएफआर आद के बाद जब कभी नया धन भरा जाता है तो, एएफआरसी इस कार से िनधा-2रत
करेगा क वत-मान मूय भार 15 वष- क अविध म' 12% क 2रयायती दर पर धन के ारंिभक भरण के दो-ितहाई मूय के
बराबर हो जाए।
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Fधन
Fधन
Fधन
Fधन क>
क>
क>
क> खपत
खपत
खपत
खपत :
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
Fधन क> खपत
Fधन क> खपत
Fधन क> खपत
Fधन क> खपत
बॉयJलग वाटर 2रएXटर (टीएपीएस 1 एवं 2)
138 MWD/MU
दािबत भारी पानी 2रएXटर (200/220/540/ 700 MW)
27 Kg / MU
एलड]यूआर – केकेएनपीपी 1 एवं 2 (1000 MWe)
125 MWD / MU
धन क कमत परमाणु ऊजा- िवभाग `ारा ितवष- अिधसूिचत क जाएगी। धन संबंधी लागत का प2रकलन, ऊपर
दी गई धन क खपत क दर को कसी भी समय िबजलीघर पर उपल]ध धन क भा2रत औसत कमत से गुणा
करके कया जाएगा। धन क खपत संबंधी भार, धन क कमत म' िविभता के समायोजन पर िनभ-र करेगा।
ऐसे समायोजन भार के प2रणाम5व6प भावी शुक दर म' िविभता, शुक म' प2रवत-न अथवा संशोधन नहF
मानी जाएगी।
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
भारी पानी
भारी पानी
भारी पानी
भारी पानी इंव2Iी
इंव2Iी
इंव2Iी
इंव2Iी (Bित रए1टर
Bित रए1टर
Bित रए1टर
Bित रए1टर):):):):
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
भारी पानी इंव2Iी
भारी पानी इंव2Iी
भारी पानी इंव2Iी
भारी पानी इंव2Iी (Bित
Bित
Bित
Bित
रए1टर
रए1टर
रए1टर
रए1टर)
पीएचड] यूआर - 220 MW इकाई
287.50 टन
पीएचड] यूआर - 540 MW एवं 700 MW इकाईय
570 टन
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
भारी
भारी
भारी
भारी पानी
पानी
पानी
पानी पJा
पJा
पJा
पJा Bभार
Bभार
Bभार
Bभार:
पैरा 1.7 म' दए गए के अनुसार संयं* `ारा धा2रत भारी पानी इव'iी पर भारी पानी लीज भार समय-समय पर
पऊिव `ारा अिधसूिचत दर पर देय होगा। उह' इस कार से भा2रत कया जाता है ताक पuा भार क वसूली
समान वाIषक क5त म' हो जाए। भारी पानी पuा संबंधी भार, कमत म' िविभता के समायोजन पर िनभ-र
करेगा और ऐसे समायोजन के प2रणाम5व6प भावी शुक म' िविभता को, शुक म' संशोधन नहF माना जाएगा।
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
भारी
भारी
भारी
भारी पानी
पानी
पानी
पानी क>
क>
क>
क> .ितपूDत
.ितपूDत
.ितपूDत
.ितपूDत संबंधी
संबंधी
संबंधी
संबंधी मानदंड
मानदंड
मानदंड
मानदंड:
सभी दािबत भारी पानी 2रएXटर के िलए - 3 टन ित 2रएXटर ितवष-।
6904
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
<ितपूIत के िलए भारी पानी क कमत परमाणु ऊजा- िवभाग `ारा समय-समय पर अिधसूिचत क जाएगी। भारी
पानी क <ितपूIत संबंधी भार, कमत म' िविभता के समायोजन पर िनभ-र करेगा और ऐसे समायोजन के
प2रणाम5व6प भावी शुक म' िविभता को, शुक म' संशोधन नहF माना जाएगा।
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
Bचालन
चालन
चालन
चालन एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं अनुर.ण
अनुर.ण
अनुर.ण
अनुर.ण Bभार
Bभार
Bभार
Bभार एवं उसम2 बढ़ोLरी:
एवं उसम2 बढ़ोLरी:
एवं उसम2 बढ़ोLरी:
एवं उसम2 बढ़ोLरी:
वष- 2017-18 के िलए मानकय चालन एवं अनुर<ण भार नीचे दए गए अनुसार हगे:
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
रए1टर का Bकार
Bचालन एवं अनुर.ण Bभार
Bचालन एवं अनुर.ण Bभार
Bचालन एवं अनुर.ण Bभार
Bचालन एवं अनुर.ण Bभार
बीड]यूआर – टीएपीएस 1 एवं 2 -160 MWe
U. 56.37 लाख / MWe
पीएचड] यूआर – 220 MWe
U. 47.47 लाख / MWe
पीएचड] यूआर – 540 MWe
U. 27.02 लाख / MWe
पीएचड] यूआर – 700 MWe
U. 20.84 लाख / MWe
एलड]यूआर – 1000 MWe
U. 20.51 लाख /MWe
मानकय चालन एवं अनुर<ण भार बाद के वषx म' 6% ितवष- क दर से बढ़ाये जाएंग'।
जल भार/उप कर/लेवी एवं बीमा भार वा5तिवक पर भारयोय हगे और पृथक 6प से इनक अनुमित दी
जाएगी।
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
िवLीय
िवLीय
िवLीय
िवLीय मानदंड
मानदंड
मानदंड
मानदंड:
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
पूंजीगत लागत
पूंजीगत लागत
पूंजीगत लागत
पूंजीगत लागत :
प2रयोजना को पूरा करने पर कया गया वा5तिवक पूंजीगत य और शुक को िनधा-2रत करने/संशोिधत करने पर
कया गया अनुवतZ पूंजीगत य शुक िनधा-2रत करने का मानदंड होगा। िजस मामले म' वा5तिवक य अनुमोदत
प2रयोजना लागत से अिधक होगा उस मामले म' स<म ािधकारी (केीय सरकार/परमाणु ऊजा- आयोग/बोड- ऑफ
यूिXलयर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड) `ारा अनुमोदत कए अनुसार बढ़ी aई रािश का शुक
िनधा-2रत करने के योजन हेतु वा5तिवक पूंजीगत य माना जाएगा।
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
ऋण
ऋण
ऋण
ऋण इNOटी
इNOटी
इNOटी
इNOटी संरचना
संरचना
संरचना
संरचना:
भावी दािबत भारी पानी 2रएXटर के िलए ऋण इटी संरचना 70:30 होगी। चालनरत यूिनट और िनमा-णाधीन
प2रयोजना के िलए, पहले से िनधा-2रत िनिध संरचना को अपनाया जाएगा। दािबत भारी पानी 2रएXटर के
अलावा भावी प2रयोजना के िलए, ौfोिगकय क प2रपता और िवlीय व5था क बाधा के आधार पर
Rयेक मामले म' ऋण: इटी के अनुपात का िनधा-रण सरकार `ारा कया जाएगा। यद कसी भावी प2रयोजना के
मामले म', पैरा 1.2 (क) म' वIणत वा5तिवक इटी पूंजीगत य के 30% से अिधक हो जाती है, तो उस मामले म'
इटी पर आय केवल किपत इटी अथा-त् पूंजीगत य के 30% पर ही लागू होगी और अित2रb धनरािश को
प2रयोजना के िलए जुटाए गए ऋण के समान किपत ऋण और ]याज दर के 6प म' माना जाएगा।
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
इNOटी
इNOटी
इNOटी
इNOटी पर
पर
पर
पर आय
आय
आय
आय (आरओई)
आरओई)
आरओई)
आरओई):
इटी पर आय का प2रकलन शुक अविध के Rयेक वष- के दौरान लागू सामाय कर दर सिहत 15.5% क आधार दर के
आधार पर पूव- कर के 6प म' कया जाएगा। िजन प2रयोजना को मूल 6प से 5वीकृत समयाविध के भीतर कमीशन कया
जाता है उनके मामले म' 0.5% क इटी पर अित2रb आय उपल]ध होगी ।
(i)
इटी पूंजी िनc 6प म' वIणत है:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6905
"शुक के िनधा-रण के योजनाथ- िबजलीघर के िलए इटी पूंजी क संगणना, कुल संचयी िनवेश म' से िबजलीघर के
िलए उपयोग म' लाई गई ऋण रािश अथा-त् दl और अिभदl पूंजी और िबजलीघर के िलए उपयोग म' लाई गई
आंत2रक अिधशेष रािश को कम करने के बाद क जाएगी"।
(ii)
इटी को कसी भी मामले म' कम नहF कया जाएगा चाहे पूंजीगत प2रसंपिlय का मूयास aआ हो
अथवा नहF।
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
ऋण
ऋण
ऋण
ऋण रािश
रािश
रािश
रािश पर
पर
पर
पर याज
याज
याज
याज दर:
दर:
दर:
दर:
i)
वष- के ारंभ म' ऋण शीष- के अंतग-त लागू ]याज क भा2रत औसत दर के आधार पर ]याज का प2रकलन
कया जाएगा। Rयेक वष- के िलए ऋण क पुन: अदायगी उb वष- के िलए अनुमत मूयास के बराबर मानी
जाएगी।
ii)
भारत सरकार से बेिमयादी ऋण के मामले म' टै2रफ क गणना हेतु ऋण रािश कम नहF होगी Xयक ऋण
बेिमयादी है। इटी घटक पूरे िबजलीघर के जीवनकाल तक बना रहेगा और मूयास नहF होगा।
iii)
सरकारी ऋण के िलए ]याज क गणना समय-समय पर सरकार `ारा अिधसूिचत दर पर क जाएगी। यद
सरकार `ारा सरकारी ऋण हेतु ]याज क दर म' कोई प2रवत-न अिधसूिचत कया जाता है, तो वह टै2रफ के
संबंध म' 5वत: ही संबंिधत परमाणु िबजलीघर `ारा समायोजन के मा यम से लागू हो जायेगा। सरकार `ारा
जारी अिधसूचना के अनुसार ]याज दर म' aए संशोधन के प2रणाम5व6प भावी शुक म' िभता को शुक
म' संशोधन हेतु नहF माना जाएगा।
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
काय6कारी
काय6कारी
काय6कारी
काय6कारी पूंजीगत
पूंजीगत
पूंजीगत
पूंजीगत मानदंड
मानदंड
मानदंड
मानदंड:
(i)
धन का भंडार, दािबत भारी पानी 2रएXटर के मामले म' 6 महीने क धन क खपत के बराबर और
बायJलग वाटर 2रएXटर तथा साधारण जल 2रएXटर को पुन: भरने के िलए एक 2रएXटर क धन क
खपत के बराबर होगा।
(ii)
भंडार इ व'iी 2% वत-मान पूंजीगत लागत के बराबर है। वत-मान पूंजीगत लागत इस कार क <मता एवं
िडजाइन क नवीनतम पूण- प2रयोजना क लागत है जो 50:50 के अनुपात म' सीपीआई एवं ड]यूपीआई
क भा2रत मूय सूची के आधार पर शुक के िनधा-रण/संशोधन वष- म' बढ़ायी गयी है।
(iii)
एक माह के िलए चालन और अनुर<ण संबंधी य।
(iv)
फुटकर ऋणदाता: िबजली क िबq के िलए दो महीने क औसत िबJलग के बराबर ाg रािश।
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
काय6कारी
काय6कारी
काय6कारी
काय6कारी पूंजी
पूंजी
पूंजी
पूंजी पर
पर
पर
पर याज
याज
याज
याज:
धन इव'iी के िलए, 12% क दर से ]याज पर िवचार कया जाए और अय घटक के िलए म याविध ऋण, वे दर'
िजन पर एनपीसीआईएल `ारा भुगतान कया जाता है हेतु 5टेट बक ऑफ इंिडया `ारा कोट कए aए ल'Jडग रेट, पर
िवचार कया जाए ।
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
िवदेशी
िवदेशी
िवदेशी
िवदेशी मुPा
मुPा
मुPा
मुPा क>
क>
क>
क> िविनमय
िविनमय
िविनमय
िविनमय दर
दर
दर
दर म2म2म2म2 िभQता
िभQता
िभQता
िभQता (एफईआरवी)
एफईआरवी)
एफईआरवी)
एफईआरवी) और
और
और
और हेRज
हेRज
हेRज
हेRजग लागत)
लागत)
लागत)
लागत):
हेJजग क वा5तिवक लागत अथवा यद हेJजग का सहारा नहF िलया गया है तो एफईआरवी क पॉस ू के 6प म'
अनुमित होगी।
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
मूयSास
मूयSास
मूयSास
मूयSास (पूंजीगत लागत वसूली घटक
पूंजीगत लागत वसूली घटक
पूंजीगत लागत वसूली घटक
पूंजीगत लागत वसूली घटक):
प2रयोजनाएं िजनका वािणिTयक चालन ारंभ aआ है और मौजूदा चालनरत िबजलीघर के िलए भी पूंजीगत
लागत ित वष- 3%। नयी प2रयोजनाएं िजनका वािणिTयक चालन अभी ारंभ होना शेष है के िलए 15 वषx क
अविध के िलए पूंजीगत लागत ित वष- 4.67%, उसके बाद शेष वसूली संयं* के शेष आIथक जीवन तक िव5ता2रत
क जाएगी।
6906
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
डीकमीशRनग
डीकमीशRनग
डीकमीशRनग
डीकमीशRनग लेवी
लेवी
लेवी
लेवी:
डीकमीशJनग का लेवी 2 पैसे ित कलोवाट घंटा क दर से लागू होगा।
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
कर
कर
कर
कर िनधा6रण
िनधा6रण
िनधा6रण
िनधा6रण केकेकेके िलए
िलए
िलए
िलए Bावधान:
Bावधान:
Bावधान:
Bावधान:
इटी पर आय क आधार दर 15.5% पर तथा शुक अविध के Rयेक वष- के िलए लागू सामाय आयकर क दर को
सम{ 6प से लेते aए आय कर का ावधान कया जाएगा।
आधार RoE वष- के िलए लागू भावी कर दर को इस कार सम{ 6प से िलया जाएगा क भावी RoE = आधार
RoE / (1-T), जहां T = वष- के िलए लागू भावी कर दर।
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
सामाTय
सामाTय
सामाTय
सामाTय:
3.1
अि5थर िवfुत अथा-त् यूिनट के वािणिTयक 5तर पर चालन शु6 करने से पहले aई िबजली क िबq के मामले म'
ऐसी िबq से aए कसी भी राज5व को पूंजीगत य म' कमी के 6प म' माना जाएगा न क िनवल राज5व के 6प म'।
3.2
यद परमाणु िबजलीघर को स<म सरकार `ारा परमाणु ऊजा- अिधिनयम 1962 के खंड 22 के उपखंड I क धारा
(ख) के अनुसार उपभोbा को िबजली क आपूIत सीधे ही करने क अनुमित दी जाती है तो, ऐसी िबq आपस म' तय
aई उन दर पर क जाएगी, िजस पर िवfुत उRपादन करने वाले संयं* और अय िb (य) के बीच सहमित aई है,
बशतN क उस पर स<म ािधकारी का अनुमोदन हो।
3.3 संशोिधत शुक 1 अैल, 2017 से भावी हगे और दनांक 08 दसंबर 2010 क अिधसूचना सं.
1/2(20)/2005/पावर/वायू.III/11689 `ारा अिधसूिचत इससे पूव- के मानदंड 31 माच- 2017 तक उसी 6प म'
लागू हगे।
3.4
शुक म' पांच वष- म' एक बार संशोधन कया जाएगा।
3.5
शुक का िनधा-रण चरणवार अथवा यूिनटवार अथवा िबजलीघर के िलए कया जाएगा।
[सं. 4/8/1/2017-पावर/14991]
सौरभ बाबू, िनदेशक (पावर)
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
(POWER SECTION)
Mumbai, the 20th November, 2017
S.O. 1800.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Atomic
Energy Act 1962 (33 of 1962) read with Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the Central
Government in consultation with the Central Electricity Authority hereby determines the norms as given below in
accordance with which the tariff for sale of electricity by the Atomic Power Stations to the State Electricity Boards and to
other persons shall be determined:
1.0
Technical Norms:
1.1
Installed Capacity:
The realistic achievable capacity of the power station approved by the Atomic Energy Commission shall be
adopted.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6907
1.2
Plant Load Factor:
PHWRs
68.5% (to be reviewed after 2 years from the date of
notification of these tariff norms)
KKNPP 1 & 2
68.5% (to be reviewed after 2 years from the date of
notification of these tariff norms)
BWRs – TAPS 1&2
68.5%
1.3
Stabilisation Period:
Stabilization period of one year is prescribed for reactors with new technology and first unit of 700 MWe.
1.4
Auxiliary Consumption:
Auxiliary power consumption as percentage of normative generation for various types of reactors shall be taken
as follows:
Type of Reactor
Percentage of normative generation
Boiling Water Reactor Units TAPS 1&2
9%
PHWR 220 MW (without cooling towers)
10.50%
PHWR 220 MW (with cooling towers)
11.75%
PHWR 540 & 700 MW (without cooling towers)
10.20%
PHWR 700 MW (with cooling towers)
11.25%
Light Water Reactors – KKNPP Units 1&2
7.8% (to be reviewed after 2 years from the
date of notification of these tariff norms)
1.5
Annual fuel recovery charge (AFRC):
Annual fuel recovery charge in case of PHWR shall be so fixed that the present value of charges over a period
of fifteen years at a discount rate of 12% shall be equal to the value of initial half charge of fuel. The AFRC
shall be refixed for the half core of the fuel, whenever fresh fuel is loaded, say after EMCCR/EMFR etc. For
KKNPP, AFRC shall be fixed such that the present value of charges over a period of fifteen years at a discount
rate of 12% to be equal to the value of two-third charge of initial load of fuel.
1.6
Fuel consumption:
Type of Reactor
Fuel Consumption
Boiling Water reactors (TAPS 1&2)
138 MWD/MU
Pressurised heavy water reactors (200/220/540/700
MW)
27 Kg / MU
LWRs – KKNPP 1&2 (1000 MWe)
125 MWD / MU
The Fuel price shall be notified by DAE every year. The fuel cost shall be computed by multiplying the fuel
consumption rate as given above and the weighted average price of fuel available at the station at any point of time. The
fuel consumption charge will be subject to adjustment for variation in the fuel price. Variation in effective tariff rate as
a result of such adjustment charges shall not be deemed to be change or revision of tariff.
1.7
Heavy Water Inventory (per reactor):
Type of Reactor
Heavy Water Inventory (per reactor)
PHWR – 220 MW Units
287.50 tonnes
PHWR – 540 MW Units
570 tonnes
6908
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.8
Heavy Water Lease charges:
Heavy water lease charges on the heavy water inventory held by the plant as given at Para 1.7 will be payable at
the rate notified by DAE from time to time. They are charged in a manner so that lease charges are recovered in
the form of equated annual instalments (EAI). Heavy water lease charges will be subject to adjustment towards
variations in the prices and variation in the effective tariff as a result of such adjustments shall not be deemed to
be revision of the tariff.
1.9
Heavy Water Make Up norm:
For all Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors – 3 tonnes per reactor per annum. The price of heavy water for
makeup shall be as notified by DAE from time to time. Heavy water makeup charge will be subject to
adjustment towards variations in the prices and variation in the effective tariff as a result of such adjustments
shall not be deemed to be revision of the tariff.
1.10
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) charges and its escalation:
The normative O&M charges for the year 2017-18 shall be as given below:
Type of Reactor
O&M Charges
BWR – TAPS 1&2 -160 MWe
Rs. 56.37 lakh / MWe
PHWR – 220 MWe
Rs. 47.47 lakh / MWe
PHWR – 540 MWe
Rs. 27.02 Lakh / MWe
PHWR – 700 MWe
Rs. 20.84 lakh / MWe
LWR – 1000 MWe
Rs. 20.51 lakh /MWe
The normative O&M charges in subsequent years shall be increased at the rate of 6% per annum. The water
charges / cess / levies and insurance charges shall be chargeable at actual and will be allowed separately.
2.0
Financial norms:
2.1
Capital cost:
The actual expenditure incurred on completion of the project and subsequent capital expenditure incurred upto
fixation of / revision of tariff shall be the criteria for fixation of tariff. Where the actual expenditure exceeds the
approved project cost, the excesses as approved by the competent authority (Central Government/Atomic
Energy Commission/Board of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited) shall be deemed to be the actual
expenditure for the purposes of determining the tariff.
2.2
Debt Equity Structure:
Debt Equity Structure for future PHWRs shall be in 70:30 ratio. For units in operation and projects under
construction, the funding structure already fixed may be adopted. For future projects other than PHWRs, the
debt equity ratio is to be decided by the Government on a case-to-case basis, depending on the maturity of
technology and the constraints of the financing arrangement. In case, in a future project, the actual equity
exceeds 30% of the capital expenditure as defined in Para 2.1, the ROE should be applicable only on the
notional equity i.e., 30% of the capital and excess amount will be treated as notional loan at the same interest
rate as of debt component of the capital.
2.3
Return on Equity (ROE):
The return on equity shall be computed on a pre-tax basis at the base rate of 15.5% and shall be grossed up with
the normal tax rate applicable during each year of the tariff period. An additional return on equity of 0.5 will be
available to those projects which are commissioned within the originally sanctioned timelines.
(i)
The equity capital is defined as below:
“Equity capital for stations for the purpose of fixation of tariff shall be reckoned as the total cumulative
investment less the borrowed funds used for the station viz., paid up and subscribed capital and internal surplus
utilized for the station.”
(ii)
Equity shall not be reduced irrespective of whether the capital assets have been depreciated or not.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6909
2.4
Interest rate on Debt funds:
(i)
Interest shall be the weighted average rate of interest applicable for the
year calculated on the loan
port-folio at the beginning of the year. The repayment of loan for each year shall be deemed to be equal
to the capital cost recovery allowed for that year.
(ii)
In the case of perpetual loan from the Government of India, the loan amount shall not be reduced for
computation of tariff as the loan is in perpetuity.
(iii)
The interest for the Government loan shall be computed at the rates notified by the Government from
time to time. Any change in the interest rates for the Government loan, if notified by the Government,
will be automatically effected in the tariff prospectively through an adjustment by the respective Atomic
Power Station. Variations in the effective tariff as a result of the revision in interest rates as notified by
the Government shall not be deemed to be a revision of the tariff.
2.5
Working Capital norms:
(i)
Fuel inventory will be equivalent to 6 months fuel consumption in case of Pressurised Heavy Water
Reactors and fuel requirement of one reload for BWRs and LWRs.
(ii)
Stores inventory equivalent to 2% of the current capital cost. Current capital cost is the cost of latest
completed project of similar capacity and design escalated to the year of fixation/revision of tariff on the
basis of weighted price index of CPI and WPI in the ratio of 50:50.
(iii)
Operation and Maintenance expenditure for one month.
(iv)
Sundry debtors: Receivables equivalent to two months average billing for sale of electricity.
2.6
Interest on Working Capital:
For fuel inventory, Interest at the rate of 12% is to be considered and for other components, lending rate quoted
by State Bank of India for medium term loans, which is the rates paid by NPCIL, is to be considered.
2.7
Foreign Exchange Rate Variation (FERV) and Hedging Costs:
Actual cost of hedging or if hedging has not been resorted to, FERV shall be allowed as pass through.
2.8
Depreciation (Capital Cost Recovery Component):
For the projects which have commenced commercial operations and also existing operating stations, 3% of the
capital cost per annum. For new projects yet to commence commercial operation, 4.67% of the capital cost p.a.
for a period of 15 years, thereafter, the balance recovery to be spread over remaining economic life of the plant.
2.9
Decommissioning levy:
Decommissioning levy shall be applicable at the rate of 2 paise /kWh.
2.10
Provision for taxation:
The provision for income tax would be taken into tariff by way of grossing up the base rate of return on equity
of 15.5% with the normal income tax rate applicable for each year of the tariff period.
The base RoE shall be grossed up by effective tax rate applicable for the year such that, effective RoE = base
RoE / (1-T), where T = effective tax rate applicable for the year.
3.0
General:
3.1
In respect of infirm power i.e. sale of electricity prior to commercial operation of the unit any revenue from such
sale shall be taken as reduction in capital expenditure and not as net revenue.
3.2
In case an Atomic Power Plant is permitted by the competent Government to supply electricity directly to a
consumer in terms of clause (b) of sub–section 1 of Section 22 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, such sale shall
be at mutually negotiated rates, agreed upon between the generating plant and the other person(s) subject to the
approval of the competent Authority.
6910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.3
The revised tariffs shall be effective from 1st April 2017 and earlier norms notified vide Notification No.
1/2(20)/2005/Power/Vol.III/11689 dated December 08, 2010 will remain applicable till March 31,2017.
3.4
The tariff shall be revised once in 5 years subject to conditions as in Para 1.2.
3.5
The tariff shall be determined stage-wise or unit–wise or for the station.
[No. 4/8/1/2017-Power/14991]
SORABH BABU, Director (Power)
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1801
1801
1801
1801.— औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' के ीय सरकार
मेसस- िनदेशक, मौसम िवभाग, एमएमओ और अ य एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके कम-कार के
बीच अनुबंध म' िनvदh ट औfोिगक िववाद म' के ीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय, नई द ली-1 पंचाट
(संदभ- सं3 या 138/2018) को कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को 06.12.2018 को ा| त aए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/167/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.138/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour
Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the director,
meteorological office, MMO and others, and their worken which were received by the Central Government on
06.12.2018.
[No. L-42011/167/2017-IR(DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No.1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No. 138/2018
Shri Vijay Singh, Airport Employees Union,
BTR Bhawan, 13-A, Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi 110 002
…Workman
Versus
1. The Director,
Meteorological Office, MMO
ATS Building, IGI Airport,
New Delhi – 110 037
2. The Deputy Director General of Meteorology,
Regional Meteorological Center,
ODI Road, New Delhi – 110 002
..Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-42011/167/2017-IR(DU) dated 22.02.2018 under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for
adjudication of an industrial disputes, terms of which are as under:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6911
“Whether the action of the management of Meteorological Office (MMO) regarding termination of Shri Vijay
Singh (employed as Daily Rated Mazdoor with effect from 20.08.2009 and Part Time Safaiwala from April
2012 till 30.09.2015) is legal and/or justified. If not, what relief the workman, Shri Vijay Singh is entitled to
and what directions are necessary in this respect? “
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, Shri Vijay Singh, the workman, opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the workman as well as the management.
Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, the workman opted to abstain from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. However, it
will not debar Shri Vijay Singh, the workman from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on
merits. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : December 5, 2018
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1802
1802
1802
1802.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार
मेसस- आयुb, नगर िनगम दली और अय एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके कम-कार के बीच
अनुबंध म' िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय, नई दली-1पंचाट के (संदभ-
सं3या. 300/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 06.12.2018 को ाg aए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/29/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 300/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Delhi, & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 06.12.2018.
[No. L-42012/29/2011-IR-(DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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. 300/11
Shri Ramesh Singh,
S/o. Late Shri Hari Kishan,
Safai Karamchari,
Through General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi 110054.
… Workman
6912
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi
Now at Dr. SP Mukherjee Civil Centre,
JL Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110002.
… Management
AWARD
This award shall decide a reference which was made to this to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide
letter No.L-42012/29/2011/IR(DU) dated 12.08.2011 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as
under:-
‘Whether the action of the management Municipal Corporation of Delhi in terminating the services of the
workman Shri Ramesh Singh s/o. late Shri Hari Kishan Ex Daily Wage safai karamchari w.e.f. 21/4/2006 is
legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ?
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Ramesh Singh filed his statement of claim with the averments
that he had joined the Management in the year 1994 and initially he was being treated as a casual/daily rated worker and
was paid fixed wages which was revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages At and subsequently since
16/9/96 he was taken in job as regular daily wage worker. Despite having unblemished service record, his services were
terminated vide order dated 21/4/2006 which was served upon him on 25/4/2006. It is alleged that certain baseless and
bald allegations were leveled against him on a false complaint of one Smt. Saroj – a substitute Safai Karamchari to the
effect that workman/claimant was receiving bribe from various co-workers at the time of payment of salary to them and
was paying the same to one Shri Gurucharan Das, Assistant Sanitary Inspector . The workman/claimant had given a
statement dated 7/6/2005 but it is alleged that the said statement was taken from him under duress & coercion and relying
on the same, the charge-sheet dated 0.12.2005 (received on 14/12/2005) was served upon him, which was duly replied by
him on 20/12/2005. The vigilance department with a gap of 10-10 days, sent summoned at the address of Lajpat Nagar
Zone, without mentioning thereon his father’s name and ward number and ultimately his services were terminated by the
Management vide impugned order dated 21/4/2006. It is alleged that the workman has not committed any misconduct
and in case of any alleged misconduct, no domestic enquiry was conducted against him and in fact, the workman was not
afforded any opportunity of being heard and his services were terminated illegally and arbitrarily, without following the
principles of natural justice. It is also alleged that termination of his services is in gross violation of Section 25-F, G and
H of the Act. The workman is totally unemployed since the date of his termination. Demand notice dated 7/4/2009 was
sent to the Management but to no avail. He has prayed for his reinstatement into service with full back wages & all
consequential benefits.
3.
The statement of claim has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took stereo-typed
preliminary objection, contrary to the facts of the case, inasmuch it has been alleged that claim suffers from latches &
inordinate delay as the alleged termination is of 21/3/2003 & claim u/section 2-A has been filed in the year 2011 and
further that, the claim is not espoused by the Union. ( Notably, the date of termination is in fact 21/4/2006, this is a
reference under Section 10 instead petition directly filed u/Section 2-A and furthermore, the claim petition has
been filed through Union). On merits it has been stated that the workman was a daily wager. Smt Saroj, a substitute
Safai Karamchari had made a complaint against the workman to the effect that he used to collect money from Safai
Karamchari on behalf of Shri Gurcharan ASI and he paid Rs.500/- only to Smt. Saroj, Substitute Karamchari and kept the
remaining money of her wages./salary with himself for giving the same to Shri Gurharan Singh, ASI. It has been stated
that since the workman had mis-conducted himself, statement of misconduct/charge sheet was issued against him. A
proper enquiry was conducted against him and he was afforded personal hearing and he was found guilty of the
misconduct and only thereafter he was disengaged from his services vide impugned order dated 21/4/2006. It has been
denied that there has been violation of principle of natural justice and/or provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act.
Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.
Vide order dated 22/12/2011 my learned Predecessor observed that no other issue than those referred for the
adjudication is made out and hence parties were called upon to lead their evidence.
5.
The workman /claimant examined himself as WW1 and led evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A & relied
on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/21. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Roshan Lal.
Sanitation Superintendent who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/5.
6.
I have heard arguments from A/R from the claimant since none appeared on behalf of the Management to
address arguments. I have also gone through the records carefully.
7.
From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is not in dispute that the claimant was
working as a daily wage Safai Karamchari. According to the case of the claimant, he was engaged in the year 1994 as
casual worker and w.e.f.16/9/96 he was taken on the roll as regular daily wage worker./Safai Karamchari. In his affidavit
Ex.WW1/A the claimant has nowhere stated that his services were regularized w.e.f. 16/9/1996, nor he filed on record
any document to substantiate this fact. However, in his cross examination, he admitted that when Smt.Saroj levelled
allegations against him relating to his misconduct, he was a casual employee at that time and further that when order of
dismissal from service was served upon him at that time also he was a casual employee. However, the fact remains that
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6913
services of the claimant were disengaged/terminated vide order dated 21/4/2006 while he was working as daily wage
Safai Karamchari under the Management/MCD w.e.f. 16/9/1996. MW1 Shri Roshan Lal has admitted in his cross
examination that attendance of the workman was marked on the Muster Roll and further that muster roll of the workman
from 1994 to 21/4/2006 are in custody of the Management. He could not say whether the workman continuously worked
for more than 240 days in every year. The management has not produced on record any documentary evidence to rebut
the version of the claimant that he continuously worked in the Management Bank from 1994 to 2006. In these
circumstances, the plea of the Management that the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman as defined
under Section 2(S) of the Act or that claimant had not worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year, can not be
accepted. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council,
Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section
2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as under :-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/
contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for
deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The
definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a
person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which
it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole
time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages
or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”
It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract
basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person
would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.
8.
As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant on casual/muster roll basis, is duly
admitted by the Management in its written statement as well as evidence. The Management has not filed any document
in the form of abstract of attendance of claimant or other such workers so as to show that claimant has not completed 240
days in a calendar year. In such circumstances, version of the claimant that he worked for over 240 days with the
Management Bank is creditworthy.
9.
Net result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is relationship of Employer-employee between the
Management and that the claimant had worked with the Management for 240 days in a calendar year.
10.
During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the claimant submitted that the services of the claimant were
illegally terminated by the Management and the provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of the Act were not adhered to while
passing the impugned order of disengagement/termination of his services.
11.
Per contra A/R appearing for the Management submitted that services of the claimant were disengaged after
conducting a vigilance enquiry wherein proper opportunity was afforded to the claimant.
12.
As per case of the Management, a complaint was made against the claimant by one Saroj who made
allegations to the effect that the claimant received bribe from various workmen at the time of payment of salary to them
and Vigilance department had conducted enquiry against the workman. Further, the claimant had made statement
Ex.WW1/21 in presence of Special Metropolitan Magistrate. On the other hand, it is the case of the claimant that his
statement was taken by Vigilance Team forcibly and this fact was also mentioned in his communication Ex.WW1/M-3
addressed to the Director/Chief Vigilance Officer, MCD. The claimant has also filed on record a copy of the
representation Ex.WW1/7 and Ex.WW1/8 which he had made to the Mayor of Delhi and Chief Vigilance Officer, MCD
in that respect. However, the Management has not filed on record the enquiry proceedings/report. MW1 Shri Roshan
Lal – sole witness examined by the Management stated that he can not file record of the alleged departmental enquiry
before this Court. He clarified that he never appeared in the alleged departmental enquiry and as such he could not tell as
to what happened in the said departmental enquiry. Even if it is assumed that a vigilance enquiry was conducted against
the claimant on the basis of complaint of one Saroj – colleague of the claimant herein and the claimant had allegedly
made a statement before the Vigilance Team, the said enquiry can not take the shape of departmental enquiry rather can
be termed as “Fact Finding Inquiry”. The Management has not filed anything on record to prove that the claimant was
given opportunity to cross examine the complainant Saroj or that he was also afforded opportunity to lead his defence
evidence before the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the order dated
21/4/2006 thereby terminating the services of the claimant by the Management, has not been passed in a fair and proper
manner & that too after conducting proper enquiry against the claimant and as such, the action of the Management in
terminating the services of the claimant is held to be illegal and unjustified.
13.
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 claimant in the pleading as well as in his testimony has stated that he
is unemployed since after his termination. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is
gainfully employed somewhere else or that he is in a position to make his both 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.
6914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
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.”
15.
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).
16.
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.
17.
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 calendar year.”
18.
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.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6915
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…..”
19.
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, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages w.e.f. 12/8/2011 (the date of reference),
inasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se illegal and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed
anywhere since after his termination by the Management. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 04.12.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1803
1803
1803
1803.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार
मेसस- मैसस- जािमया िमिलया इ5लािमया और अय एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके कम-कार के
बीच अनुबंध म' िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय-1 नई दली के पंचाट
(संदभ- सं3या. 129/2016) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 06.12.2018 को ाg aए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/60/2016-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.129/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s.
Jamia Milia Islamia, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 06.12.2018.
[No. L-42011/60/2016-IR DU]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
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.
ID No. 129/2016
Shri Vikas S/o. Shri Diwan Chandra,
Through Delhi Karamchari Sangh (Regd.),
W-4, Opp. Kalkaji Bus Depot,
Govindpuri, New Delhi 19.
…Workman/Claimant
6916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
M/s. Jamia Milia Islamia,
Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi 110025.
… Management
AWARD
This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42011/60/2016-IR(DU) dated 1st/2nd June, 2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which
are as under:
‘Whether the services of the workman Shri Vikas s/o. Shri Diwan Chand have been terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management and if so, what relief is the workman entitled to and what directions are
necessary in this respect ?
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant/workman Shri Vikas filed statement of claim, with the
averments that the workman was appointed by the Management on 13-7-2008 as Sweeper and his last drawn wages was
Rs.13443/- per month. The Management had not issued any letter of appointment in his favour. During the course of
employment, he did not give any chance of complaint to the Management and his service record was well satisfactory.
The Management neither paid any over time wages to her, nor provided any legal facilities like ESI, PF, Bonus, Pay
Slip, Leave with wages etc to him despite regular demands. The Management became annoyed & started to get rid of
workman but failed and on 30/9/2012 the management illegally terminated his services without any rhyme or reason and
without paying any service compensation or without conducting any domestic enquiry against him. Demand notice was
sent to the Management by the workman/claimant but the management despite service neither reinstated him nor gave
reply to the demand notice. The workman has worked with the Management continuously for more than 240 days in
the preceding year. The workman neither absented from the services nor resigned himself. After illegal termination
from service, the workman searched for the job at many places but he did not find any work and he is completely
unemployed and he wants to join duty with the Management on the same post. The claimant has prayed for his
reinstatement in service with continuity of service and with full back wages and all other consequential benefits.
3.
The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed its reply. While denying the allegations of
the workman, it has been stated that services of the workman were terminated on 24/10/2011 by the Vice Chancellor of
Management after giving him various opportunities to explain his unsatisfactory performance including habitual
absentee. The appeal preferred by the workman was rejected by the Statutory Governing Body of the University on
23/12/2011. As such, the claim petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and laches as the present complaint/dispute
was filed by the workman through Union only in August, 2015 before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central). On
merits it is stated that the workman was given the post of Sweeper on compassionate ground on 9/5/2009 vide
appointment letter of even date wherein it was clearly stated that he was on probation and could be terminated at any
time. In para 2 of the reply/written statement, the Management has given details about the unsatisfactory & unauthorized
absence from duty by the workman on different dates and without prior approval and/or without application. The
workman was a habitual absentee and various complaints were received against him and copies thereof have also been
annexed. It has been alleged that termination of service of the workman is as per rules, inasmuch as enough
opportunities were provided to him repeatedly to improve his performance but he failed to improve his performance.
Even memos dated 10/2/2011 and 23/8/2011 were issued to him but he did not care to respond. Prayer has been made
for dismissal of the claim petition .
4.
The claimant/workman filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations made by the Management and
reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed obn 9/3/2017 :-
i)
Whether management has illegally terminated services of the claimant as alleged ?
ii)
Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages, as alleged ?
iii)
Whether the claim is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections ?
6. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/3.
7.
On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined two witnesses – one
Shri Ayub Khan, Sanitary Inspector in Jamia Milia as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A
alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3 and another Syed Enayatullah, Section officer who also tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW2/A.
8.
I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced on record by both the parties and have give my thoughtful
consideration to rival contentions of the parties counsel.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6917
Issue No.1 to 3 :-
9.
All these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be conveniently disposed
of.
10.
It is clear from the pleading of the parties on record that the claimant/workman was appointed by the
Management for the post of Sweeper. According to the workman/claimant, no appointment letter was issued & the
Management terminated his services illegally on 30/9/2012, whereas contention of the Management is that the
claimant/workman was appointed on compassionate grounds and in fact appointment letter dated 9/5/2009 (Ex.MW1/1)
was issued wherein it has been stated that his services were on probation, for one year in the first instance.
However, it is manifest from the office note dated 30/9/2011 (Annexure B colly. annexed with the written statement)
that his probation period had already come to an end and he was placed as permanent, inasmuch therein his status has
been described as Permanent Safaikaramchari. Thus, it stands proved on record that the claimant/workman was duly
appointed by the Management as Sweeper/Safaikaramchari vide appointment letter Ex.MW1/1 and was subsequently
made permanent and as such, he was a regular employee of the Management.
11.
Learned A/R for the Management strenuously argued that since services of the workman were terminated on
24/10/2011 by the Vice Chancellor of Management after giving him various opportunities to explain his unsatisfactory
performance including habitual absentee and the appeal preferred by the workman was rejected by the Statutory
Governing Body of the University on 23/12/2011, the present dispute having made through Union in August, 2015 is
hopelessly barred by limitation and as such the same is liable to be rejected outrightly.
12.
Per contra, learned A/R for the workman/claimant submitted that in fact the workman was terminated from
service only on 30/9/2012 and the workman/claimant as per the version of the Management itself had approached the
Conciliation Officer in August, 2015 and as such the claim having been made within three years from the date of the
termination is well within time.
13.
I may mention that though testimony of MW1 Shri Ayub Khan, Sanitary Inspector is in line with the allegations
made in the written statement vis-à-vis date of termination of the workman herein, yet he admitted in his cross
examination that claimant was terminated on 30/9/2012. No doubt MW 2 Syed Enayatullah Section Officer in the
establishment of the Management has denied the suggestion that workman/claimant was terminated on 30/9/2012 & has
clarified that date of termination is 24/10/2011, but he admitted that termination letter dated 24/10/2011 has not been
filed on record. As such, there is no conclusive/documentary proof to show that services of the workman/claimant were
terminated on 24/10/2011 or on 30/9/2012. Be that as it may, it will be suffice to say that limitation period as three
years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of the service of the workman, has
been prescribed only for direct filing of the claim petition before the Court/Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Act. This
is a reference made by the Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act. Once a reference has been made, this
Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to decide the same. In these circumstances, this
Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the Management that the claim petition is not legally maintainable on this
score.
14.
Now the vital question for consideration before this Tribunal is whether services of the workman have been
terminated in accordance with norms/law or in violation of the provisions of the Act.
15.
The workman /claimant has deposed in his statement that during the course of employment, he did not give any
chance of complaint to the Management and his service record was well satisfactory. The Management neither paid any
over time wages to her, nor provided any legal facilities like ESI, PF, Bonus, Pay Slip, Leave with wages etc to him
despite regular demands. The Management became annoyed & started to get rid of workman but failed and on
30/9/2012 the management illegally terminated his services without any rhyme or reason and without. At the time of
termination, the Management has not paid service compensation to him and thus has violated the provisions of Section
25-F and 25-G of the Act. He clarified that he neither left the services nor resigned from the services. In cross
examination he admitted that his signatures appeared on four leave applications Ex.WW1/M-1 (colly). He did not
recollect the dates when he remained on leave/unauthorized absence but denied the suggestion that he remained on leave
without intimation/application on several dates viz. 3/12/2010, 8/12/2010 to 10/12/2010, 21st and 22nd Decmeber,2010;
½ day on 23/12/2010 to 27/12/2010, 30/12/2010 to 7/1/2011, 12/1/2011, 10/8/2011 and on 8th, 13th, 15th, 19th and
29th September, 2011.
16.
MW1 Ayub Khan and MW2 Syed Enayutullah stated in their depositions that the workman/claimant on
unauthorized leave/absence from duty on aforesaid dates as mentioned in above para. According to them, the workman
was a habitual absentee and various complaints were received against him and he was directed to improve his
performance but he failed to do so. Copy of one such complaint dagted 10/8/2011 has been filed on record as
Ex.MW1/2, whereas copies of memos dated 10/2/2011 and 23/8/2011.) purportedly issued to the workman have been
filed on record as Ex.MW1/3 colly. MW2 Syed Enayutallah admitted in his cross examination that there is no signature
of the workman on these memos in token of acknowledgement of receipt of such memos and he did not produce on
record any document about service of such memos.
17.
They also deposed that the Management had never deprived the workman his legal rights and that Management
had no malafide intention against him about his termination. However, MW1 Ayub Khan showed his ignorance whether
the claimant was paid any service compensation or notice pay before this termination by the Management. He also
admitted that no charge sheet was served upon the claimant nor any enquiry was conducted against him. Though MW2
Syed Enayutullah Section Officer claimed that one month’s wages was paid to the claimant in lieu of notice but he has
6918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
not filed on record any such document to substantiate his claim in this respect. This witness also admitted that no charge
sheet was served upon the claimant nor any enquiry was conducted against him.
18.
In view of the above it is crystal clear that the workman/claimant was working on a regular basis as Safai
Karamchari which job is of perennial nature. Admittedly, no charge sheet was served upon the claimant nor any enquiry
was conducted against him prior to his termination. Further, the Management has failed to prove that retrenchment
benefits have been paid to the claimant at the time of his termination from services. As such, there is violation of the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
19.
There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management Bank to be illegal and void under the law.
20.
Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the
time of termination or in lieu of such notice any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the Management in
terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.
21.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. The workman/claimant has testified that after illegal
termination, he searched for the job at many places but did not find any job and thus, he is completely unemployed and
depended upon his parents. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is gainfully
employed or earning his livelihood after the date of his termination.
22.
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.”
23.
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).
24.
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.
25.
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6919
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.”
26.
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 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, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the
claimant/workman is per-se illegal, particularly when the job is of regular and perennial nature and the
claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management. Award is passed
accordingly.
Date : 04.12.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
6920
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1804
1804
1804
1804.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार
मैसस- महाबंधक, दली मेiो रेल िनगम और अय एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके कम-कार
के बीच अनुबंध म' िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय, नई दली-1 पंचाट
(संदभ- सं3या 77/2016) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 06.12.2018 को ाg aए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/190/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.77/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General
Manager, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government
on 06.12.2018.
[No. L-42012/190/2015-IR-(DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA
COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
ID No. 77/2016
Ms. Farha Naaz,
D/o. Mohd. Qamar,
R/op. H.No.3738, Gali Masjid Wali,
Shaha Ganj, Ajmeri Gagte, Delhi 110006.
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
1.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
General Manager (Operations),
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, Delhi 110001.
2.
M/s. Nuvision Commercial & Escon Services,
No.16, 17 1 K, Shiv Narayan Complex,
Behind Hanuman Mandir, Near Shikaanarpur,
Metro, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001.
…Management/Respondent
AWARD
In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide letter
No. L-42012/190/2015-IR(DU) dated 13.01.2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as
under:
‘Whether the action of the management of N.C.E.S. in not allowing the workman Ms. Farha Naaz d/o Mohd.
Qamar on duty w.e.f. 19.3.2014 can be construed as termination without complying with the provisions of Industrial
“Disputes Act, 1947 ? If yes, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant., Ms. Farha Naaz filed her statement of claim, with the
averments that she was employed as tom Operator under skilled category by contractor M/s Nuvision Commrical and
Escon Services on 13/11/2013 and was deputed with Principal employer DMRC and her last drawn wages were
Rs.7000/- per month. Claimant was not paid salary of initial two months and was forced to deposit draft of Rs.25000/- at
the time of appointment as security money. The workman was illegally terminated by the Management on 19/3/2014
without giving any prior notice or information regarding termination. No charge sheet or show cause notice was served
upon her before taking harsh action of termination her services. Demand notice dated 20/2/2015 was sent to both the
Managements but to no response. It is alleged that termination is illegal and prayer has been made for passing award to
reinstate the claimant at her previous job with full back wages as well as remaining back wages.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6921
3.
Management No.1 resisted the claim of the Workman, by filing written statement and took preliminary
objections that there is no relationship of Employer-employee between the Management No. 1 and claimant as the
claimant was never employed by DMRC, rather she was admittedly employed by Management No. 2 Prayer has been
made for rejection of the claim petition.
4.
Management No.2 also filed separate written statement, taking preliminary objection that the claimant wants to
misuse the provisions of labour law and has filed false & frivolous claim petition. It is alleged that in fact the claimant
was in the habit of being absent from duty and she was also warned several times by the Management No.2 and
ultimately she left the job w.e.f.19/3/2014, after taking her full & final dues. The claimant had abandoned the services
voluntarily at her own wishes. All other allegations made in the claim petition have been denied. Prayer has been made
for dismissal of the claim petition with heavy costs.
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 2/2/2017 :-
1)
Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation i.e.
Management No.1 and the claimant ?
2)
In terms of referece.
6.
Number of opportunities were granted to the Claimant to lead evidence in support of her claim but she failed to
adduce any evidence. She even did not enter the witness box either to substantiate the averments made in the claim
petition or to rebut the case of the Management No.2 that the claimant had herself abandoned the services. Perusal of the
record shows that the claimant did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal despite the fact that matter was adjourned
time and again. Even she also stopped participating in the proceedings and ultimately this Tribunal vide order dated
31/7/2018 was constrained to reserve the matter for passing the award.
7.
In view of the fact that the claimant has not led any evidence in support of her case, this Tribunal is constrained
to pass No Dispute Award in the matter. Since the matter has not been decided on merits, there will be no bar for the
claimant to file afresh claim petition in accordance with law for adjudication of the controversy in issue or to seek any
other relief to which she is otherwise entitled to. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 04.12.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1805
1805
1805
1805.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार
मेसस- आयुb, नगर िनगम दली और अय एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके कम-कार के बीच
अनुबंध म' िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय-1 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ-
सं3या 198/2012) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 31.10.2018 को ाg aए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/140/2012-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.198/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 31.10.2018.
[No. L-42012/140/2012-IR-(DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
6922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 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, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No. 198/2012
The General Secretary,
Delhi Udhiyan Sangharsh Union,
B-5, Ram Gali, North Ghonda,
New Delhi - 110 053
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi – 110 006
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, an order was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter
No. L-42012/140/2012-IR(DU) dated 07.12.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘‘Whether the action of the management of MCD in denying the designation of ‘Beldar’ (instead of Nala
Beldar) at the time of regularization of services of the workmen Shri Trilok Singh, S/o Shri Umed Singh Mehta
and 07 others (total 08) as named in the ID by the management of MCD with effect from 01.04.2006 in the pay
scale of Rs.2500-3200 is justified or not? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to and from
which date?’’
2.
Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Trilok Singh, S/o Shri Umed Singh Mehra, Shri Hazzari lal S/o
Shri Bhola Ram, Shri Hari Kishan S/o Shri Het Ram, Shri Nand Lal S/o Shri Gouri Shankar, Shri Manjeet Singh S/o Shri
Hukam Singh, Shri Sakeel Ahmed S/o Shri Basheer Ahmad, Shri Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh and Shri
Prehlad Singh, S/o Shri Devi Lal (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), averring that they joined MCD (hereinafter
referred to as the management) as Beldar in the years 2001/2002/2003 and worked continuously on the said post till their
regularization in September 2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2006 with usual allowance as admissible under the
rules. The claimants had unblemished and uninterrupted record to their credit. The management submitted working
report for daily wagers report at the time of their regularization by terming as beldars whereas the letter of regularization
issued to them depicted them as beldar/nala beldar. This action of the management tantmounts to exploitation of labour,
illegal, bad, unjust, malafide and is in violation of Article 14, 16 and 30 of the Constitution of India. Finally, it has been
prayed that the claimants are entitled to the post of beldars in place of nala Behdar from the date of regularization
alongwith all consequential benefits.
3.
Written statement was filed on behalf of the management, wherein preliminary objections, inter alia of the
reference being made mechanically, non-espousal, non service of demand notice and the union not having locus standi to
raise the present dispute. The management has denied the other material averments contained in the statement of
defence.
4.
On perusal of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 23.07.2013 by my learned predecessor:
(i) Whether dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute for want of espousal?
(ii) Whether dispute is liable to be dismissed for want of service of notice of demand?
(iii) As in terms of reference.
5.
S/Shri Trilok Singh Mehta, Shakil Ahemad, Hazzari Lal, Nand Lal, Manjit Singh, Hari Kishan Lal, Sanjeev
Kumar, Prahlad Singh were examined on behalf of the claimants whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW8/A and
they relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/7, Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/4, Ex.WW3/1 to Ex.WW3/4, Ex.WW4/1 to
Ex.WW4/4 Ex.WW5/1 to Ex.WW5/4, Ex.WW6/1 to Ex.WW6/4, Ex.WW7/1 to Ex.WW7/4 and Ex.WW8/1 to
Ex.WW8/4 respectively. Witnesses WW2 to WW8 also relied on documents Ex.ww1/1 to Ex.WW1/7. Management, in
order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri K.K. Sharma, whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he relied on
documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.
6.
I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Shri Rahul Kumar, A/R for the management. My
findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
Findings on issue No.(i) & (ii)
7.
Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as well as disposal as they are inter-
related. It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the
management has raised objections that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6923
Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the
management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In
this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa
Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the
union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by
observing as under:
‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be
sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be parties
to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of
workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation Officer
does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that
the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in
not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer ; it does
not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.
8.
Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is no sponsored or espoused by
substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union would
not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view appears to
have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court Bombay
(1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute dies not
fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial section of
workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed as under:
‘We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union even
though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the majority rule on
which the appellant’s construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference under
Section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an industrial
dispute which in a proper case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.’
9.
In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is not
sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently, both these From perusal
of pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed: i.e. issue No.(i) and (ii), are decided in favour of the workman
and against the management.
Findings on issue No.(iii)
10.
Now, the main issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled
to the designation of Beldar (instead of Nala Beldar) with effect from 01.04.2006, i.e. the date of their regularization.
Perusal of letter Ex.WW1/7 issued by the management, depicts the designation of the claimants as beldar. Ex.WW2/1,
Ex.WW3/1, Ex.WW4/1, Ex.WW5/1, Ex.WW6/1, Ex.WW7/1 and Ex.WW8/1 being the number of days worked in the
years 2001 to 2006, depicts the designation of the claimant as beldar and the said document is signed by the Junior
Engineer, Assistant Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer. Thus, it apparent that initially that the claimants were
designated as beldars and at the time of regularization, their designation was mentioned as ‘nala beldars/beldars’.
11.
As a sequel to above discussion, it is held that the claimants herein have been wrongly regularized as nala
beldars instead of beldars. Hence, the action of the management of MCD in denying the designation of ‘beldar’; (instead
of nala beldar) at the time of regularization of services of the workmen Shri Trilok Singh, S/o Shri Umed Singh Mehta
and 07 others (total 08) as named in the ID by the management of MCD with effect from 01.04.2006 in the pay scale of
Rs.2500-3200 is totally unjust and unfair. Hence, the management is liable to re-designate the claimants Shri Trilok
Singh, S/o Shri Umed Singh Mehra, Shri Hazzari lal S/o Shri Bhola Ram, Shri Hari Kishan S/o Shri Het Ram, Shri Nand
Lal S/o Shri Gouri Shankar, Shri Manjeet Singh S/o Shri Hukam Singh, Shri Sakeel Ahmed S/o Shri Basheer Ahmad,
Shri Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh and Shri Prehlad Singh, S/o Shri Devi Lal as ‘beldars’ instead of Nala
beldars with effect from 01.04.2006, i.e. the date of their regularization. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award
be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : October 29, 2018
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
6924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1806
1806
1806
1806.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार
मेसस- महािनदेशक, सीपीड]यूडी काया-लय, और अय एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके
कम-कार के बीच अनुबंध म' िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय-1, नई
दली के पंचाट (संदभ- सं3या 28/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 19.11.18 को ाg aए थे ।
[सं. एल-42011/28/2011-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.28/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director
General, CPWD Office, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 19.11.18.
[No. L-42011/28/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA
COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 28/2011
1. General Secretary,
CPWD Mazdoor Union
E-26, Old Quarter, Raja Bazar,
Baba Kharak Singh Marg,
New Delhi 11001
Changed Address :-
C/o. Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road, New Dellhi.
2. The General Secreary,
CPWD Workers’ Union,
M-86-88 Aliganj, New Delhi 110003.
… Workman/Claimant
Versus
The Management of CPWD,
Director General of Works,
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi 11011.
…Management/Respondent
AWARD
This award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by Appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-42012/155/2002-IR(CM-1I) dated 03.04.2003 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as
under:
‘Whether the management of CPWD, the Director General of Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
110001 has made any discrimination among equals while making promotions to the post of Work Assistant
w.e.f. 18/9/1993 ? If yes, then what relief and benefits are the similar categories of employees are entitled to ?
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Union filed its statement of claim, with the averments that the
Officers of CPWD with a view to give undue advantage, has granted promotion for the post of Work Assistat w.e.f.
18/9/1993 to Shri Satish Kumar, who was just working as a Beldar, was not entitled for the said post because the
CPWD had circulated the post only for NTS (muster roll). His promotion is against the recruitment rules and the
workmen who were senior to Satish Kumar were also entitled to be promoted as Work Assistant but they were not give
any chance to appear for the said post. It is pleaded that all the eligible workmen in the category of Beldar, Khalasi,
Mali, Senior Mali, Carpenter, Mason, Fitter, Wiremen, Pump Operator, Chowkidar, NTS, Mate etc. are entitled to be
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6925
granted the designation of Work Assistant and pay attached to the said post w.e.f 18/9/1993. Prayer has been made all
such workmen be promoted as Work Assistant with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 18/9/1993.
3.
Management resisted the claim of the Workman, by filing written statement and took preliminary objections
that the workmen Union has suppressed the material facts and are tried to mislead this Tribunal, inasmuch as Shri Satish
Kumar was eligible for the post of Work Assistant as per D.G.(W)’s letter dated 23/9/1993. It has been denied that any
undue promotion has been granted to the said Shri Satish Kumar rather he has passed Trade Test for the said post as per
result declared by Coordination Circle’s communication datyed 3/9/1993. Other allegations of the Workmen Union have
been denied. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition with heavy costs.
4.
In support of its case, the Workmen Union examined one Shri Bhoop Singh. Muster-Roll Carpenter as WW1
who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A and filed documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/12. The
Workman Union also examined one Shri Dheerender Sharma, General Secretary of CPWD Workers’ Union as WW2
who though tendered his affidavit Ex.WW2/A & was cross examined partly on 4/10/2012 but did not appear for further
cross examination for the reasons best known to him and as such, the testimony of PW2 Dheerender Sharma can not be
read in evidence and is of no avail to the case of the claimant Union.
5.
On the other hand, the Management examined Shri M.K. Verma, Superintending Engineer (Coordination Circle)
as MW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on documents/letters Ex.WW2/1 & Ex.WW2/3.
6.
I have carefully gone through the records as the Workmen Union opted not to participate in the proceedings
from 16/7/2018 onwards and this Tribunal was constrained to reserved the case for Award.
7.
Though the testimony of WW1 Bhoop Singh is in line with the averments made in the claim petition but he did
not file any document on record to substantiate the allegation that any undue benefit was granted to Shri Satish Kumar
when he was promoted to the post of Work Assistant. In his cross examination, Shri Bhoop Singh showed his ignorance
as to when and to which post Satish Kumar was engaged/appointed under the Management. I may mention that copies of
office memorandum alongwith result of Trade Test for the post of Work Assistant has been filed on record as WW1/1 &
2 and again as Ex.WW1/4 & 5 by the side of the Workmen Union and also by the side of Management as Ex.MW1/W-1
issued under the signatures of Superintending Engineer, showing that in the trade Test Shri Satish Kumar was declared
pass, whereas 12 other Candidates were declared fail. Ex.WW1/6 is the certificate issued by one Shri V.K. Sakhuja,
handwriting & finger prints expert who after examination and comparison of the letters relating to result sheet of
workers’ test dated 15/4/1991 has opined that writing from the electrostat copy and the corresponding letter identified
with a series of marking from the text involved therein on documents referred from Register of the Mazdoor Union, are
in the handwriting of one & same writer namely Ashok Kumar.
8.
In his testimony MW1 Shri M.K. Verma categorically deposed that Satish Kumar was selected & promoted for
the post of Work Assistant under 25 per cent of Direct Recruitment quota as the said Shri Satish Kumar had passed trade
test for the post of Work Assistant. This witness was cross examined at length but nothing material came out to shake
his testimony, however he clarified that though there occurred some irregularity at the time of trade test as Satish Kumar
Sharma was not eligible for it, but same was subsequently rectified.
9.
It is a matter of record that the Management herein had taken a proposed action to revert Shri Satish Kumar
Work Assistant from the post of Work Assistant to Beldar w.e.f. 7/7/1995 which was challenged before the CGIT, New
Delhi and vide Award Ex.WW1./M-3 dated 25/3/1998, my learned Predecessor had passed no dispute award in the
matter. It is a matter of record that Shri B.K. Prasad who happened to be the A/R of the claimant Union in the present
matter, had represented the workman Satish Kumar in the said case.
10.
From the evidence adduced on record it is manifest that the case of Shri Satish Kumar is not of promotion rather
it was the case of recruitment under Direct Recruitment Quota and the said Satish Kumar was appointed/promoted as
Work Assistant after he successfully passed the Trade Test meant for the said post, whereas 12 other officials/candidates
who had appeared in the said Trade Test did not qualify the same. Once the Management of CPWD has
selected/promoted an official on the basis of Trade Test as per the recruitment rules, it will be unjust to comment that the
action of the Management is discriminatory among equals or that all other officials who are workmen in the category of
Beldar, Khalasi, Mali, Senior Mali, Carpenter, Mason, Fitter, Wiremen, Pump Operation, Chowkidar, NTS Mate etc. be
also given promotion to the post of Work Assistant notwithstanding the fact that they qualified the requisite Trade Test or
not. Resultantly, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there exists no dispute between the parties. Accordingly,
no claim/dispute award is passed in this case, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Dated : 15.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
6926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1807
1807
1807
1807.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय
सरकार काय-कारी अिधकारी, छावनी बोड-, मेरठ कट एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके कम-कार
के बीच अनुबंध म' िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय सं. 2 दली के
पंचाट
(संदभ- सं3या 27/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 02.07.2018 को ाg aआ था।
[सं. एल-13012/2/2010-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 27/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour
Court
No. 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Executive
Officer, Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
02.07.2018.
[No. L-13012/2/2010- IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.2, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 27/2011
Shri Pradeep Kumar,
S/o. Shri Summari,
R/o. CV H No.06 Ravinderpuri,
Naya Bazar Sadar, Meerut Cantt Through
Praveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Authorised Representative.
Veer Sadan, B-239, Shastri Nagar
Meerut.
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
The Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board,
Meerut Cantt.
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-13012/2/2010-IR(DU) dated
22.03.2011 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of Cantonment Board in terminating the services of workman
Shri Pradeep Kumar s/o Summari w.e.f. 1/4/2008 without any notice and/or compensation is legal and justified
? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?Õ
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. Pradeep Kumar workman filed statement of claim. As per the
averments made in the claim petition, the workman was appointed by the Management in the year 1995 as Sweeper.
During the course of his employment, his conduct and service record was throughout satisfactory. After the
workman/claimant sustained some bodily injuries while saving his senior officers from some anti-social elements who
attacked the senior officers posted in the Cantonment Board Meerut on 10.8.1998, it was assured that he will be paid
honorarium/ reward of Rs.25,000/- and that his services would be regularized but to no avail. The workman/claimant
worked under the control of the Management till 31/3/2008 and as usual when he went in the office on 1/4/200, he was
not allowed to work and was orally told that his services are no more required by the Management. It is alleged that the
Management had even regularized the services of the workman namely Umesh s/o Raju Rodiya, Vikas s/o. Rajender,
Navin s/o. Nand Kishore, Amit s/o. Raja Rai , Rajit s/o. Sumera and Sonu s/o. Jagdish Singh who were all juniors to the
workman/claimant. The claimant worked for 240 days in a calendar year and was entitled to be regularized. When the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6927
claimant made a demand for regularizing him, his services were terminated by the Management without any notice and
in violations of the Section 25-G and 25-H of the ID Act, inasmuch as neither any show cause notice nor any
chargesheet was issued to him before his termination. Even no domestic enquiry was conducted by the Management
prior to his termination. Hence, prayer has been made for his reinstatement into service with full back wages.
3.
The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed its reply. While denying the allegations of
the workman regarding his termination etc., it has been stated that the Cantonment Board being a local Municipal Body
has to engage some labour like Safai Karamcharies and Mazdoors from time to time for occasional/seasonal work i.e. in
emergent cases or during monsoon season or when some dignity do visit or for any official function, in the public
interest. The workman/claimant was never appointed as permanent employee by the Management. The Cantonment
Board took his services on daily wage on temporary basis for the first time in the year 1997. He had never worked as
daily wager for 240 days in a year from 1997 till the year 2008. The statement of claim made by the claimant is false and
concocted. There was no sanctioned post of Safai Karamchari in the year 1995 and therefore, the claim of the workmen
regarding appointing him on permanent basis is false. As regards the allegations of the claimant that some officials.
Junior to him were regularized against permanent post, it has been stated by the Management that in fact some vacancies
had arisen in the year 2005 for which applications were invited by advertisement dated 31/3/2005 in Dainik Jagran and a
Selection Committee constituted by the Competent/Appointing Authority vide orders dated 23/6/2005 and 7/7/2005 had
taken physical test and interview of all 1310 candidates and names of most suitable candidates were recommended &
appointed for the post. In the said selection process, the applicant was not found suitable. Prayer has been made for
dismissal of the claim petition.
4.
The claimant/workman filed replication wherein he denied all the allegations made by the Management and
reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.
5.
It is worthwhile to mention here that no specific issue excepting the one as referred by the Govt, of India in the
Reference requires adjudication.
6.
The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.WW1/A
alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/28.
7.
The Management did not lead any evidence and opted not to participate in the proceedings and ultimately, the
case was proceeded ex parte against the Management vide order dated 23/11/2017.
8.
I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced on record.
9.
The factum of engagement of the claimant by the Management as Safai Karamchari on daily wage basis stands
duly admitted in the written statement/reply, though the claimant/workman claimed that he was appointed/engaged in the
year 1995 but in the written statement, the year of his engagement has been mentioned as 1997. The testimony of the
claimant by way of his affidavit Ex.WW1/A is on the similar lines of the averments made in the statement of claim. The
claimant has filed on record documents/request letters Ex.WW1/6 to Ex.WW1/21 to show that from the year 2005 to
2008 with the request to depute him against regular posts in view of the fact that he has been working with the
Management on daily wage basis for the last 11 years. The workman/claimant has also categorically deposed that since
the date of his engagement, he has performed same nature of work regularly w.e.f. 1/9/1995 to 31/3/2008 and in every
year he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year with the Management. The Management is in possession of the
attendance record/Muster Roll register as well as Wage Payment Register which would show that the claimant did work
for more than 240 days in a calendar year with the Management but the Management is not producing the same. After his
illegal termination, he sent a demand letter/legal notice dated 19/3/2009 ( Ex.WW1/6) to the Management through
registered post but no reply thereto was received from the Management.
10.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the Management it has been pleaded that workman/claimant was
never appointed as permanent employee by the Management. The Cantonment Board took his services on daily wage on
temporary basis for the first time in the year 1997. He had never worked as daily wager for 240 days in a year from 1997
till the year 2008 for occasional/seasonal work.
11.
There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of
Management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove that he has
worked with the employer/Management for 240 days or more in a Calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made
to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries
Terminated Division \/s. Bhikubhai Meqhajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.
12.
There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid case. However, the
factual scenario in the present case is bit different, inasmuch as the Management in its written statement has admitted
that the claimant was engaged on daily wage basis from time to time since the year 1997 till 2008. Equally settled is the
position of law that when relationship of employer-employee stands proved between the parties, then onus will shift
upon the employer/management to show that the claimant has not worked for ys or more in a calendar year or that the
services of the claimant was terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act or in accordance with Standing
Order applicable to the establishment concerned. In the case in hand, it stands clearly proved from the pleadings and
evidence on record, especially the admission made by the Management in its written statement that the claimant was
duly engaged by the Management on daily wage basis for doing intermittent/seasonal nature of work and he was also
paid wages for such period of work performed by him. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee
between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder
Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while
interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as
6928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under :
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is
nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on
regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,
part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a
workman."
It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract
basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person
would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.
13. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as daily wage worker is duly admitted by the
Management in its written statement but the Management has neither filed any documents, nor has adduced any oral
evidence so as to show that claimant has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. The Management was in possession
of relevant documents such as abstract of attendance of daily wage workers, vouchers, salary slips etc. as the
Management was paying wages to the claimant in cash but no such document was produced on record. Having failed to
produce such like documents, same is really a crippling blow to the case of the Management.
14. Now the vital question for consideration is as to whether termination of the claimant is illegal and against the
provisions of the Act. As discussed above, this Tribunal has held that the claimant was the “Workman” for the purposes
of the Act. Testimony of the claimant that the Management has neither issued any notice of termination, nor paid one
month’s salary in lieu of such notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act, has gone unchallenged and unrebutted.
There is long line of decisions of Hon’b le Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F
of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act will render whole action of the Management to be illegal and wrong under the law.
Resultantly, it is held that action of the Management in terminating the service of the claimant is totally illegal
and wrong.
15. 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 claimant while appearing as WW1 has stated that since the date of his
termination, he is still unemployed and did not get any employment despite best efforts. No evidence has been adduced
on behalf of the Management to rebut the claim of the workman/claimant or to show that the claimant is gainfully
employed somewhere else or that he is in a position to make her both ends meet by doing any work. Even if it is
assumed that the claimant is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make her both ends meet, that would not itself
amount to gainful employment. But at the same time this Tribunal can not ignore the fact that there is no positive
evidence on record to prove that the claimant was continuously serving the Management against a regular/permanent
post, since after his engagement. Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon’ble
Apex Court is that when a person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that
situation full back wages are not be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the
Tribunal while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan
Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under:
“Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given
fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.
Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment
passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages
has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The
Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.
The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the
termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as
mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always
open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment
compensation.ÕÕ
16. Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of Rs.One
lakh (Rupees One Lakh) appears to be just and reasonable, and the same is payable to the claimant herein by the
Management. In case this compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date of publication of this Award,
then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the
claim petition till realization of the amount. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 27.06.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6929
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 18
18
18
1808
08
08
08.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार
शासिनक अिधकारी, अिखल भारतीय आयुIव/ान सं5थान और अय, नई दली एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW
िनयोजक और उनके कम-कार के बीच अनुबंध म' िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम
यायालय-1 दली के पंचाट (संदभ- सं3या 91/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 19.11.2018 को ाg
aआ था।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2018-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (ID. Case No. 91/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
Administrative Officer, All India Institute of Medical Sciences & others and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 19.11.2018.
[No. L-42025/03/2018- IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.91/2015
Shri Vidya Nand Sharma S/o late Shri Uday Narain Sharma,
R/o F-48, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi 110 030
…Workman
Versus
(i)
The Administrative Officer,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029
(ii)
M/s. Sulabh International Social Service Organization,
Sulabh Bhawan, Mahavir Enclave, RZ-83,
Palam – Dabri Road,
New Delhi – 110 045
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Vidyanand Sharma (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-
section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from
the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers
him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands
substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act
to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a
dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was
within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section
2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate
Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2.
The claimant, filed his statement of claim wherein it is averred he was deployed as contract labour on the post of
Supervisor of Cafeteria established by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short the management) on 25.01.2008
6930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and terminated without any notice on oral order with effect from 01.06.2010. No opportunity was granted to present his
case. Finally it has been prayed that direction may passed for his reinstatement in service.
3.
Reply was filed on behalf of M/s. Sulabh International Social Service Organization averring that the complaint
is not maintainable nor fit to be taken cognizance of. Initially complaint was against All India Institute of Medical
Sciences but subsequently M/s. Sulabh International Social Service Organization was added as one of the contesting
management. During the conciliation, it was specifically conceded by the claimant before the Ld. Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) that he has no grievance or dispute against M/s. Sulabh International Social Service
Organization. Hence, the instant complaint is fit to be rejected.
4.
Initially despite affording of several opportunities, All India Institute of Medical Sciences failed to file their
written statement and hence were proceeded ex-parte.
5.
Thereafter, case was listed for filing of rejoinder. In the meanwhile, it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal
that the claimant has since expired and no legal heir has come forward to pursue the case. In such circumstances, this
Tribunal is left with no alternative but to pass a ‘no dispute’ award. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : 14.11.2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1809
1809
1809
1809.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार
मेसस- छावनी बोड- और अय एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके कम-कार के बीच अनुबंध म'
िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदभ- सं3या
65/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ाg aए थे ।
[सं. एल-13011/02/2014-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s.
Cantonment Board & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. L-13011/02/2014-IR(DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 65/2014
Ref.No. L-13011/02/2014-IR(DU) dated 28.10.2014
BETWEEN :
Sri Ram Pandey, Zonal Secretary,
All India Cantonment Board Employees Federation,
Dehradun- 248001
AND
1. The Chief Executive Officer
Cantonment Board
Dehradun, Clement Twon, Roorkee, Almora,
Nainital, Chakrata, Ranikhet,
Lansdown, Landour, Meerut.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6931
2. The Principal Director
Defence Estate, Central Command,
Directorate Defence Estate,
Ministry of Defence, Central Command, Lucknow Cantt.
Lucknow-226001.
3. The General Officer Commanding in Chief
Central Command, Lucknow Cantt, Lucknow – 226001.
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-13011/02/2014-IR(DU) dated 28.10.2014 and its subsequent corrigendum dated 11.11.204,
16.06.2015 & 04.08.2015 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred
by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
referred this industrial dispute between Sri Ram Pandey, Zonal Secretary, All India Cantonment Board Employees
Federation, Dehradun and the Director, Defence Estate, Central Command, Directorate Defence Estate, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, Central Command, Lucknow Cantt. Lucknow for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER
THE
DEMAND
OF
THE
UNIONS
FEDERATION
REGARDING
NON
IMPLEMENTATION ACP BENEFITS TO THE EMPLOYEES AS PER VITH PAY COMMISSION
REPORT BY THE MANAGEMENT IS JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE ELIGIBLE
EMPLOYEES ENTITLED FOR?”
3
In the claim statement, W-4/petition dt. 01.12.2014, the Workmen Federation has stated in brief that as per the
memorandum of settlement dt. 23.05.1969, and in furtherance the judgment dt. 04.03.1960 passed by NIT, Bombay, it
was laid down that the employees of the Cantonment Board would be entitled to get the salary and the allowance being
paid to the concerned State Govt. employees, where the Cantonment Board is situated. Accordingly the Cantonment
Board employees have requested for sanction of salary benefits taking into account the similar pay scale etc. being
provided to the concerned State Governments, where promotion could not be accorded to due to certain reasons. It has
further been submitted by the petitioner that the matter was raised before the JCM, on 24.03.2011, in the office of
Director General (Defence Estate), New Delhi and the Director General has assured in writing that in the schedule time
frame, time scale would be provided to the concerned Cantonment Board employees, in the Central Command,
thereafter, despite several oral and written requests having been made, appropriate sanction has not been yet given by the
concerned authorities. On 03.10.2013 a notice was issued to proceed on strike, copy was sent to the Labour
Commissioner, efforts for conciliation was made by the RLC office and compromise in writing was formulated wherein
it was decided that time scale benefits be provided as per Rules till 31.03.2014, and this news was widely published in
several News Papers.
4.
It has been asserted in the claim statement that about 85% to 95% employees are semi-literate and Safai
Karmachari, getting very low salary, they were optimistic to get some relief in furtherance of the aforesaid decision taken
by the authorities, even then the payment was not made appropriately to all the concerned employees till the dead line
31.03.2014, consequently such employees and their family members are suffering from mental agony and pain. The
Federation in its letters dated 03.10.2013 and 28.11.2013 has requested that the concerned employees would also be paid
additionally interest on the sum due @ 18% per annum. With the aforesaid pleadings request has been made by the
petitioner to adjudicate the matter accordingly in favour of the employees.
5.
The management in its written statement M-8 dt. 08.04.2015 has requested to issue directions to the petitioners
to file specific statement of claim mentioning their grievance alongwith all supporting documents.
6.
Thereafter comprehensive claim statement W-17 dt. 14.08.2015 has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the
facts in detail mentioned in earlier petition W-4. The petitioner has submitted that claimant is covered under the
definition of the workman as provided in the Section 2(S) of the I.D. Act. The facts regarding memorandum of
settlement, conciliation proceedings and the decision taken before the JCM has been mentioned. It has also been
emphasized in W-17 that the recommendation of 6th CPC have been accepted by the Statement Government with certain
modifications according G.O. has already been issued by the U.P and Uttarakhand Government and ACP benefits have
been granted to the concerned State Govt. employees on completion of 10,16,26 years of service.
7.
It has further been stated by the petitioner that the Cantonment Boards of Central Command situated in UP and
Uttarakhand and other states are given ACP benefits to its employees, Central Govt. has also issued certain OMs but
there is no specific directions/guidelines regarding time scale, and therefore the management of the Cantonment Board
do not observe any specific time schedule for processing the cases of eligible employee for granting ACP benefits.
Therefore it has resultantly caused dis-appointment and dis-satisfaction to the employees. Certain other facts regarding
meeting held before the CEO, of the Cant. Board and the RLC have also been mentioned. With the aforesaid pleadings
request has been made by the petitioner seeking directions to the opposite party so as to file the time schedule regarding
processing of cases as provided in the Central Govt. OM dated 19.05.2009, 18.02.2015 and decision taken in JCM dt.
09.05.2015. Further prayer of sanction of interest @ 18% has also been made by the petitioner. Several documents have
been annexed with the claim statement.
6932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
The management in its written statement M-20 dt. 23.01.2016 has submitted that Cantonment Boards are
autonomous body performing various municipal functions within Cantonment limits. The opposite party has submitted
that 25 Cantonment Boards are located in the State of U.P, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, MP and Bihar, whereas there are
total 62 such Boards in the country. Service of the Cantonment Board employees is governed by the Cantonment Board
Fund Servant Rules 1937. Memorandum of settlement finalized in the year 1969 has also been admitted. GO issued by
the UP and Uttarakhand Govt. regarding sanction of ACP have also been admitted.
9.
The opposite party has stressed that the ACP scheme is new and number of modifications and guidelines have
been issued by Principal Director, Defence Estate, Central Command, Lucknow to the CEOs of the Cantonment Boards
through letters dt. 18.07.2012, 23.01.2015, 29.01.2015, 03.02.2015, 11.02.2015, 20.02.2015 etc. It has also been
emphasized that the proposal received from a Cantonment Board is examined by the office of Respondent No.2 before
forwarding it to the GOC-in-C, Central Command/Competent Authority. The opposite party has also pointed out that
there are thousands/hundreds officials/employees in the Cantonment Boards on their services and Rolls, ACP becomes
due to several employees in each quarter of year and all the proposals are being forwarded to the office of Respondent
no.2 & 3 by the Cantonment Board, consequently enhancing the burden of their office.
10.
The opposite party has emphasized that the delay caused in the grant of ACP is not deliberate, since the process
is complicated and very lengthy, and some times deficiencies found there in have to be rectified. For this purpose
concerned employees were also imparted, a training programme. The opposite party has submitted that during the period
two years opposite parties have granted sanction of ACP in respect of 1134 employees of different Cantonment Board.
Sometimes delay is caused due to strict adherence of Rules and the procedure since it relates to financial implications.
The opposite party has stressed that the grant of ACP is continuous and unending process, the jurisdiction stretches all
the Cantonment Boards of the Central Command, more over every month number of employees become eligible for
ACP. Several employees mentioned in the list annexed with the claim statement have already been granted the benefit of
ACP. With the aforesaid pleadings request has been made by the respondent to reject the claim statement and it has been
reiterated that there is no denial regarding sanction of ACP to the eligible Cantonment Board Employees, as per Rules.
Certain documents have been annexed with the Written Statement.
11.
With the strong denial of the counter allegations leveled in the written statement, the petitioner has filed
rejoinder W-24, reiterating the assertion made in the claim statement.
12.
The petitioner in support of the claim statement has filed affidavit of Sri Ram Pandey as W-29 alongwith the
annexure, he has been thoroughly cross examined on behalf of the management.
13.
The management has filed affidavit of Sri R.P. Singh, Office Supdt. In the office of Principle Director (Defence
Estate) Central Command, Lucknow as M-32. He has been cross examined on behalf of the workman.
14.
Arguments of Learned ARs of both the parties, viz. Sri Ram Pandey for the workman/union and Sri R.P. Singh,
Office Supdt, O/o P.D., Central Command, Lucknow for the opposite party respondent have been heard at length.
Record has been perused comprehensively.
15.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner employees are under the administrative control of the concerned CEO,
Cantonment Boards, which are supervised and administratively dealt with by the Principal Director, Defence Estate,
Central Command, Ministry of Defence, Lucknow. Moreover the sanction of ACP to the concerned employees, is dealt
with as per guidelines issued by the P.D office, in consonance with the established rules and norms. Sometimes delay is
caused due to prevalent procedure and movement of files seeking approval of the competent authority. It is also evident
from the record that intentional delay has neither been proved by the petitioners, nor it is reflected otherwise from the
conduct of the respondents. It has also been stated on oath by the management witness that almost on every working day
ACP becomes due for some employees and “Zero Pendency” of the cases due for sanction of higher pay scale/ACP is
not possible. It has also been brought on record that minutes recorded in the deliberation of the JCM, are being strictly
followed so as to ensure the expeditious disposal of the pending proposal. However, the delay in sanctioning the ACP to
the eligible employees can never be appreciated and the concerned CEOs and other authorities are duty bound to take
decisions without any delay.
16.
Learned Authorized representative for the petitioners has referred the judgment dt. 24.08.2015 passed by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 7964/2015 Bhagwan Das Vs Union of India and others Learned AR for the
respondent submits that this Ruling is not applicable on the matter in issue.
17.
The evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents and the arguments advanced by Sri R.P. Singh, Office
Supdt. O/o P.D, Ministry of Defence, Central Command, Lucknow shows the sincere dedication and diligence on the
part of the Office Supdt. The intellect argument and persistence sincerity expressed by Sri Ram Pandey for the
petitioners is also commendable.
18.
After having heard the submissions made by both the parties on analytical perusal of the record, following
salient points emerge:
(A) The employees working in the 25 Cantonment Boards under the jurisdiction of the Principal Director,
Defence Estate, Central Command, Lucknow and General Officer Commanding in Chief, Central Command
Lucknow are under the supervisory administration of the respective Cantt. Boards, carried out by the
concerned Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Boards.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6933
(B)
The sanction of Assured Carrier Progression (ACP) to the eligible employees should not be unduly
delayed. Systematic plan with a time bound schedule has to be chalked out and implemented by the
concerned authorities without any failure. Decision regarding sanction of the ACP/higher pay scale to
the eligible sincere employees must be made effective latest within three months from the due date.
(C) The delay in sanctioning the ACP or other salary benefits, undoubtedly causes financial hardship and mental
agony to the Eligible sincere employees of the Cantonment Boards. Mere procedural formalities in this
regard can never be treated as a general excuse for not sanctioning the order within time.
(D)
The administrative decision is advisable on the part of the superior authorities so as to ensure the
minimization of delay in sanctioning the relevant pay scale to the eligible sincere employees. Moreover, the
official or the officer concerned, being responsible for unnecessary lingering on the matter, thereby causing
delay in this matter should be dealt with strictly by the Principal Director Office. It is to be followed in
letter and spirit.
19.
The Schedule referred by the Govt. of India in the aforesaid matter, is disposed accordingly. The concerned
employees/petitioner are entitled to get the relief in terms of this award as discussed at para 18 above. Moreover the
eligible employee whose name finds reference in Annexure -6 (paper No. 17/48 to 17/54) of the statement of claim be
given benefit of ACP due to them, if not given so far, within eight weeks of publication of this award.
20.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
04.12.2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1810
1810
1810
1810.—औfोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म' केीय सरकार
मेसस- उपा य<, एन एच पी सी कम-चारी संघ और अय एवं उनके कम-चारी के बंधतं* के संबW िनयोजक और उनके
कम-कार के बीच अनुबंध म' िनvदn औfोिगक िववाद म' केीय सरकार औfोिगक अिधकरण एवं Mम यायालय, के लखनऊ
पंचाट (संदभ- सं3या 39/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ाg aए थे ।
[सं. एल-42011/96/2017-आईआर(डीयू)]
राज' जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 1810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Vice
President, NHPC Karamchare Sangh, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
07.12.2018.
[No. L-42011/96/2017-IR(DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 39/2017
Ref. No. L-42011/96/2017-IR(DU) dated: 11.08.2017
BETWEEN :
Sh. Kharak Singh, Vice President
NHPC, Karamchare Sangh, Sharda Region
Darchula, Pithoragarh
Uttrakhand – 262545
(Espousing cause of Shri Kharak Singh)
6934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
Sh. Kishore Chand, Assistant Manager – HR
Dhauliganga Hydro Electric Project, NHPC
Tapovan, Pithoragarh
Uttrakhand – 262545
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-42011/96/2017-IR(DU) dated: 11.08.2017 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Sh. Kharak Singh, Vice President,
NHPC, Karamchare Sangh, Sharda Region, Darchula, Pithoragarh, Uttrakhand – 262545 (Espousing cause of Shri
Kharak Singh) and Sh. Kishore Chand, Assistant Manager – HR, Dhauliganga Hydro Electric Project, NHPC, Tapovan,
Pithoragarh for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NHPC, DHAULIGANGA HYDRO
ELECTRIC
PROJECT,
DHARCHULA,
PITHORAGARH,
UTTRAKHAND
IN
NOT
COUNTING/CONSIDERING THE AD-HOC SERVICE RENDERED BY EH WORKER SH. KHARAK
SINGH FROM YEAR 1984 TO 1989 FOR THE COMPUTATION OF HIS SENIORITY AND OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IS LEGAL, FAIR AND JUSTIFIED. IF NOT, THAN WHAT RELIEF
HE IS ENTITLED TO AND FROM WHICH DATE?”
3.
On receipt of the reference order the workman’s union was issued registered notice and was called upon to file
its statement of claim with list of reliance and list of witnesses on 19.01.2018. None turned up from the parties on
19.01.2018. Thereafter next dates were fixed on 16.04.2018 & 19.06.2018; but again none turned up from parties nor
any statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workmen union. However, the parties appeared, on repeat notice, on
18.09.2018; whereupon the workmen’s union sought time to file statement of claim; and accordingly 23.10.2018 was
fixed for statement of claim. On 23.10.2018 the workmen’s union abstained itself; and accordingly 12.11.2018 was fixed
for filing of the statement of claim.
4.
The parties were present on 12.11.2018; and on the said date, the workmen’s union moved an application, W-5,
stating therein that it wants to withdraw the case; and accordingly sought permission of this Tribunal for the same. The
authorized representative of the management endorsed its ‘no objection’ on the application, W-5. Thus, keeping in view
prayer of the workmen’s union for withdrawal of the case and no objection from the management, the file was reserved
for award.
5.
Therefore, in view of the written submission of the workman’s union there is no need to decide the reference
order on merit and the same is disposed of as there is no grievance left with the workman. The Trade Union’s case for
relief claimed stands withdrawn. No relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The matter is resolved;
and the reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
6.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
3rd December, 2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2018
dk vk-1811-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkjh
jsyos 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] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@2012½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-12-2018 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S.O. 1811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[F. No. L-12025/01/2018– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6935
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM- LABOUR COURTLUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 58/2012
BETWEEN :
Mo. Kurban S/o Sri Mushahib
C/o Abdul Sameem, Khandari Lane
119/114, Mustfa Khan ka Hata, Lalbagh, Lucknow
AND
1. General Manager
Northern Railway, Baroda House
New Delhi.
2. Divisional Rail Manager
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow.
3. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmad & Brothers
654, Begum Ka Makbara, Faizabad (UP)
AWARD
1.
The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, under provisions contained in the Section 2A (2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for alleged termination of the services of the workman by the management of
Northern Railway & others, for adjudication before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court,
Lucknow.
2.
The case of the workman, Mo. Kurban, in brief, is that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite party No.
02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009 continuously when his
services have been terminated without any notice. It is submitted by the workman that the opposite party No. 02 has kept
opposite party No. 03 to escape from the responsibilities and labour laws though he performed duties of opposite party
No. 2 under its directions. He also submitted that he was issued a gate pass by the opposite party No. 03, under
directions of the opposite party No. 02, which used to be taken back at the end of the year. The workman has stated that
he after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service benefits under service Rules.
Accordingly, the workman has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages with continuity in service.
3.
The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it
has mentioned that the workman had never been engaged/appointed by the opposite party No. 01 & 02; moreover the
railway management entered into an agreement with the opposite party No. 03 for executing the day to day casual work
at railway stations; and accordingly, the railway administration is not liable for any claim made by the workman as the
railway administration neither engaged the workman nor did it terminate him; and also that it did not make any violation
of any labour law or engaged in any kind of unfair labour practice; hence it has been prayed by the opposite party No. 1
& 2 that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him being devoid of merit.
4.
The opposite party No. 03 has also disputed the claim of the workman with submission that neither any post of
Box Porter was ever vacant nor the opposite party No. 3 ever received work order or Form-V from railway
administration nor the workman was ever appointed with the opposite party No. 1, 2 & 3 on the post of Box Porter; hence
there is no question of his termination. It has submitted that the workman was never issued any gate pass by the opposite
party No. 3 and various benefits such as salary, weekly holiday, Provident Fund and medical facilities are available to the
regularly appointed employee who are appointed after adopting due procedure; and the workman is not entitled for the
same as there was no violation to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 03 has prayed
that the claim of the workman be rejected.
5.
The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has denied the counter allegations of the opposite parties
reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.
6.
The opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing of its written statement.
6936
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
The workman and opposite party No. 01 & 02 filed photocopies of documents in support of their cases. The
workman examined himself; whereas the opposite party No. 01 & 02 examined Shri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F),
Northern Railway, Lucknow in support of their respective stands. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.
8.
Heard the authorized representatives of the parties and perused entire evidence available on record.
9.
The authorized representative of the workman has argued that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite
party No. 02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009 continuously
when his services have been terminated without any notice or notice pay or assigning any reason thereof in contravention
to the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The learned authorizes representative of the workman has also
asserted that the workman after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service
benefits under service Rules. He has relied upon
(i)
The Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of
1998
(ii)
Judgment dated 27.01.1999 of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sheikh Jahangir Ali & others vs
Calcutta Port Trust & others.
(iii)
(2006) 12 SCC 380 District Rehabilitation Officer & others vs Jay Kishore Maity & others.
(iv)
(2003)11 SCC 590 A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union vs Union of India & others.
10.
In rebuttal, the opposite party No. 01 & 02’s representative has contended that the workman is contractor’s
employee as the opposite party has undergone a contract with the M/s Industrial Security Services for supply of security
personnel; and accordingly the workman was one of the security guards provided by M/s Industrial Security Services and
the said contractor/agency was duly paid for it, which in turn paid salary to the workman. It has been urged that the
management of opposite party No. 01 neither appointed the workman nor terminated his services; rather his employment
was regulated by M/s Industrial Security Services and the same came to an end with the end of contract with the agency;
hence there was no violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has relied upon:
(i)
2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs. The Chief General
Manager, BSNL
(II)
2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal Prajapati
11.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused entire evidence
available on file.
12.
The workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed by the opposite party No. 2 on the clear
vacancy of Box Porter and the management of railways engaged the opposite party No. 3 in order to deprive the
workman of his legitimate rights. It has also been contended by the workman that keeping in view the long and
continuous service with the opposite party No. 1 & 02 he was entitled for grant of temporary status and other
consequential benefits admissible to the employees with temporary status under Railway Establishment Rules; but on the
contrary the management of Railways has acted in utter disregard to the norms and has terminated his services without
any reason or rhyme or any notice or any notice pay in lieu thereof, which is voilative of the provisions of the Section 25
F of the ID Act, 1947. It is also the case of the workman that keeping in view the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court regarding regularization/absorption of Box Porters with railway administration, he was also entitled for
regularization/absorption into the services of the Railways. The workman has filed photocopy of gate pass/Identity card,
purported to be issued by opposite party No. 3.
13.
Per contra, the opposite party No.1 & 2 has come forward with a clear cut case that the management of railways
neither appointed the workman in any capacity nor there arises any question of his termination or violation of any of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the management of railways that the management of
railways entered into an agreement with M/s Shahid FAizan Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of driver line boxed
from Charbagh & Alamnagar station and accordingly, the workman’s services were availed by the said
contractor/opposite party No. 3 by engaging him; and was paid accordingly. Thus, there was no direct employer-
employee relationship between the management of railways and the workman, therefore, the management of railways is
not liable to the workman in any way as claimed before this Tribunal. The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has filed
photocopy of the contract dated 22.01.2009 entered between the railway administration and the opposite party No. 3.
14.
Moreover, the opposite party No. 03 has also rebutted the claim of the workman with submissions that the
workman had never been appointed by any of the opposite parties and he was not entitled for any of the benefits as
claimed by him as they were admissible to the regularly appointed employees of the railways. It also mentioned that
there was no vacancy of the Box Porter nor any such post was advertised by the railways or any recruitment was done in
pursuance thereof. However, the opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing its written statement. But its absence
does not automatically create any legal rights in favour of the petitioner workman.
15.
Having gone through the respective pleading of the parties and entire documentary evidence available on record
it comes out that the railway administration entered into a contract with the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s to carry out the working according to the specification provided in the contract for a period or two
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6937
years only; and in consequence thereto; workman had been engaged by the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of Driver line boxes from Charbagh & Alam Nagar station railway platform.
The workman has examined himself in support of his case and during his cross-examination has stated that he
had been appointed by the contractor on 01.09.2003 and he worked upto 25.04.2009. He also stated that railway neither
recruited him nor terminated him. He further stated that paper No. 13/4 is his identity card which bears signature of
contractor and had been issued by him.
On contrary, the management of the railway has examined Sri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F), who stated in his
cross-examination that contractor is being allotted ‘work order’, which is for a specific time period; however the time
period keeps on changing with reference to the condition and this may be for 6 months, some time for 01 year and
sometimes it may be for 02 years also, depending on the nature of the work. He stated that Indian Railway does not have
direct relation with any Box Porter and the contractor is fully responsible for quality of work. He further stated that the
contractor is directly related with the workman and Railways has no role in the appointment of Box Porter by the
contractor; nor does the railway issues any identity card to any of the Box Porter engaged by the contractor. The
management witness specially stated that since the contract used to be time bound, therefore, on its expiry, the contract is
issued again; hence there is no relation with the railways regarding regularization.
16.
During course of the oral submissions the learned authorized representative of the workman has stressed over
the order of Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 433 of 1998 and has submitted that the case of the workman is covered with the said order of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and since the railway management has given appointment/regularized other box porters in light of above order
dated 15.02.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore the workman is also entitled for regularization accordingly.
The learned authorized representative of the management of railway has vehemently opposed the same. Having taken
into account the contentions of the rival parties and perusal of the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 1998 and various letters filed by the workman, obtained through Right to
Information Act, 2005, it appears that the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 was in personam and not in rem, therefore, the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall
apply to the workmen who approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and since the workman never approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 is of no use for him.
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs.
The Chief General Manager, BSNL has held that admission of the workmen that they were working under their
respective contractor, is sufficient to establish that they were having no employer-employee relationship with BSNL
management; hence, the workmen are not entitled to seek any relief from BSNL management. Hon’ble High Court has
observed as under:
“The ratio of the Division Bench in the case of the Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty (supra) is that when a
workman is engaged by a contractor to carry out some work at any establishment of BSNL, if such
workman is retrenched by the contractor while working under him, BSNL cannot be regarded as employer
of such workman with the meaning of “employer” as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act nor such
workman can be held to be a “workman” under BSNL within the meaning of the said term, as defined
under the said Act and such workman cannot claim to be absorbed in the service of BSNL.”
Hon’ble Allahabd High Court in 2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal
Prajapati has observed as under:
“Since, prima facie there was no employment of the respondent with the petitioner there could not have been
any termination. I am therefore, of the definite opinion that the Labour Court decided the dispute
erroneously. It had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. In fact, when the workman was not at all a workman
as had been stated by the petitioner and as was also clear from the averment made in paragraph-10 of the
counter affidavit the respondent/workman who had been engaged by a contractor had the remedy to file a
claim under the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Contract Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the
1971 Rules)”
17.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden
was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination and to prove that the alleged
termination by railways. It was the case of the workman that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter under the
opposite party No. 02 and had worked continuously w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009, when his services have been
terminated without any notice by the railways. This claim has been denied by the railway management; therefore, it was
for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for the claimed duration before his
alleged termination. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as
under:
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was
then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding
his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked
6938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman.
On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”
18.
Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in 2006 (108) FLR R.M.
Yellatti & Asstt. Executive Engineer as follow:
“It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated
judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to
show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman
stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both
oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of
appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases, the
workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for
the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register
etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above
decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the
claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non
production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the
ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.”
In the present case the workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter
under the opposite party No. 02 and thus, worked continuously w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009, but has not produced
any document neither original nor photocopy in support of his pleadings . The burden was on the workman to show by
the way of cogent evidence that there was employee-employer relationship; and he actually worked for claimed duration;
but he failed to do so as he could not bring this fact on record. In view of denial of the management regarding his claim,
the workman has nothing to support his version, except photo copy of the so called identity card, purported to be issued
by the opposite party No. 03 i.e. the contractor viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s. Further, the opposite party
No. 03, the contractor has also refuted the claim of the workman regarding his appointment with the railways. Hence, the
workman could not establish that there was any employee and employer relationship between him and the opposite party
No. 01 & 02 i.e railways.
19.
On the other hand the management of the railways has well proved its case by filing copy of the contract with
the M/s Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s for supply of labourers for transportation of Driver line boxes at railway
platform.
Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work on the
date of alleged termination was on the workman but he failed to discharge the above burden. There is no reliable
material for recording findings that the workman had been appointed by the railway administration on the post of Box
Porter or he worked continuously with the opposite party No. 01 & 02; and the alleged unjust or illegal order of
termination was passed by the management of opposite party No. 01 & 02 or any provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 had been violated by them.
20.
Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made herein above I am of considered
opinion that the workman could not be able to prove through cogent evidence that there was a relationship of employee
and employer between him and the opposite party No. 01 & 02; rather from the evidence adduced it is established that he
was an employee of the contractor viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s, therefore, the workman can not be
granted the relief of reinstatement or any other relief sought by the workman against the opposite party No. 01 & 02.
21.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
20th November, 2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2018
dk vk- 1812-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkjh
jsyos izca/krarz 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 y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk
Fkk dks
[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6939
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S.O. 1812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[No. L-12025/01/2018–IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 03/2013
BETWEEN :
Sri Anjani Kumar
Village – Hussain Viphan, PO-Hussain Viphan
Distt. Amnedkar Nagar.
AND
1.
General Manager
Northern Railway, Baroda House
New Delhi 110001.
2.
Divisional Rail Manager
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow 226001.
3.
M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmad & Brothers
654, Begum Ka Makbara, Faizabad (UP) 224001
AWARD
1.
The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, under provisions contained in the Section 2A (2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for alleged termination of the services of the workman by the management of
Northern Railway & others, for adjudication before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court,
Lucknow.
2.
The case of the workman, Anjani, in brief, is that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite party No. 02
against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 03.04.2009 to 04.11.2011 continuously when his
services have been terminated without any notice. It is submitted by the workman that the opposite party No. 02 has kept
opposite party No. 03 to escape from the responsibilities and labour laws though he performed duties of opposite party
No. 2 under its directions. He also submitted that he was issued a gate pass by the opposite party No. 03, under
directions of the opposite party No. 02, which used to be taken back at the end of the year. The workman has stated that
he after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service benefits under service Rules.
Accordingly, the workman has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages with continuity in service.
3.
The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it
has mentioned that the workman had never been engaged/appointed by the opposite party No. 01 & 02; moreover the
railway management entered into an agreement with the opposite party No. 03 for executing the day to day casual work
at railway stations; and accordingly, the railway administration is not liable for any claim made by the workman as the
railway administration neither engaged the workman nor did it terminate him; and also that it did not make any violation
of any labour law or engaged in any kind of unfair labour practice; hence it has been prayed by the opposite party No. 1
& 2 that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him being devoid of merit.
4.
The opposite party No. 03 has also disputed the claim of the workman with submission that neither any post of
Box Porter was ever vacant nor the opposite party No. 3 ever received work order or Form-V from railway
administration nor the workman was ever appointed with the opposite party No. 1, 2 & 3 on the post of Box Porter; hence
there is no question of his termination. It has submitted that the workman was never issued any gate pass by the opposite
party No. 3 and various benefits such as salary, weekly holiday, Provident Fund and medical facilities are available to the
regularly appointed employee who are appointed after adopting due procedure; and the workman is not entitled for the
same as there was no violation to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 03 has prayed
that the claim of the workman be rejected.
6940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has denied the counter allegations of the opposite parties
reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.
6.
The opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing of its written statement.
7.
The workman and opposite party No. 01 & 02 filed photocopies of documents in support of their cases. The
workman examined himself; whereas the opposite party No. 01 & 02 examined Shri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F),
Northern Railway, Lucknow in support of their respective stands. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.
8.
Heard the authorized representatives of the parties and perused entire evidence available on record.
9.
The authorized representative of the workman has argued that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite
party No. 02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 03.04.2009 to 04.11.2011 continuously
when his services have been terminated without any notice or notice pay or assigning any reason thereof in contravention
to the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The learned authorizes representative of the workman has also
asserted that the workman after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service
benefits under service Rules. He has relied upon
(i)
The Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of
1998
(ii)
Judgment dated 27.01.1999 of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sheikh Jahangir Ali & others vs
Calcutta Port Trust & others.
(iii)
(2006) 12 SCC 380 District Rehabilitation Officer & others vs Jay Kishore Maity & others.
(iv)
(2003)11 SCC 590 A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union vs Union of India & others.
10.
In rebuttal, the opposite party No. 01 & 02’s representative has contended that the workman is contractor’s
employee as the opposite party has undergone a contract with the M/s Industrial Security Services for supply of security
personnel; and accordingly the workman was one of the security guards provided by M/s Industrial Security Services and
the said contractor/agency was duly paid for it, which in turn paid salary to the workman. It has been urged that the
management of opposite party No. 01 neither appointed the workman nor terminated his services; rather his employment
was regulated by M/s Industrial Security Services and the same came to an end with the end of contract with the agency;
hence there was no violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has relied upon:
(i)
2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs. The Chief General
Manager, BSNL
(II)
2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal Prajapati
11.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused entire evidence
available on file.
12.
The workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed by the opposite party No. 2 on the clear
vacancy of Box Porter and the management of railways engaged the opposite party No. 3 in order to deprive the
workman of his legitimate rights. It has also been contended by the workman that keeping in view the long and
continuous service with the opposite party No. 1 & 02 he was entitled for grant of temporary status and other
consequential benefits admissible to the employees with temporary status under Railway Establishment Rules; but on the
contrary the management of Railways has acted in utter disregard to the norms and has terminated his services without
any reason or rhyme or any notice or any notice pay in lieu thereof, which is voilative of the provisions of the Section 25
F of the ID Act, 1947. It is also the case of the workman that keeping in view the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court regarding regularization/absorption of Box Porters with railway administration, he was also entitled for
regularization/absorption into the services of the Railways. The workman has filed photocopy of gate pass/Identity card,
purported to be issued by opposite party No. 3.
13.
Per contra, the opposite party No.1 & 2 has come forward with a clear cut case that the management of railways
neither appointed the workman in any capacity nor there arises any question of his termination or violation of any of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the management of railways that the management of
railways entered into an agreement with M/s Shahid FAizan Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of driver line boxed
from Charbagh & Alamnagar station and accordingly, the workman’s services were availed by the said
contractor/opposite party No. 3 by engaging him; and was paid accordingly. Thus, there was no direct employer-
employee relationship between the management of railways and the workman, therefore, the management of railways is
not liable to the workman in any way as claimed before this Tribunal. The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has filed
photocopy of the contract dated 22.01.2009 entered between the railway administration and the opposite party No. 3.
14.
Moreover, the opposite party No. 03 has also rebutted the claim of the workman with submissions that the
workman had never been appointed by any of the opposite parties and he was not entitled for any of the benefits as
claimed by him as they were admissible to the regularly appointed employees of the railways. It also mentioned that
there was no vacancy of the Box Porter nor any such post was advertised by the railways or any recruitment was done in
pursuance thereof. However, the opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing its written statement. But its absence
does not automatically create any legal rights in favour of the petitioner workman.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6941
15.
Having gone through the respective pleading of the parties and entire documentary evidence available on record
it comes out that the railway administration entered into a contract with the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s to carry out the working according to the specification provided in the contract for a period or two
years only; and in consequence thereto; workman had been engaged by the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of Driver line boxes from Charbagh & Alam Nagar station railway platform.
The workman has examined himself in support of his case and during his cross-examination has stated that he
had been appointed by the contractor viz. Shahid Faizan & Brothers on 03.04.2009. He admitted that the railway
neither appointed nor terminated his services. He also stated that paper No. 8/5 is identity card, issued by the contractor.
On contrary, the management of the railway has examined Sri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F), who stated in his
cross-examination that contractor is being allotted ‘work order’, which is for a specific time period; however the time
period keeps on changing with reference to the condition and this may be for 6 months, some time for 01 year and
sometimes it may be for 02 years also, depending on the nature of the work. He stated that Indian Railway does not have
direct relation with any Box Porter and the contractor is fully responsible for quality of work. He further stated that the
contractor is directly related with the workman and Railways has no role in the appointment of Box Porter by the
contractor; nor does the railway issues any identity card to any of the Box Porter engaged by the contractor. The
management witness specially stated that since the contract used to be time bound, therefore, on its expiry, the contract is
issued again; hence there is no relation with the railways regarding regularization.
16.
During course of the oral submissions the learned authorized representative of the workman has stressed over
the order of Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 433 of 1998 and has submitted that the case of the workman is covered with the said order of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and since the railway management has given appointment/regularized other box porters in light of above order
dated 15.02.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore the workman is also entitled for regularization accordingly.
The learned authorized representative of the management of railway has vehemently opposed the same. Having taken
into account the contentions of the rival parties and perusal of the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 1998 and various letters filed by the workman, obtained through Right to
Information Act, 2005, it appears that the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 was in personam and not in rem, therefore, the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall
apply to the workmen who approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and since the workman never approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 is of no use for him.
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs.
The Chief General Manager, BSNL has held that admission of the workmen that they were working under their
respective contractor, is sufficient to establish that they were having no employer-employee relationship with BSNL
management; hence, the workmen are not entitled to seek any relief from BSNL management. Hon’ble High Court has
observed as under:
“The ratio of the Division Bench in the case of the Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty (supra) is that when a
workman is engaged by a contractor to carry out some work at any establishment of BSNL, if such workman
is retrenched by the contractor while working under him, BSNL cannot be regarded as employer of such
workman with the meaning of “employer” as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act nor such workman can
be held to be a “workman” under BSNL within the meaning of the said term, as defined under the said Act
and such workman cannot claim to be absorbed in the service of BSNL.”
Hon’ble Allahabd High Court in 2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal
Prajapati has observed as under:
“Since, prima facie there was no employment of the respondent with the petitioner there could not have been
any termination. I am therefore, of the definite opinion that the Labour Court decided the dispute
erroneously. It had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. In fact, when the workman was not at all a workman
as had been stated by the petitioner and as was also clear from the averment made in paragraph-10 of the
counter affidavit the respondent/workman who had been engaged by a contractor had the remedy to file a
claim under the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Contract Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the
1971 Rules)”
17.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden
was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination and to prove that the alleged
termination by railways. It was the case of the workman that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter under the
opposite party No. 02 and had worked continuously w.e.f. 03.04.2009 to 04.11.2011, when his services have been
terminated without any notice by the railways. This claim has been denied by the railway management; therefore, it was
for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for the claimed duration before his
alleged termination. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as
under:
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then
for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
6942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked
for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman.
On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”
18.
Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in 2006 (108) FLR R.M.
Yellatti & Asstt. Executive Engineer as follow:
“It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated
judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to
show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman
stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both
oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of
appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases, the
workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for
the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register
etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above
decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the
claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non
production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the
ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.”
In the present case the workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter
under the opposite party No. 02 and thus, worked continuously w.e.f. 03.04.2009 to 04.11.2011, but has not produced
any document neither original nor photocopy in support of his pleadings . The burden was on the workman to show by
the way of cogent evidence that there was employee-employer relationship; and he actually worked for claimed duration;
but he failed to do so as he could not bring this fact on record. In view of denial of the management regarding his claim,
the workman has nothing to support his version, except photo copy of the so called identity card, purported to be issued
by the opposite party No. 03 i.e. the contractor viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s. Further, the opposite party
No. 03, the contractor has also refuted the claim of the workman regarding his appointment with the railways. Hence, the
workman could not establish that there was any employee and employer relationship between him and the opposite party
No. 01 & 02 i.e railways.
19.
On the other hand the management of the railways has well proved its case by filing copy of the contract with
the M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s for supply of labourers for transportation of Driver line boxes at railway
platform.
Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work on the date
of alleged termination was on the workman but he failed to discharge the above burden. There is no reliable material for
recording findings that the workman had been appointed by the railway administration on the post of Box Porter or he
worked continuously with the opposite party No. 01 & 02; and the alleged unjust or illegal order of termination was
passed by the management of opposite party No. 01 & 02 or any provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had been
violated by them.
20.
Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made herein above I am of considered
opinion that the workman could not be able to prove through cogent evidence that there was a relationship of employee
and employer between him and the opposite party No. 01 & 02; rather from the evidence adduced it is established that he
was and an employee of the contractor viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s, therefore, the workman can not be
granted the relief of reinstatement or any other relief sought by the workman against the opposite party No. 01 & 02.
21.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
20th November, 2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6943
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2018
dk vk- 1813-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkjh
jsyos izca/krarz 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 y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[Qk- la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S.O. 1813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[F. No. L-12025/01/2018– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 02/2013
BETWEEN :
Sri Virender Kumar Yadav, S/o Sri Om Prakash Yadav
Rahimapur Malava Khurd
Junsi, Allahabad – 211019.
AND
1. General Manager
Northern Railway, Baroda House
New Delhi 110001.
2. Divisional Rail Manager
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow 226001.
3. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmad & Brothers
654, Begum Ka Makbara, Faizabad (UP) 224001.
AWARD
1.
The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, under provisions contained in the Section 2A (2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for alleged termination of the services of the workman by the management of
Northern Railway & others, for adjudication before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court,
Lucknow.
2.
The case of the workman, Alok Kumar, in brief, is that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite party
No. 02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 02.05.2009 to 25.11.2011 continuously when
his services have been terminated without any notice. It is submitted by the workman that the opposite party No. 02 has
kept opposite party No. 03 to escape from the responsibilities and labour laws though he performed duties of opposite
party No. 2 under its directions. He also submitted that he was issued a gate pass by the opposite party No. 03, under
directions of the opposite party No. 02, which used to be taken back at the end of the year. The workman has stated that
he after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service benefits under service Rules.
Accordingly, the workman has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages with continuity in service.
3.
The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it
has mentioned that the workman had never been engaged/appointed by the opposite party No. 01 & 02; moreover the
railway management entered into an agreement with the opposite party No. 03 for executing the day to day casual work
at railway stations; and accordingly, the railway administration is not liable for any claim made by the workman as the
railway administration neither engaged the workman nor did it terminate him; and also that it did not make any violation
of any labour law or engaged in any kind of unfair labour practice; hence it has been prayed by the opposite party No. 1
& 2 that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him being devoid of merit.
4.
The opposite party No. 03 has also disputed the claim of the workman with submission that neither any post of
Box Porter was ever vacant nor the opposite party No. 3 ever received work order or Form-V from railway
6944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
administration nor the workman was ever appointed with the opposite party No. 1, 2 & 3 on the post of Box Porter; hence
there is no question of his termination. It has submitted that the workman was never issued any gate pass by the opposite
party No. 3 and various benefits such as salary, weekly holiday, Provident Fund and medical facilities are available to the
regularly appointed employee who are appointed after adopting due procedure; and the workman is not entitled for the
same as there was no violation to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 03 has prayed
that the claim of the workman be rejected.
5.
The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has denied the counter allegations of the opposite parties
reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.
6.
The opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing of its written statement.
7.
The workman and opposite party No. 01 & 02 filed photocopies of documents in support of their cases. The
workman examined himself; whereas the opposite party No. 01 & 02 examined Shri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F),
Northern Railway, Lucknow in support of their respective stands. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.
8.
Heard the authorized representatives of the parties and perused entire evidence available on record.
9.
The authorized representative of the workman has argued that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite
party No. 02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 02.05.2009 to 25.11.2011 continuously
when his services have been terminated without any notice or notice pay or assigning any reason thereof in contravention
to the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The learned authorizes representative of the workman has also
asserted that the workman after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service
benefits under service Rules. He has relied upon
(i)
The Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of
1998
(ii)
Judgment dated 27.01.1999 of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sheikh Jahangir Ali & others vs
Calcutta Port Trust & others.
(iii)
(2006) 12 SCC 380 District Rehabilitation Officer & others vs Jay Kishore Maity & others.
(iv)
(2003)11 SCC 590 A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union vs Union of India & others.
10.
In rebuttal, the opposite party No. 01 & 02’s representative has contended that the workman is contractor’s
employee as the opposite party has undergone a contract with the M/s Industrial Security Services for supply of security
personnel; and accordingly the workman was one of the security guards provided by M/s Industrial Security Services and
the said contractor/agency was duly paid for it, which in turn paid salary to the workman. It has been urged that the
management of opposite party No. 01 neither appointed the workman nor terminated his services; rather his employment
was regulated by M/s Industrial Security Services and the same came to an end with the end of contract with the agency;
hence there was no violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has relied upon:
(i)
2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs. The Chief General
Manager, BSNL
(II)
2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal Prajapati
11.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused entire evidence
available on file.
12.
The workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed by the opposite party No. 2 on the clear
vacancy of Box Porter and the management of railways engaged the opposite party No. 3 in order to deprive the
workman of his legitimate rights. It has also been contended by the workman that keeping in view the long and
continuous service with the opposite party No. 1 & 02 he was entitled for grant of temporary status and other
consequential benefits admissible to the employees with temporary status under Railway Establishment Rules; but on the
contrary the management of Railways has acted in utter disregard to the norms and has terminated his services without
any reason or rhyme or any notice or any notice pay in lieu thereof, which is voilative of the provisions of the Section 25
F of the ID Act, 1947. It is also the case of the workman that keeping in view the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court regarding regularization/absorption of Box Porters with railway administration, he was also entitled for
regularization/absorption into the services of the Railways. The workman has filed photocopy of gate pass/Identity card,
purported to be issued by opposite party No. 3.
13.
Per contra, the opposite party No.1 & 2 has come forward with a clear cut case that the management of railways
neither appointed the workman in any capacity nor there arises any question of his termination or violation of any of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the management of railways that the management of
railways entered into an agreement with M/s Shahid FAizan Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of driver line boxed
from Charbagh & Alamnagar station and accordingly, the workman’s services were availed by the said
contractor/opposite party No. 3 by engaging him; and was paid accordingly. Thus, there was no direct employer-
employee relationship between the management of railways and the workman, therefore, the management of railways is
not liable to the workman in any way as claimed before this Tribunal. The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has filed
photocopy of the contract dated 22.01.2009 entered between the railway administration and the opposite party No. 3.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6945
14.
Moreover, the opposite party No. 03 has also rebutted the claim of the workman with submissions that the
workman had never been appointed by any of the opposite parties and he was not entitled for any of the benefits as
claimed by him as they were admissible to the regularly appointed employees of the railways. It also mentioned that
there was no vacancy of the Box Porter nor any such post was advertised by the railways or any recruitment was done in
pursuance thereof. However, the opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing its written statement. But its absence
does not automatically create any legal rights in favour of the petitioner workman.
15.
Having gone through the respective pleading of the parties and entire documentary evidence available on record
it comes out that the railway administration entered into a contract with the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s to carry out the working according to the specification provided in the contract for a period or two
years only; and in consequence thereto; workman had been engaged by the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of Driver line boxes from Charbagh & Alam Nagar station railway platform.
The workman has examined himself in support of his case and during his cross-examination has stated that he
had been appointed by the contractor on 02.05.2009 and he worked upto 25.11.2011. He also stated that railway did not
terminate him. He also admitted that the railway neither appointed him nor terminated him. He further stated that paper
No. 9/5 is his identity card which was issued by the contractor, Shahid Faizan.
On contrary, the management of the railway has examined Sri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F), who stated in his
cross-examination that contractor is being allotted ‘work order’, which is for a specific time period; however the time
period keeps on changing with reference to the condition and this may be for 6 months, some time for 01 year and
sometimes it may be for 02 years also, depending on the nature of the work. He stated that Indian Railway does not have
direct relation with any Box Porter and the contractor is fully responsible for quality of work. He further stated that the
contractor is directly related with the workman and Railways has no role in the appointment of Box Porter by the
contractor; nor does the railway issues any identity card to any of the Box Porter engaged by the contractor. The
management witness specially stated that since the contract used to be time bound, therefore, on its expiry, the contract is
issued again; hence there is no relation with the railways regarding regularization.
16.
During course of the oral submissions the learned authorized representative of the workman has stressed over
the order of Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 433 of 1998 and has submitted that the case of the workman is covered with the said order of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and since the railway management has given appointment/regularized other box porters in light of above order
dated 15.02.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore the workman is also entitled for regularization accordingly.
The learned authorized representative of the management of railway has vehemently opposed the same. Having taken
into account the contentions of the rival parties and perusal of the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 1998 and various letters filed by the workman, obtained through Right to
Information Act, 2005, it appears that the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 was in personam and not in rem, therefore, the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall
apply to the workmen who approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and since the workman never approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 is of no use for him.
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs.
The Chief General Manager, BSNL has held that admission of the workmen that they were working under their
respective contractor, is sufficient to establish that they were having no employer-employee relationship with BSNL
management; hence, the workmen are not entitled to seek any relief from BSNL management. Hon’ble High Court has
observed as under:
“The ratio of the Division Bench in the case of the Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty (supra) is that when a
workman is engaged by a contractor to carry out some work at any establishment of BSNL, if such workman
is retrenched by the contractor while working under him, BSNL cannot be regarded as employer of such
workman with the meaning of “employer” as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act nor such workman can
be held to be a “workman” under BSNL within the meaning of the said term, as defined under the said Act
and such workman cannot claim to be absorbed in the service of BSNL.”
Hon’ble Allahabd High Court in 2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal
Prajapati has observed as under:
“Since, prima facie there was no employment of the respondent with the petitioner there could not have been
any termination. I am therefore, of the definite opinion that the Labour Court decided the dispute
erroneously. It had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. In fact, when the workman was not at all a workman
as had been stated by the petitioner and as was also clear from the averment made in paragraph-10 of the
counter affidavit the respondent/workman who had been engaged by a contractor had the remedy to file a
claim under the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Contract Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the
1971 Rules)”
17.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden
was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination and to prove that the alleged
6946
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
termination by railways. It was the case of the workman that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter under the
opposite party No. 02 and had worked continuously w.e.f. 02.05.2009 to 25.11.2011, when his services have been
terminated without any notice by the railways. This claim has been denied by the railway management; therefore, it was
for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for the claimed duration before his
alleged termination. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as
under:
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was
then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding
his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked
for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman.
On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”
18.
Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in 2006 (108)
FLR R.M. Yellatti & Asstt. Executive Engineer as follow:
“It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated
judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to
show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman
stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both
oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of
appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases, the
workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for
the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register
etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above
decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the
claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non
production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the
ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.”
In the present case the workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter
under the opposite party No. 02 and thus, worked continuously w.e.f. 02.05.2009 to 25.11.2011, but has not produced
any document neither original nor photocopy in support of his pleadings . The burden was on the workman to show by
the way of cogent evidence that there was employee-employer relationship; and he actually worked for claimed duration;
but he failed to do so as he could not bring this fact on record. In view of denial of the management regarding his claim,
the workman has nothing to support his version, except photo copy of the so called identity card, purported to be issued
by the opposite party No. 03 i.e. the contractor viz. M/s Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s. Further, the opposite party
No. 03, the contractor has also refuted the claim of the workman regarding his appointment with the railways. Hence, the
workman could not establish that there was any employee and employer relationship between him and the opposite party
No. 01 & 02 i.e railways.
19.
On the other hand the management of the railways has well proved its case by filing copy of the contract with
the M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s for supply of labourers for transportation of Driver line boxes at railway
platform.
Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work on the
date of alleged termination was on the workman but he failed to discharge the above burden. There is no reliable
material for recording findings that the workman had been appointed by the railway administration on the post of Box
Porter or he worked continuously with the opposite party No. 01 & 02; and the alleged unjust or illegal order of
termination was passed by the management of opposite party No. 01 & 02 or any provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 had been violated by them.
20.
Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made herein above I am of considered
opinion that the workman could not be able to prove through cogent evidence that there was a relationship of employee
and employer between him and the opposite party No. 01 & 02; rather from the evidence adduced it is established that he
was an employee of the contractor viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s, therefore, the workman can not be
granted the relief of reinstatement or any other relief sought by the workman against the opposite party No. 01 & 02.
21.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
20th November, 2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6947
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2018
dk vk- 1814-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkjh
jsyos ds izca/krarz 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 y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@2012½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-12-2018 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S.O. 1814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[No. L-12025/01/2018– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 49/2012
BETWEEN
Sri Arvind Kumar S/o Sri Jawahar Lal
R/o 416/167, Tularam Bagh
Daraganj, Allahabad – 211001
AND
1. General Manager
Northern Railway, Baroda House
New Delhi 110001
2. Divisional Rail Manager
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow 226001
3. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmad & Brothers
654, Begum Ka Makbara, Faizabad (UP) 224001
AWARD
1.
The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, under provisions contained in the Section 2A (2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for alleged termination of the services of the workman by the management of
Northern Railway & others, for adjudication before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court,
Lucknow.
2.
The case of the workman, Arvind Kumar, in brief, is that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite party
No. 02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009 continuously when
his services have been terminated without any notice. It is submitted by the workman that the opposite party No. 02 has
kept opposite party No. 03 to escape from the responsibilities and labour laws though he performed duties of opposite
party No. 2 under its directions. He also submitted that he was issued a gate pass by the opposite party No. 03, under
directions of the opposite party No. 02, which used to be taken back at the end of the year. The workman has stated that
he after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service benefits under service Rules.
Accordingly, the workman has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages with continuity in service.
3.
The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it
has mentioned that the workman had never been engaged/appointed by the opposite party No. 01 & 02; moreover the
railway management entered into an agreement with the opposite party No. 03 for executing the day to day casual work
at railway stations; and accordingly, the railway administration is not liable for any claim made by the workman as the
railway administration neither engaged the workman nor did it terminate him; and also that it did not make any violation
of any labour law or engaged in any kind of unfair labour practice; hence it has been prayed by the opposite party No. 1
& 2 that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him being devoid of merit.
6948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The opposite party No. 03 has also disputed the claim of the workman with submission that neither any post of
Box Porter was ever vacant nor the opposite party No. 3 ever received work order or Form-V from railway
administration nor the workman was ever appointed with the opposite party No. 1, 2 & 3 on the post of Box Porter; hence
there is no question of his termination. It has submitted that the workman was never issued any gate pass by the opposite
party No. 3 and various benefits such as salary, weekly holiday, Provident Fund and medical facilities are available to the
regularly appointed employee who are appointed after adopting due procedure; and the workman is not entitled for the
same as there was no violation to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 03 has prayed
that the claim of the workman be rejected.
5.
The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has denied the counter allegations of the opposite parties
reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.
6.
The opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing of its written statement.
7.
The workman and opposite party No. 01 & 02 filed photocopies of documents in support of their cases. The
workman examined himself; whereas the opposite party No. 01 & 02 examined Shri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F),
Northern Railway, Lucknow in support of their respective stands. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.
8.
Heard the authorized representatives of the parties and perused entire evidence available on record.
9.
The authorized representative of the workman has argued that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite
party No. 02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009 continuously
when his services have been terminated without any notice or notice pay or assigning any reason thereof in contravention
to the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The learned authorizes representative of the workman has also
asserted that the workman after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service
benefits under service Rules. He has relied upon
(i)
The Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of
1998
(ii)
Judgment dated 27.01.1999 of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sheikh Jahangir Ali & others vs
Calcutta Port Trust & others.
(iii)
(2006) 12 SCC 380 District Rehabilitation Officer & others vs Jay Kishore Maity & others.
(iv)
(2003)11 SCC 590 A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union vs Union of India & others.
10.
In rebuttal, the opposite party No. 01 & 02’s representative has contended that the workman is contractor’s
employee as the opposite party has undergone a contract with the M/s Industrial Security Services for supply of security
personnel; and accordingly the workman was one of the security guards provided by M/s Industrial Security Services and
the said contractor/agency was duly paid for it, which in turn paid salary to the workman. It has been urged that the
management of opposite party No. 01 neither appointed the workman nor terminated his services; rather his employment
was regulated by M/s Industrial Security Services and the same came to an end with the end of contract with the agency;
hence there was no violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has relied upon:
(i)
2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs. The Chief General
Manager, BSNL
(ii)
2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal Prajapati
11.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused entire evidence
available on file.
12.
The workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed by the opposite party No. 2 on the clear
vacancy of Box Porter and the management of railways engaged the opposite party No. 3 in order to deprive the
workman of his legitimate rights. It has also been contended by the workman that keeping in view the long and
continuous service with the opposite party No. 1 & 02 he was entitled for grant of temporary status and other
consequential benefits admissible to the employees with temporary status under Railway Establishment Rules; but on the
contrary the management of Railways has acted in utter disregard to the norms and has terminated his services without
any reason or rhyme or any notice or any notice pay in lieu thereof, which is voilative of the provisions of the Section 25
F of the ID Act, 1947. It is also the case of the workman that keeping in view the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court regarding regularization/absorption of Box Porters with railway administration, he was also entitled for
regularization/absorption into the services of the Railways. The workman has filed photocopy of gate pass/Identity card,
purported to be issued by opposite party No. 3.
13.
Per contra, the opposite party No.1 & 2 has come forward with a clear cut case that the management of railways
neither appointed the workman in any capacity nor there arises any question of his termination or violation of any of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the management of railways that the management of
railways entered into an agreement with M/s. Shahid FAizan Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of driver line boxed
from Charbagh & Alamnagar station and accordingly, the workman’s services were availed by the said
contractor/opposite party No. 3 by engaging him; and was paid accordingly. Thus, there was no direct employer-
employee relationship between the management of railways and the workman, therefore, the management of railways is
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6949
not liable to the workman in any way as claimed before this Tribunal. The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has filed
photocopy of the contract dated 22.01.2009 entered between the railway administration and the opposite party No. 3.
14.
Moreover, the opposite party No. 03 has also rebutted the claim of the workman with submissions that the
workman had never been appointed by any of the opposite parties and he was not entitled for any of the benefits as
claimed by him as they were admissible to the regularly appointed employees of the railways. It also mentioned that
there was no vacancy of the Box Porter nor any such post was advertised by the railways or any recruitment was done in
pursuance thereof. However, the opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing its written statement. But its absence
does not automatically create any legal rights in favour of the petitioner workman.
15.
Having gone through the respective pleading of the parties and entire documentary evidence available on record
it comes out that the railway administration entered into a contract with the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s to carry out the working according to the specification provided in the contract for a period or two
years only; and in consequence thereto; workman had been engaged by the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of Driver line boxes from Charbagh & Alam Nagar station railway platform.
The workman has examined himself in support of his case and during his cross-examination has stated that he
had been appointed by the contractor on 01.09.2003 and worked continuously upto 31.04.2009. He also stated that paper
No. 12/5 is identity card issued by the Contractor, Shahid Faizan terminated.
On contrary, the management of the railway has examined Sri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F), who stated in his
cross-examination that contractor is being allotted ‘work order’, which is for a specific time period; however the time
period keeps on changing with reference to the condition and this may be for 6 months, some time for 01 year and
sometimes it may be for 02 years also, depending on the nature of the work. He stated that Indian Railway does not have
direct relation with any Box Porter and the contractor is fully responsible for quality of work. He further stated that the
contractor is directly related with the workman and Railways has no role in the appointment of Box Porter by the
contractor; nor does the railway issues any identity card to any of the Box Porter engaged by the contractor. The
management witness specially stated that since the contract used to be time bound, therefore, on its expiry, the contract is
issued again; hence there is no relation with the railways regarding regularization.
16.
During course of the oral submissions the learned authorized representative of the workman has stressed over
the order of Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 433 of 1998 and has submitted that the case of the workman is covered with the said order of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and since the railway management has given appointment/regularized other box porters in light of above order
dated 15.02.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore the workman is also entitled for regularization accordingly.
The learned authorized representative of the management of railway has vehemently opposed the same. Having taken
into account the contentions of the rival parties and perusal of the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 1998 and various letters filed by the workman, obtained through Right to
Information Act, 2005, it appears that the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 was in personam and not in rem, therefore, the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall
apply to the workmen who approached the Hon’ble Sureme Court; and since the workman never approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, therefore, the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
433 of 1998 is of no use for him.
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs.
The Chief General Manager, BSNL has held that admission of the workmen that they were working under their
respective contractor, is sufficient to establish that they were having no employer-employee relationship with BSNL
management; hence, the workmen are not entitled to seek any relief from BSNL management. Hon’ble High Court has
observed as under:
“The ratio of the Division Bench in the case of the Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty (supra) is that when a
workman is engaged by a contractor to carry out some work at any establishment of BSNL, if such workman
is retrenched by the contractor while working under him, BSNL cannot be regarded as employer of such
workman with the meaning of “employer” as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act nor such workman can
be held to be a “workman” under BSNL within the meaning of the said term, as defined under the said Act
and such workman cannot claim to be absorbed in the service of BSNL.”
Hon’ble Allahabd High Court in 2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal
Prajapati has observed as under:
“Since, prima facie there was no employment of the respondent with the petitioner there could not have been
any termination. I am therefore, of the definite opinion that the Labour Court decided the dispute
erroneously. It had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. In fact, when the workman was not at all a workman
as had been stated by the petitioner and as was also clear from the averment made in paragraph-10 of the
counter affidavit the respondent/workman who had been engaged by a contractor had the remedy to file a
claim under the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Contract Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the
1971 Rules)”
17.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden
was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination and to prove that the alleged
6950
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
termination by railways. It was the case of the workman that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter under the
opposite party No. 02 and had worked continuously w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009, when his services have been
terminated without any notice by the railways. This claim has been denied by the railway management; therefore, it was
for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for the claimed duration before his
alleged termination. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as
under:
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was
then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding
his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked
for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman.
On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”
18.
Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in 2006 (108) FLR R.M.
Yellatti & Asstt. Executive Engineer as follow:
“It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated
judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to
show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman
stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both
oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of
appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases, the
workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for
the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register
etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above
decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the
claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non
production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the
ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.”
In the present case the workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter
under the opposite party No. 02 and thus, worked continuously w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009, but has not produced
any document neither original nor photocopy in support of his pleadings . The burden was on the workman to show by
the way of cogent evidence that there was employee-employer relationship; and he actually worked for claimed duration;
but he failed to do so as he could not bring this fact on record. In view of denial of the management regarding his claim,
the workman has nothing to support his version, except photo copy of the so called identity card, purported to be issued
by the opposite party No. 03 i.e. the contractor viz. M/s Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s. Further, the opposite party
No. 03, the contractor has also refuted the claim of the workman regarding his appointment with the railways. Hence, the
workman could not establish that there was any employee and employer relationship between him and the opposite party
No. 01 & 02 i.e railways.
19.
On the other hand the management of the railways has well proved its case by filing copy of the contract with
the M/s Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s for supply of labourers for transportation of Driver line boxes at railway
platform.
Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work on the
date of alleged termination was on the workman but he failed to discharge the above burden. There is no reliable
material for recording findings that the workman had been appointed by the railway administration on the post of Box
Porter or he worked continuously with the opposite party No. 01 & 02; and the alleged unjust or illegal order of
termination was passed by the management of opposite party No. 01 & 02 or any provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 had been violated by them.
20.
Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made herein above I am of considered
opinion that the workman could not be able to prove through cogent evidence that there was a relationship of employee
and employer between him and the opposite party No. 01 & 02; rather from the evidence adduced it is established that he
was an employee of the contractor viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s, therefore, the workman can not be
granted the relief of reinstatement or any other relief sought by the workman against the opposite party No. 01 & 02.
21.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
20th November, 2018
RAKESH KUMAR Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6951
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2018
dk vk- 1815-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkjh
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 y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55@2012½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-12-2018 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S.O. 1815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[No. L-12025/01/2018– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 55/2012
BETWEEN :
Sri Alok Kumar, S/o Sri Chedi Lal
Khandari Bazar, Darbari Lal Hata
119/99, Lalbagh, Lucknow.
AND
1. General Manager
Northern Railway, Baroda House
New Delhi.
2. Divisional Rail Manager
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow.
3. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmad & Brothers
654, Begum Ka Makbara, Faizabad (UP)
AWARD
1.
The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, under provisions contained in the Section 2A (2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for alleged termination of the services of the workman by the management of
Northern Railway & others, for adjudication before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow.
2.
The case of the workman, Alok Kumar, in brief, is that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite party No.
02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009 continuously when his
services have been terminated without any notice. It is submitted by the workman that the opposite party No. 02 has kept
opposite party No. 03 to escape from the responsibilities and labour laws though he performed duties of opposite party
No. 2 under its directions. He also submitted that he was issued a gate pass by the opposite party No. 03, under
directions of the opposite party No. 02, which used to be taken back at the end of the year. The workman has stated that
he after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service benefits under service Rules.
Accordingly, the workman has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages with continuity in service.
3.
The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it
has mentioned that the workman had never been engaged/appointed by the opposite party No. 01 & 02; moreover the
railway management entered into an agreement with the opposite party No. 03 for executing the day to day casual work
at railway stations; and accordingly, the railway administration is not liable for any claim made by the workman as the
railway administration neither engaged the workman nor did it terminate him; and also that it did not make any violation
6952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of any labour law or engaged in any kind of unfair labour practice; hence it has been prayed by the opposite party No. 1
& 2 that the claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him being devoid of merit.
4.
The opposite party No. 03 has also disputed the claim of the workman with submission that neither any post of
Box Porter was ever vacant nor the opposite party No. 3 ever received work order or Form-V from railway
administration nor the workman was ever appointed with the opposite party No. 1, 2 & 3 on the post of Box Porter; hence
there is no question of his termination. It has submitted that the workman was never issued any gate pass by the opposite
party No. 3 and various benefits such as salary, weekly holiday, Provident Fund and medical facilities are available to the
regularly appointed employee who are appointed after adopting due procedure; and the workman is not entitled for the
same as there was no violation to the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 03 has prayed
that the claim of the workman be rejected.
5.
The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has denied the counter allegations of the opposite parties
reiterating the averments already made in the statement of claim.
6.
The opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing of its written statement.
7.
The workman and opposite party No. 01 & 02 filed photocopies of documents in support of their cases. The
workman examined himself; whereas the opposite party No. 01 & 02 examined Shri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F),
Northern Railway, Lucknow in support of their respective stands. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses of each other apart from forwarding oral arguments.
8.
Heard the authorized representatives of the parties and perused entire evidence available on record.
9.
The authorized representative of the workman has argued that he was appointed as Box Porter with opposite
party No. 02 against the permanent vacant post; and worked accordingly w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009 continuously
when his services have been terminated without any notice or notice pay or assigning any reason thereof in contravention
to the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The learned authorizes representative of the workman has also
asserted that the workman after continuous service of 120 days was entitled for temporary status and other service
benefits under service Rules. He has relied upon
(i)
The Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of
1998
(ii)
Judgment dated 27.01.1999 of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Sheikh Jahangir Ali & others vs
Calcutta Port Trust & others.
(iii)
(2006) 12 SCC 380 District Rehabilitation Officer & others vs Jay Kishore Maity & others.
(iv)
(2003)11 SCC 590 A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union vs Union of India & others.
10.
In rebuttal, the opposite party No. 01 & 02’s representative has contended that the workman is contractor’s
employee as the opposite party has undergone a contract with the M/s. Industrial Security Services for supply of security
personnel; and accordingly the workman was one of the security guards provided by M/s Industrial Security Services and
the said contractor/agency was duly paid for it, which in turn paid salary to the workman. It has been urged that the
management of opposite party No. 01 neither appointed the workman nor terminated his services; rather his employment
was regulated by M/s Industrial Security Services and the same came to an end with the end of contract with the agency;
hence there was no violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has relied upon:
(i)
2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs. The Chief General
Manager, BSNL
(II)
2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal Prajapati
11.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused entire evidence
available on file.
12.
The workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed by the opposite party No. 2 on the clear
vacancy of Box Porter and the management of railways engaged the opposite party No. 3 in order to deprive the
workman of his legitimate rights. It has also been contended by the workman that keeping in view the long and
continuous service with the opposite party No. 1 & 02 he was entitled for grant of temporary status and other
consequential benefits admissible to the employees with temporary status under Railway Establishment Rules; but on the
contrary the management of Railways has acted in utter disregard to the norms and has terminated his services without
any reason or rhyme or any notice or any notice pay in lieu thereof, which is voilative of the provisions of the Section 25
F of the ID Act, 1947. It is also the case of the workman that keeping in view the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court regarding regularization/absorption of Box Porters with railway administration, he was also entitled for
regularization/absorption into the services of the Railways. The workman has filed photocopy of gate pass/Identity card,
purported to be issued by opposite party No. 3.
13.
Per contra, the opposite party No.1 & 2 has come forward with a clear cut case that the management of railways
neither appointed the workman in any capacity nor there arises any question of his termination or violation of any of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the management of railways that the management of
railways entered into an agreement with M/s Shahid FAizan Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of driver line boxed
from Charbagh & Alamnagar station and accordingly, the workman’s services were availed by the said
contractor/opposite party No. 3 by engaging him; and was paid accordingly. Thus, there was no direct employer-
employee relationship between the management of railways and the workman, therefore, the management of railways is
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6953
not liable to the workman in any way as claimed before this Tribunal. The opposite party No. 01 & 02 has filed
photocopy of the contract dated 22.01.2009 entered between the railway administration and the opposite party No. 3.
14.
Moreover, the opposite party No. 03 has also rebutted the claim of the workman with submissions that the
workman had never been appointed by any of the opposite parties and he was not entitled for any of the benefits as
claimed by him as they were admissible to the regularly appointed employees of the railways. It also mentioned that
there was no vacancy of the Box Porter nor any such post was advertised by the railways or any recruitment was done in
pursuance thereof. However, the opposite party No. 03 did not turn up after filing its written statement. But its absence
does not automatically create any legal rights in favour of the petitioner workman.
15.
Having gone through the respective pleading of the parties and entire documentary evidence available on record
it comes out that the railway administration entered into a contract with the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s to carry out the working according to the specification provided in the contract for a period or two
years only; and in consequence thereto; workman had been engaged by the opposite party No. 03 viz. M/s Shahid Faizan
Ahmed & Brother’s for transportation of Driver line boxes from Charbagh & Alam Nagar station railway platform.
The workman has examined himself in support of his case and during his cross-examination has stated that he
had been appointed by the contractor on 01.09.2003 and he worked upto 25.04.2009. He also stated that railway did not
terminate him. He also admitted that he had not filed any such document which goes to show that he continuously
worked from 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009. He further stated that paper No. 14/5 is his identity card which bears stamp of
Shahid Faizan.
On contrary, the management of the railway has examined Sri P. K. Singh, ADME (O&F), who stated in his
cross-examination that contractor is being allotted ‘work order’, which is for a specific time period; however the time
period keeps on changing with reference to the condition and this may be for 6 months, some time for 01 year and
sometimes it may be for 02 years also, depending on the nature of the work. He stated that Indian Railway does not have
direct relation with any Box Porter and the contractor is fully responsible for quality of work. He further stated that the
contractor is directly related with the workman and Railways has no role in the appointment of Box Porter by the
contractor; nor does the railway issues any identity card to any of the Box Porter engaged by the contractor. The
management witness specially stated that since the contract used to be time bound, therefore, on its expiry, the contract is
issued again; hence there is no relation with the railways regarding regularization.
16.
During course of the oral submissions the learned authorized representative of the workman has stressed over
the order of Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 433 of 1998 and has submitted that the case of the workman is covered with the said order of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and since the railway management has given appointment/regularized other box porters in light of above order
dated 15.02.2013 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore the workman is also entitled for regularization accordingly.
The learned authorized representative of the management of railway has vehemently opposed the same. Having taken
into account the contentions of the rival parties and perusal of the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 433 of 1998 and various letters filed by the workman, obtained through Right to
Information Act, 2005, it appears that the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 was in personam and not in rem, therefore, the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall
apply to the workmen who approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and since the workman never approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2013 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 433 of 1998 is of no use for him.
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 2017 LLR 940, the Secretary, BSNL, Contractor Mazdoor Union & others vs.
The Chief General Manager, BSNL has held that admission of the workmen that they were working under their
respective contractor, is sufficient to establish that they were having no employer-employee relationship with BSNL
management; hence, the workmen are not entitled to seek any relief from BSNL management. Hon’ble High Court has
observed as under:
“The ratio of the Division Bench in the case of the Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty (supra) is that when a
workman is engaged by a contractor to carry out some work at any establishment of BSNL, if such workman
is retrenched by the contractor while working under him, BSNL cannot be regarded as employer of such
workman with the meaning of “employer” as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act nor such workman can
be held to be a “workman” under BSNL within the meaning of the said term, as defined under the said Act
and such workman cannot claim to be absorbed in the service of BSNL.”
Hon’ble Allahabd High Court in 2018 LLR 758 Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli vs Mohan Lal
Prajapati has observed as under:
“Since, prima facie there was no employment of the respondent with the petitioner there could not have been
any termination. I am therefore, of the definite opinion that the Labour Court decided the dispute
erroneously. It had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. In fact, when the workman was not at all a workman
as had been stated by the petitioner and as was also clear from the averment made in paragraph-10 of the
counter affidavit the respondent/workman who had been engaged by a contractor had the remedy to file a
claim under the Contract Labourer (Regulation and Abolition) Contract Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the
1971 Rules)”
17.
It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden
6954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination and to prove that the alleged
termination by railways. It was the case of the workman that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter under the
opposite party No. 02 and had worked continuously w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009, when his services have been
terminated without any notice by the railways. This claim has been denied by the railway management; therefore, it was
for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked continuously for the claimed duration before his
alleged termination. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as
under:
“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was
then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding
his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked
for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for that period was produced by the workman.
On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”
18.
Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in 2006 (108) FLR R.M.
Yellatti & Asstt. Executive Engineer as follow:
“It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated
judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to
show that he had worked 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman
stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both
oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of
appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in most cases, the
workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for
the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register
etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above
decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the
claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non
production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the
ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management.”
In the present case the workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed on the post of Box Porter
under the opposite party No. 02 and thus, worked continuously w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 25.04.2009, but has not produced
any document neither original nor photocopy in support of his pleadings . The burden was on the workman to show by
the way of cogent evidence that there was employee-employer relationship; and he actually worked for claimed duration;
but he failed to do so as he could not bring this fact on record. In view of denial of the management regarding his claim,
the workman has nothing to support his version, except photo copy of the so called identity card, purported to be issued
by the opposite party No. 03 i.e. the contractor viz. M/s Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s. Further, the opposite party
No. 03, the contractor has also refuted the claim of the workman regarding his appointment with the railways. Hence, the
workman could not establish that there was any employee and employer relationship between him and the opposite party
No. 01 & 02 i.e railways.
19.
On the other hand the management of the railways has well proved its case by filing copy of the contract with
the M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s for supply of labourers for transportation of Driver line boxes at railway
platform.
Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work on the
date of alleged termination was on the workman but he failed to discharge the above burden. There is no reliable
material for recording findings that the workman had been appointed by the railway administration on the post of Box
Porter or he worked continuously with the opposite party No. 01 & 02; and the alleged unjust or illegal order of
termination was passed by the management of opposite party No. 01 & 02 or any provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 had been violated by them.
20.
Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made herein above I am of considered
opinion that the workman could not be able to prove through cogent evidence that there was a relationship of employee
and employer between him and the opposite party No. 01 & 02; rather from the evidence adduced it is established that he
was an employee of the contractor viz. M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s, therefore, the workman can not be
granted the relief of reinstatement or any other relief sought by the workman against the opposite party No. 01 & 02.
21.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
20th November, 2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6955
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2018
dk vk- 1816-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkbZMhchvkbZ cSad ds izca/krarz 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 dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 48@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
12-12-2018 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@81@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S.O. 1816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of IDBI Bank and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[No. L-12011/81/2013– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 48 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of IDBI Bank Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. Ranjay De, learned counsel.
On behalf of the Workmen
: None.
State: West Bengal.
: Industry: Banking.
Dated: 3rd December , 2018
AWARD
By Order No.L-12011/81/2013-IR(B-I) dated 19.09.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Management of IDBI Bank Ltd. is justified by enhancing the rates of lunch/tea
facility to the workmen employees is legal and justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled?”
2.
After receipt of order of reference, notices were issued to the parties. In compliance to which the union and
management of appeared before this Tribunal and completed pleadings, but since 04.05.2016 the union has not appeared
before the Tribunal, nor has taken any steps to adduce evidence. On taking charge of this Tribunal again notice was
issued to the union, but the registered envelope containing notice has been returned by the postal authority with the
endorsement “Refused”. Thereafter the management has been asked to adduce its evidence, but it declined to do so.
Learned counsel for the management has stated that since no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the workmen to
6956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
substantiate the claims made, management has nothing to answer. He has prayed that this reference may be disposed of
by passing an Award accordingly.
3.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present
in respect of the claim/s as mentioned in the schedule to the order of reference as no evidence has been led by it to
substantiate the claims made in the statement of claim. Therefore, there exists no dispute for adjudication.
5.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 3rd December, 2018.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2018
dk vk- 1817-&vkS|kSfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkbZMhchvkbZbZ cSad ds izca/krarz 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 dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
12-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011@80@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S.O. 1817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of IDBI Bank and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[No. L-12011/80/2013– IR(B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 47 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of IDBI Bank Ltd.
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. Ranjay De, learned counsel
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
State: West Bengal.
: Industry: Banking
Dated: 3rd December , 2018
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6957
AWARD
By Order No.L-12011/80/2013-IR(B-I) dated 19.09.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the Management of IDBI Bank Ltd. is justified (i) denying the charter of demands
submitted by the Union is legal and/or justified?
(ii) Whether the action of the management to hold negotiation process with union only at corporate office at
Mumbai is justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled?”
2.
After receipt of order of reference, notices were issued to the parties. In compliance to which the union and
management of appeared before this Tribunal and completed pleadings, but since 04.05.2016 the union has not appeared
before the Tribunal, nor has taken any steps to adduce evidence. On taking charge of this Tribunal again notice was
issued to the union, but the registered envelope containing notice has been returned by the postal authority with the
endorsement “Refused”. Thereafter the management has been asked to adduce its evidence, but it declined to do so.
Learned counsel for the management has stated that since no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the workmen to
substantiate the claims made, management has nothing to answer. He has prayed that this reference may be disposed of
by passing an Award accordingly.
3.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present
in respect of the charter of demands as mentioned in the schedule to the order of reference as no evidence has been led by
it to substantiate the claims made in the statement of claim. Therefore, there exists no dispute for adjudication.
5.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 3rd December, 2018
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1818-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV
cSad vkWQ gSnjkckn ds izca/krarz 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 ua- 1 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
12-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2018
S.O. 1818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[No. L-12025/01/2018– IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, 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
ID No. 02/2017
Dev Bahadur s/o. Shri Tul Singh,
R/o. 202/15, Jhandewalan Road, Pahar Ganj,
Swami Ram Tirath Nagar,
Delhi 110055.
…Workman/Claimant
6958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Chandni Chowk Branch,
G-657-671, Sant Bhawan,
Chandni Chow, Delhi 110006
2. The Regional Manager (Manager Canteen),
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Regional Office, 1st, 882, East Park Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
… Managements
AWARD
This is a claim directly filed by workman Dev Bahadur under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Managements, with the averments that workman joined service of the
Management as permanent Sweeper cum Lunch Attendant w.e.f. April 1995 on an initial salary of Rs.900/- per month
and his last drawn wages were to the tune of Rs.7700/-. His work & conduct was always good & satisfactory. On
2/7/2002 his services were abruptly & illegally terminated by Management No.1 which action was assailed by him before
the CGIT cum Labour Court and vide Award dated 12/5/2006 passed by Shri R.N Rai, Presiding Officer of CGIT cum
Labour Court, the Managements were directed to reinstate the claimant into service with 50per cent back wages. The
Management challenged the said Award before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition No. 12133/2006 but
later on Hon’ble High Court also directed the Managements to reinstate the claimant in terms of the Award. Hence the
Management reinstated him in service and the claimant continued his services with utmost sincerity and loyalty till July,
2013 when he suffered from high blood sugar and high blood pressure and got paralysis and accordingly he applied for
leave on medical ground which were allowed by the then Branch Manager of Management No.1. Despite regular
treatment, there was no sign of improvement in the health of the claimant and hence he shifted to his native place at
Nepal for his proper treatment as his entire family was t here. During his stay at his native place, the claimant/his family
members regularly informed about his medical condition to the then Branch Manager of the Management No.1 and he
always assured that the claimant need not to worry about his job . On 11/1/2016 when the claimant came back to rejoin
his duties, Management No.1 orally refused employment to the claimant and in this way services of the claimant were
illegally terminated without any show cause notice, memo, charge sheet etc. Hence, the claimant served a legal/demand
notice dated 31/3/2016 but to no response. Thereafter the claimant approached the Conciliation Officer and on receipt of
notice from the said forum, the Management did not file any written statement to the claim of the workman and hence the
Conciliation Officer issued a certificate dated 10/11/2016. It is alleged that action of the Management amounts to unfair
labour practice and there was no justified reason for terminating the services of the claimant and as such action of t he
Managements is not legal. The claimant is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination and despite his best
efforts, he is unable to find out an alternative job. Hence, prayer has been made his reinstatement with full back wages
and all other consequential benefits.
2.
The claim was contested by the Management who filed written statement, taking preliminary objections inter
alia on the grounds that the claimant has not approached the Court with clean hands as he himself is guilty of own
conduct by absconding from the duties from July, 2013 onwards and so he can not be permitted to file the present claim.
The claimant was a casual labour engaged by the bank as and when needed and he was paid on daily wage basis only for
the days when his services were utilized by the Branch. He was never appointed in the regular service of the bank and
his wages were paid out of the petty cash account of the branch. While denying the allegations of the claimant, it has
been stated that the State Bank of Hyderabad is now merged with State Bank of India with effect from 1/4/2017. It has
also been stated that in terms of the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 24/1/2013 in Civil Writ Petition No.12133/2006,
the claimant was re-engaged/reinstated as casual labour purely on daily wage basis and the claimant made his re-joined
duty on 28/1/2013 and worked for short duration. The claimant abandoned his work in July, 2013 and never reported for
work admittedly till on or about 11/1/2016 and thus, he voluntarily & willfully abandoned his work and never reported to
the Bank. A letter dated 4/3/013 was also sent to the claimant that he was working as a casual labour and was not in the
regular employment of the Bank. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
i)
Whether the claim of the claimant is not maintainable and against the provisions of the ID Act 1947 ?
ii)
Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement in service ?
iii)
Whether the claim is not legally tenable in view of various preliminary objections ?
4.
The workman/claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW-
1/A and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/4. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Avnish
Kumar Srivastava, Chief Manager & Principal Officer of Chandni Chowk Branch of the Managements. who also
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/7.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6959
5.
I have heard A/Rs appearing on behalf of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. My findings
are as follows
Issue No.1 to 3 :-
6.
All these issues being inter-related are taken up together and can be disposed of conveniently.
7.
It is not in dispute that the claimant had been working under the Management as sweeper cum lunch attendant
w.e.f. April, 1995 and earlier also his services were disengaged/terminated by the Management on 2/7/2002. The said
dispute was challenged by the workman vide ID No.43/2004 and Shri R.N Rai, the then Presiding Officer of the CGIT
cum Labour Court passed an award dated 12/5/2006 in favour of the workman and the Management had challenged the
said Award before Hon’ble High Court by filing a writ petition No.12133/2006. However, in terms of the Hon’ble High
Court’s order dated 24/1/2013 in Civil Writ Petition No.12133/2006, the claimant was re-engaged/reinstated and he
rejoined his duty on 28/1/2013. It is the case of the Management that the claimant who was working as casual labour
purely on daily wage basis, had himself abandoned the job wilfully & voluntarily in July, 2013 and never reported for
work till on or about 11/1/2016.
8.
Learned A/R for the Managements strenuously argued that it was the claimant who himself abandoned the job
and that the Management had also sent a letter dated 4/3/013 was also sent to the claimant but he had cared to join his
duties rather remained absent admittedly for a period of about 2-1/2 years till 11/1/2016. As such, the claimant is guilty
of his own conduct and can not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs.
9.
Per contra, learned A/R for the workman/claimant submitted that the claimant had no intent to abandon the job
rather he had gone to his native place at Nepal where he got treatment for his illness of high blood sugar and paralytic
attack. After recovery, he returned to India and visited the Chandni Chowk Branch on 11/1/2016 but he was not allowed
to join his duties and thus, it is the Management who illegally and abruptly terminated the services of the claimant,
without any show cause notice or charge sheet.
10.
From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is evident that there existed relationship of
employee-employer between the claimant/workman and the Managements even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments
that the workman had been working with the Management as casual labour on daily wage basis. As such, the claimant is
a workman within the definition of Section 2 (S) of the Act and the dispute raised by the claimant is maintainable before
this Tribunal, moreso when the dispute earlier raised between the parties culminated into the Award dated 12/5/2006
which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. While interpreting Section 2(s) of the Act, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Davinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council Sanaur AIR 2011 (SC) 2532 has observed that,
The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is
nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular
basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part
time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a
workman.”
11. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, the claimant herein admittedly falls within the definition
of “Workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. As such, the contention of the Management that there is no relation of
employee-employer between the workman and the Management is hereby rejected and it is held that the claim is legally
maintainable before this Tribunal.
12.
As regards the controversy whether the claimant himself abandoned the job as alleged by the Management or
whether the services of the claimant were terminated illegally by the Management, as alleged by the claimant, it will be
worthwhile to refer to the evidence adduced by the parties on record. The testimony of the workman/claimant is in line
with the averments made in the claim petition. He has filed on record documents Ex.WW1/1 (colly.) viz .medical
certificates/prescriptions and cash memos to show that he was suffering from acute gastritis and was under treatment of
Dr. Nirmal K. Gyawali, Consultant Anesthesiologist of Bheri Zonal Hospital, Nepalgunj from September, 2013 to
November, 2015. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he abandoned his job in July, 2013 but admitted
that due to paralysis he did not report for duties for about 2-1/2 years. He volunteered that he had reported back for
duties after recovering from his illness in January, 2016. On the other hand, MW1 Shri Avnish Kumar Srivastava
clarified that he is not personally aware about the terms of engagement/appointment of the claimant since he himself had
joined in the Chandni Chowk Branch in August, 2015 only and thus have no personal knowledge about the facts of the
case. He could not say if the claimant worked satisfactorily again after rejoining his duty with the Management Bank
from the year 2013 onwards or that the claimant was seriously ill and had got paralysis in his whole body in July, 2013
and that is why he could not join his duties. He admitted that the claimant had applied for leave about his illness but
volunteered that sanction of leave was not considered by the Management since the workman was just working as a
labour. He showed his ignorance if the family members of the claimant during illness of the claimant had duly apprised
the Branch Manager over telephone from Nepal about his inability to join duty on medical grounds and the Branch
Manager had assured them not to worry. He also admitted that the claimant had given demand notice dated 31/7/2016
(sic.31/3/2016) to the Management. He also admitted that neither any show cause notice nor any charge sheet was
issued against the claimant before his termination from service. He also admitted that the requirement of sweeper cum
lunch attendant is on regular basis in the Management branch.
6960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2018/PAUSA 1, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
From the evidence adduced on record as discussed above, it can be safely inferred that there was no intent on the
part of the claimant to abandon the job, rather his absence from duty was due to his serious ailments. It has come on
record that the claimant has been retrenched/terminated from service w.e.f. 27/7/1995 without issuance of any show
cause notice/charge sheet and without payment of compensation in lieu of notice period. There is long line of decisions
of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in
nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will
render whole action of the Management Bank to be illegal and wrong under the law.
14.
The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is gainfully employed somewhere
else or that the workman is in a position to make his both ends meet by doing any work. Even if it is assumed that the
workmen is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make his both ends meet, that would not itself amount to gainful
employment. In the circumstances, it is held that action of the Management in terminating the service of the
workman/claimant w.e.f. 11/1/2016 is totally illegal and wrong and is in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
15.
Now the residual question is whether workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. It depends on
number of factors – whether workman was regular, temporary or daily wager; he was recruited in proper manner or
whether his work is of regular and temporary nature; length of service or delay in approaching the Tribunal and whether
termination is in gross violation of provisions of the Act.
16.
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.”
17.
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).
18.
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 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.
19.
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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 22] 2018@ikS"k 1] 1940
6961
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.”
20.
Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 9 SCC 345, titled as Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar
Gauri Shanker, on the question of reinstatement of workman after his retrenchment is declared void ab initio have held
as under :-
20. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court in
awarding reinstatement of the Appellate-workman in his post alongwith 50% back wages, which is erroneous in
law as the High Court has not noticed the fact that the appropriate Government has referred the dispute to the
Labour Court for its adjudication on the points of dispute referred to it. Since, there was non-compliance of the
mandatory requirements as provided under the provisions of the Act by the Respondent-firm at the time of
passing an order of termination against the Appellant-workman, therefore, the same has been held to be bad in
law and as such it should have awarded full back wages to the workman from the date of termination till the date
of passing the Award unless the employer proves that the workman was gainfully employed during the aforesaid
period which fact is neither pleaded nor proved before the Labour Court.
21. Therefore, the impugned judgement of the High Court is bad in law as the normal rule to be followed by the
Respondent-firm with regard to the termination of the services of the workman has not been done in the present
case and further, the High Court has once again exceeded in its supervisory jurisdiction in exercise of its judicial
review power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the Award of reinstatement with
50% back wages passed by the Labour Court and has instead awarded Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the
Appellate –workman, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The High Court cannot exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction and act as either original court or appellate court to set aside the finding of fact recorded
o the points of dispute referred to the Labour Court on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record
in favour of the workman as has been done in the instant case. The Award of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs
awarded in place of reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the Labour Court, has been modified by
the High Court without assigning any cogent and valid reason which is not only erroneous in law but suffers
from error in law as well, as the same is contrary to the catena of decisions of this Court. On this ground itself,
the impugned judgement of the High Court is liable to be set aisde and we pass an order to restore the Award
passed by the Labour Court.”
21.
Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2016) 6 SCC 541, titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Director of
Education and others, have ordered for the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages, where retrenchment of
the service of the workman was in violation of Section 25(f)(a), (b) & (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
22.
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, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the
claimant/workman is per-se illegal, particularly when the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since
after his termination by the Management. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 04.12.2018
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: 2019.01.15
16:27:22 +05'30'