रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 51] नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 23—दिसम्बर 29, 2018, शनिवार/पौष 2—पौष 8, 1940
No. 51] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 23—DECEMBER 29, 2018, SATURDAY/ PAUSHA 2— PAUSHA 8, 1940
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालयभारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालयभारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालयभारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय
((((भारी उद्योग विभागभारी उद्योग विभागभारी उद्योग विभागभारी उद्योग विभाग))))
नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2018
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1819181918191819....————के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम 1976 (यथा संशोिधत 1987, 2007 और 2011) के िनयम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय, भारी उद्योग विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन लोक उद्यम, "ए23 यूल एंड कं पनी लिमिटेड, कोलकाता", जिसके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ?ान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अिधसूिचत करती है।
[सं. ई-11012/2/2018-िहन्दी]
विश्वजीत सहाय, संयुक्त सिचव
7390 GI/2018
(6963)6964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
(Department of Heavy Industry)
New Delhi, the 14th November, 2018
S.O. 1819.—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, 2007 and 2011), the Central Government hereby notifies the "Andrew Yule and Company Limited, Kolkata" under the administrative control of the Ministry of Heavy Industry & Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry, wherein more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[No. E-11012/2/2018-Hindi]
VISHVAJIT SAHAY, Jt. Secy.
पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालयपेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
काकाकाका....आआआआ.... 1820182018201820....————कें (cid:14)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकिहत में यह आवश्यक है कि आं(cid:23) प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के िलए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के 'ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कें (cid:14)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से ऊपाब- अनुसूची में व.र्णत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:14)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Aए उस भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में व.र्णत भूिम में हितब- है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार के संबन्ध में Lी के . ए. एस जेन्निसन, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं(cid:23) प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, प्लॉट संख्या 33,कनका दुर्गा ऑफिसर्स कॉलोनी, गुTनानक नगर मेन रोड िवजयवाड़ा-520008, आं(cid:23) प्रदेश राज्य को िलिखत रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा ।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
िजलािजलािजलािजला: : : : ईस्टईस्टईस्टईस्ट गोदावरीगोदावरीगोदावरीगोदावरी
राज्यराज्यराज्यराज्य: : : : आन्(cid:19)आन्(cid:19)आन्(cid:19)आन्(cid:19) प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश
| म ं डलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सवसवसवसव नम्बर नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
जग्गम्पेटा कांडरेगुला 199 00 19 40
193/1 00 16 02
194 00 26 15
192 00 20 37
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6965
| म ं डलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सवसवसवसव नम्बर नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
191 00 31 17
जग्गम्पेटा मन्यनवारिपालेम 183/2 00 10 35
174/3A 00 02 75
174/2 00 18 54
174/4 00 07 20
174/5 00 16 76
कोHकोंडा कनुपुH 527 00 05 45
525 00 08 10
281 00 25 87
520 00 20 91
519 00 45 85
518 00 00 46
कोHकोंडा Iीरंगापटनम 117 00 24 81
गोकावरम गुम्मलादोJी 361 00 73 65
360 00 38 43
358 00 16 98
330 00 34 58
327 00 27 76
9 00 19 38
4/12 00 20 19
सीतानगरम चिन्नाकोंदेपुड़ी 466 00 30 09
468 00 00 91
467 00 21 20
सीतानगरम सिंगावरम 159 00 14 99
163 00 16 62
162 00 46 61
161 00 27 39
136 00 28 92
134 00 23 17
133 00 04 90
132 00 22 40
सीतानगरम सीतानगरम 28 00 00 07
27 00 08 50
26 00 25 59
29 00 18 55
6966 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| म ं डलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सवसवसवसव नम्बर नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
30 00 45 65 31 00 10 15 38 00 49 48
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 1820.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. K.A.S Jennyson, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 33, Kanaka Durga officer's Colony ,Gurunanak Nagar Main Road, Vijayawada -520008 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
District : East Godavari
State : Andhra Pradesh
| Name of Mandal | Name of Village | Survey No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
193/1 00 16 02
194 00 26 15
192 00 20 37
191 00 31 17
Jaggampeta Manyanvaripalem 183/2 00 10 35
174/3A 00 02 75
174/2 00 18 54
174/4 00 07 20
174/5 00 16 76
Korukonda Kanupuru 527 00 05 45
525 00 08 10
281 00 25 87
520 00 20 91
519 00 45 85
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6967
| Name of Mandal | Name of Village | Survey No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
Korukonda Srirangapatnam 117 00 24 81
Gokavaram Gummaladoddi 361 00 73 65
360 00 38 43
358 00 16 98
330 00 34 58
327 00 27 76
9 00 19 38
4/12 00 20 19
Seethanagaram ChinnaKondepudi 466 00 30 09
468 00 00 91
467 00 21 20
Seethanagaram Singavaram 159 00 14 99
163 00 16 62
162 00 46 61
161 00 27 39
136 00 28 92
134 00 23 17
133 00 04 90
132 00 22 40
28 00 00 07
27 00 08 50
26 00 25 59
29 00 18 55
30 00 45 65
31 00 10 15
38 00 49 48
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 1821182118211821....————कें (cid:14)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं(cid:23) प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के 'ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (cid:14)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से ऊपाब- अनुसूची में व.र्णत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:14)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Aए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
6968 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]कोई भी Cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में व.र्णत भूमि में हितब- है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इbीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Lी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं(cid:23) प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंजिल, एल.आई.सी. एनेक्सी भवन, थिbना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं(cid:23) प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची
िजलािजलािजलािजला:::: िवशाखापटनमिवशाखापटनमिवशाखापटनमिवशाखापटनम
राज्यराज्यराज्यराज्य : : : :आंआंआंआं(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:27) प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर एयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5(5(5(5)))) | (6) |
सब्बावरम गािलभीमावरम 64 00 41 14
114 00 38 78
113 00 14 29
116 00 13 77
132 00 01 25
133 00 06 71
सब्बावरम दोंगलामर्री सीतारामपुरम 45 00 58 07
44 00 53 26
42 00 48 67
अनकापल्लि अनकापल्लि 261 00 26 83
263 00 37 71
264 00 10 04
265 00 09 87
272 00 09 69
276 00 01 86
292 00 31 94
294 00 02 09
291 00 19 80
296 00 28 34
306 00 26 73
297 00 01 38
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6969
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर एयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5(5(5(5)))) | (6) |
अनकापल्लि अनकापल्लि 305 00 25 11
304 00 08 84
303 00 15 52
302 00 01 50
314 00 15 12
315 00 09 59
312 00 04 55
313 00 20 37
320 00 04 05
322 00 14 40
323 00 18 81
350 00 06 09
349 00 02 18
347 00 04 00
330 00 58 00
331 00 43 39
337 00 45 60
338 00 12 65
1674 00 13 65
1274 00 13 65
1426 00 01 80
1427 00 01 80
1428 00 12 36
1429 00 15 53
1421 00 13 21
1419 00 30 35
1418 00 17 00
1456 00 01 70
1457 00 20 04
6970 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर एयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5(5(5(5)))) | (6) |
अनकापल्लि अनकापल्लि 1458 00 18 11
1464 00 26 84
1467 00 18 59
1474 00 33 31
1475 00 12 78
1477 00 26 57
1480 00 18 60
1481 00 08 36
1487 00 30 83
1486 00 01 25
1505 00 01 29
1489 00 19 89
1488 00 15 13
1490 00 13 54
1501 00 43 94
1511 00 32 72
1513 00 23 30
1514 00 28 18
1515 00 21 74
1516 00 15 29
1517 00 19 56
1518 00 22 09
1519 00 18 56
1520 00 23 40
1521 00 24 49
1523 00 22 53
1524 00 21 14
1533 00 19 90
1532 00 14 72
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6971
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर एयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5(5(5(5)))) | (6) |
1530 00 51 62
पेंदु.र्त जेर्रीपोतुलापालेम 74 01 32 49
76 01 48 35
67 00 34 61
66 00 11 76
पेंदु.र्त चिंतागटला 64 00 18 92
72 00 13 77
73 00 11 80
75 00 24 78
80 00 01 47
79 00 38 70
81 01 28 21
78 00 19 05
पेंदु.र्त पेदागाड़ी 422 00 30 89
पेंदु.र्त नारावा 77 00 22 68
76 00 7 29
75 00 14 39
72 00 37 41
90 00 23 13
91 00 17 04
92 00 07 00
152 00 08 47
150 00 25 18
148 00 03 16
147 00 12 14
144 00 28 31
143 00 18 45
476 00 28 37
477 00 11 10
6972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर एयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5(5(5(5)))) | (6) |
िवशाखापटनम Nामीण पुल्लमबOापालेम 16 00 55 19
सब्बावरम गोल्लालापालेम 45 00 21 97
67 00 31 71
62 00 07 42
68 00 38 37
70 00 24 59
69 00 21 40
सब्बावरम अमृतापुरम 379 00 86 16
377 00 01 18
375 00 05 22
374 00 14 05
373 00 30 39
368 00 18 80
360 00 02 92
357 00 17 73
355 00 39 64
295 00 09 42
296 00 14 67
294 01 03 67
430 00 17 10
429 00 19 89
290 00 08 82
291 00 19 89
सब्बावरम इTवाड़ा 3 00 05 11
4 00 29 67
5 00 00 99
6 00 03 10
7 00 00 55
11 00 00 06
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6973
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर एयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5(5(5(5)))) | (6) |
सब्बावरम इTवाड़ा 8 00 24 69
10 00 25 00
13 00 14 68
15 00 11 63
18 00 30 10
137 00 18 11
135 00 10 76
134 00 27 65
131 00 11 29
130 00 00 71
128 00 11 63
151 00 28 87
150 00 01 62
149 00 04 40
146 00 12 93
144 00 19 68
174 00 24 57
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 1821.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
6974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM
STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
SABBAVARAM GALIBHIMAVARAM 64 00 41 14
114 00 38 78
113 00 14 29
116 00 13 77
132 00 01 25
133 00 06 71
DONGALAMARRI
SABBAVARAM
SITARAMPURAM 45 00 58 07
44 00 53 26
42 00 48 67
ANAKAPALLI ANAKAPALLI 261 00 26 83
263 00 37 71
264 00 10 04
265 00 09 87
272 00 09 69
276 00 01 86
292 00 31 94
294 00 02 09
291 00 19 80
296 00 28 34
306 00 26 73
297 00 01 38
305 00 25 11
304 00 08 84
303 00 15 52
302 00 01 50
314 00 15 12
315 00 09 59
312 00 04 55
313 00 20 37
320 00 04 05
322 00 14 40
323 00 18 81
350 00 06 09
349 00 02 18
347 00 04 00
330 00 58 00
331 00 43 39
337 00 45 60
338 00 12 65
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6975
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
ANAKAPALLI ANAKAPALLI 1674 00 13 65
1274 00 13 65
1426 00 01 80
1427 00 01 80
1428 00 12 36
1429 00 15 53
1421 00 13 21
1419 00 30 35
1418 00 17 00
1456 00 01 70
1457 00 20 04
1458 00 18 11
1464 00 26 84
1467 00 18 59
1474 00 33 31
1475 00 12 78
1477 00 26 57
1480 00 18 60
1481 00 08 36
1487 00 30 83
1486 00 01 25
1505 00 01 29
1489 00 19 89
1488 00 15 13
1490 00 13 54
1501 00 43 94
1511 00 32 72
1513 00 23 30
1514 00 28 18
1515 00 21 74
1516 00 15 29
1517 00 19 56
1518 00 22 09
1519 00 18 56
1520 00 23 40
1521 00 24 49
1523 00 22 53
1524 00 21 14
1533 00 19 90
1532 00 14 72
1530 00 51 62
PENDURTHI JERRIPOTULAPALEM 74 01 32 49
76 01 48 35
67 00 34 61
66 00 11 76
6976 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
PENDURTHI CHINTAGATLA 64 00 18 92
72 00 13 77
73 00 11 80
75 00 24 78
80 00 01 47
79 00 38 70
81 01 28 21
78 00 19 05
PENDURTHI PEDAGADI 422 00 30 89
PENDURTHI NARAVA 77 00 22 68
76 00 7 29
75 00 14 39
72 00 37 41
90 00 23 13
91 00 17 04
92 00 07 00
152 00 08 47
150 00 25 18
148 00 03 16
147 00 12 14
144 00 28 31
143 00 18 45
476 00 28 37
477 00 11 10
VISAKAPATNAM RURAL PULLAMBHATTAPALEM 16 00 55 19
SABBAVARAM GOLLALAPALEM 45 00 21 97
67 00 31 71
62 00 07 42
68 00 38 37
70 00 24 59
69 00 21 40
SABBAVARAM AMRUTAPURAM 379 00 86 16
377 00 01 18
375 00 05 22
374 00 14 05
373 00 30 39
368 00 18 80
360 00 02 92
357 00 17 73
355 00 39 64
295 00 09 42
296 00 14 67
294 01 03 67
430 00 17 10
429 00 19 89
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6977
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
290 00 08 82
291 00 19 89
SABBAVARAM IRUVADA 3 00 05 11
4 00 29 67
5 00 00 99
6 00 03 10
7 00 00 55
11 00 00 06
8 00 24 69
10 00 25 00
13 00 14 68
15 00 11 63
18 00 30 10
137 00 18 11
135 00 10 76
134 00 27 65
131 00 11 29
130 00 00 71
128 00 11 63
151 00 28 87
150 00 01 62
149 00 04 40
146 00 12 93
144 00 19 68
174 00 24 57
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 1822182218221822....————कें (cid:14)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं(cid:23) प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के 'ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चािहए;
और कें (cid:14)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से ऊपाब- अनुसूची में व.र्णत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:14)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Aए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
6978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]कोई भी Cक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में व.र्णत भूमि में हितब- है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इbीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Lी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं(cid:23) प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंजिल, एल.आई.सी. एनेक्सी भवन, थिbना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी.
कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाशापटनम - 530004, आं(cid:23) प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
*ीकाकु लम राज्यराज्यराज्यराज्य:::: आं(cid:27) प्रदेशआं(cid:27) प्रदेशआं(cid:27) प्रदेशआं(cid:27) प्रदेश िजलािजलािजलािजला:::: *ीकाकु लम *ीकाकु लम *ीकाकु लम
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल | ाम का नाम | सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष क्ष क्ष ेत्रफल | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
पलासा रामकृ ष्णपुरम 201 00 09 54
200 00 00 15
144 00 02 20
145 00 29 00
199 00 09 87
210 01 64 99
217 00 00 93
218 00 30 68
170 00 25 31
169 00 31 30
168 00 20 68
208 00 48 70 कं िचिल भोगाबेनी 504 00 70 05
मंदासा डबाH 4 00 22 88
5 00 09 22
पलासा गुडारि 281/2 00 03 19 पलासा अमलाकु िड़या 36/11 00 01 14 नंदिगाम कोमाटूH 155/5 00 01 66
164/9 00 00 23 नंदिगाम
दिमिलाड़ा 96/3 00 05 24[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 6979
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल | ाम का नाम | सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष क्ष क्ष ेत्रफल | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
97/8 00 11 76
नंदिगाम संतोषापुरम 40/5C 00 00 40
टेक्किल तेिलनीलापुरम 39/1 00 06 65
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 1822.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM
STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
PALASA RAMAKRISHNAPURAM 201 00 09 54
200 00 00 15
144 00 02 20
145 00 29 00
199 00 09 87
210 01 64 99
217 00 00 93
218 00 30 68
170 00 25 31
169 00 31 30
168 00 20 68
208 00 48 70
KANCHILI BHOGABENI 504 00 70 05
MANDASA DABHARU 4 00 22 88
5 00 09 22
6980 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
PALASA GUDARI 281/2 00 03 19
PALASA AMALAKUDIA 36/11 00 01 14
NANDIGAM KOMATURU 155/5 00 01 66
164/9 00 00 23 NANDIGAM DIMILADA 96/3 00 05 24
97/8 00 11 76 NANDIGAM SANTOSAPURAM 40/5C 00 00 40 TEKKALI TELINILAPURAM 39/1 00 06 65
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
काकाकाका. . . . आआआआ.... 1823182318231823....————के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसमें इसके पTात उक्त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अिधसूचना का.आ. 2100 तारीख
06.09.2017 िजसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 36, भाग II, ख2ड 3, उप ख2ड (II) तारीख 03.09.2017 से 09.09.2017 में किया गया है। इस अिधसूचना में संलX अनुसूची में विनिYर्दष्ट आं\प्रदेश राज्य के िजला िवशाखापटनम के मंडल : सब्बावरम, अनकापल्लि, मुनगापाका, रामबिल्लि, एस. रायवरम, न^ापल्लि, और पायाकरावुपेटा की भूिम में, ओडीशा राज्य में पारादीप से तेलंगाना राज्य में हैदराबाद तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपaरेशन िलिमटेड के द्वारा bियान्वित किए जा रहे "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना"के संबंध में पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के िलए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी:
और उक्त राजपत्र अिधसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थd।और उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी नें के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।
और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर िवचार करने के पTात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने का िविनश्चय किया है:
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते iए एतद् द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अिधसूचना से संलX अनुसूची में िविनYर्दष्ट भूिम में पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अjर्जत किया जाए:
और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते iए, यह निदaश देती है कि उक्त भूिम में उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार में िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी बिल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपaरेशन िलिमटेड में िनिहत होगा।
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 6981अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची
िजला:िजला:िजला:िजला: िवशाखापटनमिवशाखापटनमिवशाखापटनमिवशाखापटनम
राज्य: राज्य: राज्य: राज्य: आंआंआंआं(cid:19) प्रदेश(cid:19) प्रदेश(cid:19) प्रदेश(cid:19) प्रदेश
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | ामामामाम का नाम का नाम | सवसवसवसव नम्बर नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
225 00 36 99
अनकापल्लि रेबाका 228 00 21 14
228 00 20 43
224 00 16 92
224 00 01 50
224 00 15 76
220 00 46 67
145/5 00 37 52
मुनगापाका पाटिपल्लि 180 00 30 01
रामबिल्लि वेलचेH 67 00 06 01
36 00 08 63
170/6 00 45 74
69/2 00 07 17
रामबिल्लि राजाला 111 00 05 53
रामबिल्लि दिमिलि 601 00 02 71
611 00 02 77
610 00 15 86
308 00 11 04
315/4 00 08 01
315/3 00 08 27
298 00 08 81
316 00 08 93
296/2 00 04 97
296/1 00 09 76
317/4 00 23 96
294 00 00 12
317/3 00 06 78
285 00 10 44
284 00 18 47
265/6 00 08 13
265/5 00 06 58
6982 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | ामामामाम का नाम का नाम | सवसवसवसव नम्बर नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
265/2 00 04 45
265/1 00 01 85
266 00 14 75
276A 00 23 17
271 00 00 30
177 00 04 49
176 00 22 07
169 00 10 68 एस. रायवरम जंगुलूHवेलम्पालेम 100 00 44 58
113 00 42 59 एस. रायवरम पेनुगोल्लु 338/2 00 04 02
न^ापल्लि गुल्लिपाड़k 97 00 16 27
न^ापल्लि न^ापल्लि 117 00 25 54
पायाकरावुपेटा पेदारामाभ(cid:15)ापुरम 109/2 00 43 02
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 1823.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India No.36 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 03.09.2017 to 09.09.2017 vide S.O. Number 2100 dated 06.09.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Mandals: Sabbavaram, Ankapalli, Munagapaka, Rambilli, S.Rayavaram, Nakkapalli and Payakaraopeta of Visakhapatnam District in Andhra Pradesh State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Hyderabad in the State of Telangana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Hyderabad Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 6983SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM
STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
SABBAVARAM NAARAPADU 194/3 00 19 48
225 00 36 99
ANAKAPALLI REBAKA 228 00 21 14
228 00 20 43
224 00 16 92
224 00 01 50
224 00 15 76
220 00 46 67
145/5 00 37 52
MUNAGAPAKA PATIPALLI 180 00 30 01
RAMBILLI VELCHURU 67 00 06 01
36 00 08 63
170/6 00 45 74
69/2 00 07 17
RAMBILLI RAJALA 111 00 05 53
RAMBILLI DIMILI 601 00 02 71
611 00 02 77
610 00 15 86
308 00 11 04
315/4 00 08 01
315/3 00 08 27
298 00 08 81
316 00 08 93
296/2 00 04 97
296/1 00 09 76
317/4 00 23 96
294 00 00 12
317/3 00 06 78
285 00 10 44
284 00 18 47
265/6 00 08 13
265/5 00 06 58
265/3 00 04 83
265/2 00 04 45
265/1 00 01 85
266 00 14 75
276A 00 23 17
271 00 00 30
177 00 04 49
176 00 22 07
169 00 10 68
S.RAYAVARAM JANGULURU VELAMPALEM 100 00 44 58
113 00 42 59
S.RAYAVARAM PENUGOLLU 338/2 00 04 02
NAKKAPALLI GULLIPADU 97 00 16 27
6984 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
NAKKAPALLI NAKKAPALLI 117 00 25 54
PAYAKARAOPETA PEDARAMABHADRAPURAM 109/2 00 43 02
[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 1824182418241824....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं\ प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के bियान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से उपाबp अनुसूची में वjर्णत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते iए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी vक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वjर्णत भूमि में हितबp है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ^ीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Iी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं\ प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थि^ना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाशापटनम - 530004, आं\ प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची
जिला : )ीकाकु लमजिला : )ीकाकु लमजिला : )ीकाकु लमजिला : )ीकाकु लम
राज्य : आं(cid:19) प्रदेशराज्य : आं(cid:19) प्रदेशराज्य : आं(cid:19) प्रदेशराज्य : आं(cid:19) प्रदेश
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | ाम का नाम | सव सव सव सव नम्बर | क्ष े त्रक्षेत्रक्षेत्रक्षेत्रफलफलफलफल | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
96/1 00 00 34
97/8 00 13 16
96/3 00 03 04
नंदिगाम देवलाभ(cid:15)ा 9/3 00 00 07
10/3 00 00 50
10/6 00 00 265
13/10 00 01 44
13/11 00 02 12
23/10 00 07 19
270/3 00 00 66
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6985
नंदिगाम देवलाभ(cid:15)ा 269/4 00 00 67
266/5 00 00 59
266/7 00 01 29
266/10 00 01 05
272/7 00 00 61
273/10b 00 00 02
275/1 00 00 45
275/8 00 00 19
276/9 00 00 37
277/1 00 00 98
277/7 00 00 25
277/5 00 01 35
242/12 00 01 32
242/9d 00 00 32
242/9e 00 00 05
242/11 00 01 59
240/5 00 00 48
240/2 00 00 42
239/1 00 01 59
238/2B 00 00 43
237/3C 00 02 84
237/3A 00 03 46
232/6 00 00 41
238/7 00 05 67
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव6986 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 1824.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM | STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | ||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
NANDIGAM DIMILADA 95/3 00 00 54
96/1 00 00 34
97/8 00 13 16
96/3 00 03 04
NANDIGAM DEVALABHADRA 9/3 00 00 07
10/3 00 00 50
10/6 00 00 265
13/10 00 01 44
13/11 00 02 12
23/10 00 07 19
270/3 00 00 66
269/4 00 00 67
266/5 00 00 59
266/7 00 01 29
266/10 00 01 05
272/7 00 00 61
273/10b 00 00 02
275/1 00 00 45
275/8 00 00 19
276/9 00 00 37
277/1 00 00 98
277/7 00 00 25
277/5 00 01 35
242/12 00 01 32
242/9d 00 00 32
242/9e 00 00 05
242/11 00 01 59
240/5 00 00 48
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6987
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM | STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | ||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
239/1 00 01 59 238/2B 00 00 43 237/3C 00 02 84 237/3A 00 03 46 232/6 00 00 41 238/7 00 05 67
[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आआआआ.... 1825182518251825....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं\ प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के bियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से उपाबp अनुसूची में वjर्णत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते iए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी vक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वjर्णत भूमि में हितबp है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ^ीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Iी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं\ प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थि^ना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाखापटनम - 530004, आं\ प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| िजला िजला िजला *ीकाकु लम िजला : : : : *ीकाकु लम | राज्य राज्य राज्य प्रदेश राज्य : : : : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश | ||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | ाम का नाम | सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
152/2 00 00 36 152/3 00 03 95 164/17 00 08 00 164/18 00 09 356988 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| िजला िजला िजला *ीकाकु लम िजला : : : : *ीकाकु लम | राज्य राज्य राज्य प्रदेश राज्य : : : : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश | ||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | ाम का नाम | सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
166/5 00 00 10
166/1 00 01 32
166/2 00 01 42
166/4 00 03 85
इ{छापुरम मशाखापुरम 85/5 00 01 80
85/4 00 02 61
84/26 00 00 61
84/27 00 01 22
84/30 00 02 43
85/6 00 04 86
85/8 00 01 22
85/9 00 01 32
85/10 00 01 32
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 1825.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM | STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | ||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
ICHCHAPURAM RATTAKANNA 152/1 00 01 12
152/2 00 00 36
152/3 00 03 95
164/17 00 08 00
164/18 00 09 35
166/3 00 00 60
166/5 00 00 10
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6989
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM | STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | ||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. |
166/1 00 01 32
166/2 00 01 42
166/4 00 03 85
ICHCHAPURAM MASAKHAPURAM 85/5 00 01 80
85/4 00 02 61
84/26 00 00 61
84/27 00 01 22
84/30 00 02 43
85/6 00 04 86
85/8 00 01 22
85/9 00 01 32
85/10 00 01 32
[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 1826182618261826....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं\ प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के bियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से उपाबp अनुसूची में वjर्णत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते iए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी vक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वjर्णत भूमि में हितबp है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ^ीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Iी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं\ प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थि^ना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं\ प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
6990 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
िजलािजलािजलािजला:::: िविजयानगरमिविजयानगरमिविजयानगरमिविजयानगरम
राज्यराज्यराज्यराज्य : : : : आंआंआंआं(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19) प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश
| मंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | ामामामाम काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | सवसवसवसव नम्बर नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
ल^ावरपुकोटा Iीरामपुरम 6 00 44 14
9 00 32 25
11 00 07 55
12 00 13 70
15 00 20 85
16 00 14 83
17 00 19 41
25 00 09 33
24 00 08 14
23 00 20 89
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 1826.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC
Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM | STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | ||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| LAKKAVARAPUKOTA | SRIRAMPURAM | 6 | 00 | 44 | 14 |
| 9 | 00 | 32 | 25 | ||
| 11 | 00 | 07 | 55 | ||
| 12 | 00 | 13 | 70 | ||
| 15 | 00 | 20 | 85 | ||
| 16 | 00 | 14 | 83 | ||
| 17 | 00 | 19 | 41 | ||
| 25 | 00 | 09 | 33 | ||
| 24 | 00 | 08 | 14 | ||
| 23 | 00 | 20 | 89 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 1827182718271827....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आं\ प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के bियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से उपाबp अनुसूची में वjर्णत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते iए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी vक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वjर्णत भूमि में हितबp है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इ^ीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Iी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आं\ प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थि^ना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं\ प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
जिला : )ीकाकु लमजिला : )ीकाकु लमजिला : )ीकाकु लमजिला : )ीकाकु लम
राज्य : राज्य : राज्य : राज्य : आंआंआंआं(cid:19) प्रदेश(cid:19) प्रदेश(cid:19) प्रदेश(cid:19) प्रदेश
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | ाम का नाम | सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| ट े^लि | चिनाराकल्लापल्ले | 308/3 | 00 | 02 | 24 |
| 308/4 | 00 | 02 | 23 | ||
| 308/5 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 308/12 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 313/3 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 313/4 | 00 | 00 | 52 | ||
| 220/5 | 00 | 00 | 04 | ||
| 213/1 | 00 | 02 | 17 | ||
| ट े^िल | तलागाम | 10/15 | 10 | 00 | 00 |
| 159/1B | 00 | 42 | 00 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. .1827—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM | STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | ||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Sq. Mt. | Are | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
308/4 00 02 23
308/5 00 00 02
308/12 00 00 05
313/3 00 00 02
313/4 00 00 52
220/5 00 00 04
213/1 00 02 17
TEKKALI TALAGAM 10/15 00 10 00
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940
6993
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM | STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | ||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Sq. Mt. | Are | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| 159/1B | 00 | 00 | 42 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
)म )म )म )म एवंएवंएवंएवं रोजगार मंत्रालयरोजगार मंत्रालयरोजगार मंत्रालयरोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1828182818281828....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मैसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 2/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. जेड- 16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhilwara now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
Je U;k;ky;] HkhyokM+k %
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % Jh vthr dqekj fgaxj] vkj-ts-,l- ¼ftyk U;k;k/kh'k laoxZ½
izdj.k la[;k % 2 lu~ 2015 ,y-lh-vkj ¼dsUnzh;½
cuke
1- izca/kd] Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] eaMy dk;kZy;]
iksLV csx ljdk] 18 lc flVh lsaVj] mn;iqjA
2- ofj"B izca/kd] Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] eaMy 'kk[kk] fuEckgsMk] ftyk&fprkSMx6994 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] mifLFkr
Jh cynso eksM] izfrfuf/k&izkFkhZ dh vksj lsA - Jh jf'knqy xQwj] vf/koDrk& foi{kh dh vksj lsA
iapkV fnukad 28-9-2018
izkFkhZ nsosUnz ekgs'ojh }kjk vkS-fo-vf/k-]1947 ¼ftls iapkV esa vkxs vf/k- 1947 ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼2½ ¼,½ ds rgr ;g fookn U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;kA
izkFkhZ ds }kjk Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa la{ksi esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k fd mls foi{kh ds }kjk fnukad 11-5-2002 dks pijklh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;kA mlus foi{kh ds dk;kZy; esa pijklh ds :i esa ty lsod] lkQ lQkbZ] Mkd juj] dk;kZy; i=kpkj] QkbZyksa dks ykus ys tkus o tujsVj lacaf/kr fofHkUu dk;Z fnukad 28-2-2014 rd 11 o"kksZa ls vf/kd lrr :i ls fd;sA izR;sd dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnuksa ls vf/kd vof/k rd dk;Z fd;kA mlus eaMy dk;kZy;] mn;iqj ds Vsyhxzke ds }kjk vLFkk;h pijklh ds in ij fu;qDr djus ls fnuakd 10-1-08 ls 28-2-2014 rd 6 o"kksZa rd fujarj dk;Z fd;kA foi{kh us ekSf[kd vkns'k ls mls fnuakd 1-3-2014 dks lsok i`Fkd dj fn;kA lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ mls u rks vfxze lwpuk i= fn;k x;k] u blds ,ot esa {kfriwfrZ jkf'k vnk dh xbZA og lsok i`Fkddj.k ds ckn ls gh csjkstxkj gSA izkFkhZ us leLr osru ykHkksa lfgr iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr djokus dh izkFkZuk dhA
foi{kh fu;kstd us Dyse izkFkZuk i= ds tokc esa izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, la{ksi esa ;g vafdr fd;k fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh dh fuEckgsMk 'kk[kk esa rnFkZ vk/kkj ij iw.kZr;k vLFkk;h :i ls dk;Z fd;k] ftlesa fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 3-8-2002 rd dqy vof/k 85 fnu rd ty lsod ds :i esa nSfud etnwjh ij dk;Z fd;kA rRi'pkr~ mlus 10-1-2008 ls 3-4-2008 rd 85 fnu rd vLFkk;h pijklh ds :i esa dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ us fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 28-2-2014 rd fu;fer :i ls dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ us fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu rd dk;Z ugha fd;kA foi{kh fdlh Hkh vLFkk;h dkexkj dks 85 fnu ls vf/kd vof/k ds fy, dke ij ugha j[krs gSaA izkFkhZ us izkjaHk esa 11-5-2002 ls 3-8-2002 rd 85 fnu rd ty lsod ds :i esa dke fd;kA blds ckn izkFkhZ us iqu% 85 fnuksa ds fy, feF;k ?kks"k.kk i= ds vk/kkj ij dke fd;k] tks voS/kkfud :i ls foi{kh dks /kks[ks esa j[k dj >waBh ?kks"k.kk ds vk/kkj ij fd;kA izkFkhZ us fdlh Hkh :i esa fuEckgsMk 'kk[kk esa fnukad 11-5-2002 ls fujarj 11 lkyksa rd dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA Dyse izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a izkFkhZ , M 1 nsosUnz ekgs'ojh ds c;ku ys[kc) djok;s x;s ,oa Vsyhxzke dh izfr izn'kZ 1 , dks iznf'kZr djk;k x;kA mDr lk{; ds [kaMu esa foi{kh dh vksj ls ,u , M 1 v'kksd dqekj c;k ds c;ku ntZ djok;s x;s rFkk izn'kZ ,e 1 , dk;Z xzg.k fjiksVZ dh izfr] izn'kZ ,e 2 , tksbZfuax fjiksVZ dh izfr] izn'kZ ,e 3 , lk{kkRdkj i= dh izfr o izn'kZ ,e 4 Bsdsnkj ds 'kiFk i= dks iznf'kZr djk;k x;kA
cgl ds nkSjku izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us izkFkZuk i= esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dks nksgjk;k vkSj ;g nyhy Hkh j[kh fd izkFkhZ dks Vsyhxzke] ftls izn'kZ 1 ds :i esa is'k fd;k x;k gS] ds tfj;s foi{kh us fu;qfDr nh FkhA izkFkhZ o foi{kh ds e/; ekLVj &losZUV dk laca/k gSaA mlus fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 28-2-2014 rd dk;Z fd;kA mls fof/kd izfdz;k viuk;s fcuk lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA vr% og iqu% fu;kstu dk vf/kdkjh gSA
blds foijhr foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us tokc esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dks nksgjk;k vkSj ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ muds ;gka fo'kq) :i ls vLFkk;h deZpkjh FkkA mlus igys o"kZ 2002 esa 85 fnu dke fd;k o fQj >waBh ?kks"k.kk djds o"kZ 2008 esa 85 fnu dk;Z fd;kA og dksbZ jkgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA mlus 1800 :- izfr ekg izkIr djus dk tks dFku fd;k gS] og loZFkk xyr gSA mls ekjokM eksVlZ ls ;g jkf'k izkIr gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ dkssbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh is'k dh xbZA
geusa nksuksa i{kksa dks lqukA lEiw.kZ i=koyh dk v/;;u fd;kA izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vxzfyf[kr fcUnq r; fd;s tkus gSa&
1- D;k izkFkhZ foi{kh la- nks laLFkku esa igys fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 11-5-2007 rd ty lsod ds :i esa ,oa fQj fnukad 10-1-2008 ls 28-2-2014 rd pijklh ds :i esa dk;Zjr jgk\
2-- ;fn gka] rks og D;k jkgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
lk{; esa izkFkhZ nsosUnz us vius eq[; ijh{k.k Lo:i 'kiFk i= esa vafdr fd;k gS fd mls foi{kh us fnukad 11-5-2002 ls pijklh ds in ij fu;ksftr fd;kA mlus muds dk;kZy; esa pijklh ds :i esa ty lsod] lkQ lQkbZ djus] Mkd o i=kofy;ka igqapkus vkSj tujsVj laca/kh fofHkUu dk;ksZa dks fnukad 28-2-2014 rd vFkkZr 11 o"kksZa rd lrr :i ls fd;kA mlus igys fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 11-12-2007 rd fu;fer :i ls ty lsod ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k A mldk fu;kstu izfr o"kZ 240 fnolksa dk jgk] fQj eaMy dk;kZy; mn;iqj ds dkfeZd vf/kdkjh us Vsyhxzke ls vkns'k tkjh dj mls vLFkk;h pijklh dh lsok esa dk;Z djus dk vkns'k tkjh fd;kA bl ij mlus fnukad 10-1-2008 ls 28-2-2014 rd vFkkZr 6 o"kksZa rd fujarj dk;Z fd;kA mldk dk;Z larks"ktud jgkA mlds fo:) dksbZ f'kdk;[email protected] ;k foHkkxh; tkap izLrkfor ugha jghA bl izdkj mlus fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 28-2-2014 rd fu;fer fu;kstu fd;k gSA leLr nLrkost foi{kh ds dCts esa gSaA mls fnuakd 1-3-2014 ls xyr rkSj ij fudky fn;k x;k] rc ls og csjkstxkj gSA le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k Hkh foi{kh us mls iqu% dk;Z ij ysus ls euk dj fn;kA mls fof/k fo:) ,oa izkd`frd U;k; ds fo:) lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25& ,Q]th],p ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA ftjg esa blus dFku fd;k fd ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ 1 Mkd rkj foHkkx dk nLrkost gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ 1 esa dksbZ rkjh[k vafdr ugha gSA izn'kZ 1 esa , ls ch esa vLFkk;h pijklh in ij mifLFkfr nsus ckcr vafdr fd;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus fnuakd 11-5-2002 ls 3-8-2002 rd[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 6995 dqy 85 fnu rd vLFkk;h ty lsod ds :i esa dke fd;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd mlds ckn fnukad 1-10-2008 ls 3-4-2008 rd vLFkk;h pijklh ds in ij dke fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus fnukad 10-1-2008 dks izn'kZ ,e 1 ds tfj;s dk;Z xzg.k fd;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus foi{kh ds v/khu dHkh 240 fnu rd fujarj dke ugha fd;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus 85&85 fnu ds fy, dk;Z fd;k mldk eSa iw.kZ Hkqxrku izkIr dj pqdk gwaA 2014 ls iwoZ eSaus ekjokM esVYl ds v/khu dke fd;k A eSa tujsVj pykrk Fkk]tks ,y vkbZ lh dsail esa yxk FkkA
blds foijhr foi{kh ds fof/k vf/kdkjh v'kksd dqekj c;k ,u , M 1 us eq[; ijh{k.k Lo:i 'kiFk i= esa vafdr fd;k fd izkFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= esa xyr rF;ksa dk lekos'k gSA okLrfodrk ;g gS fd vkosnd us igys fnuakd 11-5-2002 ls 3-8-2002 rd dqy 85 fnu ty lsod ds :i esa vLFkk;h nSfud etnwjh dk dk;Z fd;k fQj mlus fnukad 10-1-2008 ls 3-8- 2008 rd 85 fnu vLFkk;h pijklh ds in ij dk;Z fd;kA vkosnd ds ikl ,slk dksbZ nLrkost ugha gS] ftlls ;g lkfcr gks lds fd mlus fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 28-2-2014 rd fu;fer :i ls dk;Z fd;k gksA mlus fdlh Hkh dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol rd dk;Z ugha fd;kA okLrfodrk ;g Hkh gS fd nwljh ckj mlus fnukad 10-1-2008 dks feF;k ?kks"k.kk i= fn;k] ftlesa mlus ;g vafdr fd;k fd mlus iwoZ esa dHkh dke ugha fd;k gSA bl dkj.k mls iqu% 85 fnu ds fy, vLFkk;h pijklh ds :i esa j[kk x;kA vkosnd dk ;g dguk fd mlus foi{kh ds ;gka yxkrkj 11 o"kZ rd dk;Z fd;k gS] loZFkk xyr gSA og dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vkosnd feF;k f'kdk;r djus dk vknh gSA foi{kh Hkkjr ljdkj dk fuxfer laLFkku gSA ogka lHkh dk;Z fu;e ds varxZr gksrs gSaA foi{kh us fdlh izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;kA ftjg esa blus dgk fd izkFkhZ dks etnwjh dk Hkqxrku ekjokM esVYl]tks tujsVj Bsdsnkj gS] muds }kjk fd;k x;kA
ekjokM esVYl tujsVj pykus dk Bsdsnkj gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ us gekjs v/khu 240 fnu dke fd;k gksA ;g lgh gS fd lhrk jke] es?kjkt] lqHkk"k cSjkBh] jkds'k 'kekZ] iznhi eksgu] bZoj xksBoky]vkse lSuh fuEckgsMk czkap esa dk;Zjr jgs gSaA
i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd ,d vksj tgka izkFkhZ us Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd mlus foi{kh ds ;gka igys fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 11-12-2007 rd ty lsod ds :i esa fujarj dk;Z fd;k ,oa fQj fnuakd 10-1-2008 ls 28-2-2014 rd 6 o"kksZa rd pijklh ds in ij dk;Z fd;k vFkkZr og Lo;a nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd vof/k esa foi{kh ds ;gka vyx&vyx in ij dke djus dk vfHkopu dj jgk gS] tcfd mlus lk{; Lo:i 'kiFk i= esa fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 28-2- 2014 rd yxkrkj dk;Z djus dk mYys[k 'kiFk i= ds iSjk la0 4 esa fd;k gS A bl izdkj og nks vyx& vyx ckrsa j[k jgk gSA ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd og lk{; esa rF;ksa dks c
Lo;a izkFkhZ us gekjs le{k tks Vsyhxzke izn'kZ 1 is'k fd;k gS]mlds laca/k esa ftjg esa mlus Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bl ij dksbZ rkjh[k vafdr ugha gSA bl VsyhxzkQ izn'kZ 1 ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd ;g izkFkhZ dks pijklh ds in ij dk;Z djus gsrq Hkstk x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd mls fnuakd 10-1-2008 ls pijklh ds in dk dke fn;k x;k FkkA vr% ;g VsyhxzkQ o"kZ 2008 dk izrhr gksrk gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls gekjs le{k izkFkhZ }kjk fnuakd 10-1-2008 dks fy[kh xbZ dk;Z xzg.k fjiksVZ is'k dh xbZ gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ }kjk ;g fy[kk x;k gS fd mlus foi{kh ds fdlh Hkh dk;kZy; esa vLFkk;h in ij dHkh dk;Z ugha fd;k vkSj og iw.kZr% vLFkk;h pijklh ds in ij dk;Z djus gsrq viuh lgefr ns jgk gSA blls iwoZ vLFkk;h pijklh gsrq mls tks i= foi{kh }kjk izn'kZ 3 Hkstk x;k Fkk]mlesa ;g vafdr Fkk fd vLFkk;h pijklh ds in ij 85 fnol ds fy, dk;Z djus gsrq vLFkk;h fu;qfDr gsrq lk{kkRdkj fy;k tk;sxk rFkk bl i= esa ;g Hkh mYysf[kr Fkk fd ;fn iwoZ esa Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds fdlh Hkh dk;kZy; esa fdlh in ij dk;Z fd;k x;k gS rks og O;fDr vLFkk;h fu;qfDr dh ik=rk ugha j[ksxkA
blls iwoZ izkFkhZ us tc fnukad 11-5-2002 dks vLFkk;h ty lsod ds in ij dk;Z xzg.k fd;k rks lacaf/kr fjiksVZ izn'kZ ,e 2 esa mlus vxzfyf[kr mYys[k fd;k& ^egksn;]
fo"k;&vLFkkh ty lsod in ij dk;Z xzg.k djus ckcrA
mijksDr fo"k;karxZr ys[k gS fd eSa vkt fnukad 11-5-2002 ls vLFkk;h ty lsod in ij dk;Z xzg.k djusgsrq mifLFkr gks x;k gwaA
blls iwoZ eSaus Hkkjrh; thou chek fxe esa fdlh Hkh in ij dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA Hkfo"; esa bl vLFkk;h in ekQZr Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe esa Lfkk;h in gsrq nkok izLrqr ugha d:axkA lkFk gh lEiw.kZ 85 fnol rd dk;Z djus dh lgefr nsrk gwaA
Hkonh;]
nsosUnz ekgs'ojh^
bu lHkh nLrkostksa dks lfEefyr :i ls ns[kk tk;s rks ;g izdV gksrk gS fd igys izkFkhZ us fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 85 fnu ds fy, vLFkk;h ty lsod ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k fQj fnuakd 10-1-2008 dks vLFkk;h pijklh ds in ij dk;Z djuk 'kq: fd;kA fnukad 101-2008 ds ckn mlus yxkrkj foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k gks vkSj fQj fnuakd 1-3-2014 dks mls lsok i`Fkd fd;k x;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr izdV ugha gksrhA fnukad 101-2008 ds 85 fnu ckn Hkh dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ us dksbZ nLrkosth vk/kkj gekjs le{k ugha j[ks gSaA izkFkhZ ds }kjk gekjk /;ku i=koyh ij miyC/k mldh cSad ikl cqd dh QksVks izfr dh vksj vkdf"kZr dj fu;fer fu;kstu dk mYys[k fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa izFker% rks ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr ikl cqd6996 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dh QksVks izfr vfHkys[k ij ekStwn gSA bl QksVks izfr ds vk/kkj ij vf/kdkjksa dh foospuk ugha gks ldrhA oSls Hkh ikl cqd dh izfof"B;ksa ds vk/kkj ij egRoiw.kZ fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ,d ckj dks fQj Hkh ge bu izfof"B;ksa dks ns[ksa rks ;g izdV gksrk gS fd 1800 :- izfr ekg izkfIr laca/kh tks izfof"B;ka izkFkhZ crk jgk gS] muesa vxzfyf[kr mYys[k gS&
'INB LIC NIMBAHERA TRF FRM MARWAR METAL'
mDr vadu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fdlh ekjokM esVy uke laLFkku dk Hkh bu izfof"B;ksa ls laca/k gSaA og D;k laca/k gSa\ bls izkFkhZ us Li"V ugha fd;k gS] tcfd foi{kh }kjk gekjs le{k ekjokM esVy ds vf/kd`r gLrk{kjdrkZ dk ,d 'kiFk i= i'k fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ;g vafdr gS fd nsosUnz ekgs'ojh ikVZ VkbZe tujsVj vkWijsVj ds :i esa dk;Z djrk gS] ftls fnukad 28-10-2010] 2-11-2013 ] 9-12-2013 ] 8-1-2014] 7-2-2014] o 13-3-2014 dks lsysjh dh jkf'k nh xbZA vr% mDr ikl cqd dh izfof"B ;g n'kkZrh gS fd izkFkhZ mDr jkf'k ekjokM esVy ls izkIr dj jgk gSA Lo;a izkFkhZ us rks bl laca/k esa fLFkfr;ksa dk Li"V rkSj ij [kqyklk ugha fd;k gSA vr% mDr ikl cqd Hkh izkFkhZ dk foi{kh ds fu;fer fu;kstu esa gksuk ugha n'kkZrhA
blds vykok Lo;a izkFkhZ us Hkh vius c;kuksa esa tks vxzfyf[kr mYys[k fd;k gS] muls ;g Li"V rkSj ij izdV gks jgk gS fd mlus igys fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 85 fnol fQj 10-1-2008 ls 85 fnol dze'k% ty lsod o pijklh ds in ij dk;Z fd;k &
^;g lgh gS fd eSaus fnuakd 11-5-2002 ls 3-8-2002 rd dqy 85 fnu rd vLFkk;h ty lsod ds :i esa dke fd;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd mlds ckn fnukad 1-10-2008 ls 3-4-2008 rd vLFkk;h pijklh ds in ij dke fd;kA^
Lo;a izkFkhZ dh mDr LohdkjksfDr ls vc fLFkfr;ka Li"V gks pqdh gS vkSj ,slk drbZ izdV ugha gksrk fd mlus foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa igys fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 11-12-2007 rd fQj fnukad 10-1-2008 ls 28-2-2014 rd fu;fer rkSj ij dze'k% ty lsod o pijklh ds in ij dk;Z fd;k gks ;k fnukad 11-5-2002 ls 28-2-2014 rd fujarj fu;fer rkSj ij dk;Z fd;k gksA
Lo;a izkFkhZ us vius c;kuksa esa ;g Lohdkj Hkh dj fy;k gS fd mlus foi{kh ds v/khu dHkh Hkh 240 fnuksa rd fujarj dk;Z ugha fd;k vkSj mlus tks 85&85 fnu ds fy, dk;Z fd;k] mldk iw.kZ Hkqxrku mls izkIr gks pqdk gSA blds vykok izkFkhZ us vius c;kuksa esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 2014 ls iwoZ mlus ekjokM esVYl ds v/khu dk;Z fd;kA og tujsVj pykrk Fkk] tks ,y-vkbZ-lh- dsil esa yxk FkkA mDr c;kuksa ls Hkh ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd mlus foi{kh ds v/khu dqy 85&85 fnuksa ds vykok dk;Z ugha fd;k oju ekjokM esVYl ds v/khu dk;Z fd;k vkSj og vius Dyse izkFkZuk i= o 'kiFk i= esa fnukad 11-5-2002 ls fujarj 28-2-2014 rd foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z djus dk tks vfHkopu o dFku dj jgk gS] og loZFkk xyr gSA izkFkhZ dk fu;kstu u rks fujarj 240 fnol rd jgk gS] u gh og fu;fer fu;kstu esa jgk gS] vr% og dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd &
izkFkhZ Jh nsosUnz ekgs'ojh iq= Jh dSyk'k ekgs'ojh] fuoklh&fuEckgsMk] ftyk&fprkSMx< foi{khx.k ds ;gka 240 fnolksa rd dk;Zjr ugha jgk gSA mlus iwoZ foospu ds vuqlkj foi{khx.k ds ;gka 85&85 fnolksa rd dk;Z fd;k gS] vr% og bl izdj.k esa dksbZ jkgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA iapkV vkt fnukad 28-9-2018 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA
vthr dqekj fgaxj] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1829182918291829....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक
विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 4/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो
के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. जेड- 16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavarikhani now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 6997ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT -CUM-VI ADDL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.
Present: SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
I. D.No. 4 of 2015
Between:
B.Sadaiah, S/o.B.Kanakaiah, aged about 32 years, Occ:Substaff, R/o.Devunipalli Mandal, Peddapalli, District Karimnagar. … Petitioner/Employee
AND
1. The Branch Manager, LIC Peddapalli, Post Peddapalli, District Karimnagar.
2. The Divisional Manager, LIC Dept., Tower Circle, Karimnagar.
3. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, LIC of India, Saifabad,
Hyderabad, Post Hyderabad. … Respondents/Employer
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri N.Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act which herein after will be referred as ID Act for convenience sake against R-1 to R-3 with a prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by setting aside the oral removal order dt.31-01-2013 of the 1st respondent and to direct the respondent to give continuity of service, other attendant benefits, back wages to the petitioner herein. The following is the brief case of petitioner as per his petition:
2. The petitioner was appointed as an employee in Life Insurance Corporation on 20-05-2005 but it was an oral order without any written appointment order. The petitioner was paid monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- and he worked in the 1st respondent till 30-01-2013. The 1st respondent enhanced the salary of the petitioner from time to time by continuously utilizing the service of the petitioner. The petitioner claims he completed (8) years of service in the 1st respondent. The petitioner further pleaded that R-1 removed the petitioner on 31-01-2013 without any notice and without payment of compensation in lieu of the notice. There was no written removal order but the present removal is nothing but termination simplicitor. He has also claimed that he used to get Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of above said removal from service. The petitioner addressed a demand letter to the 1st respondent on 06-11-2014 but there was no response and the request of the petitioner was not considered for employment or for any compensation. The respondent's corporation adopted unfair labour practice and victimized the petitioner therefore, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service by setting aside the oral removal order and also to give attendant benefits, back wages etc.
3. All the respondents have appeared before this Tribunal and filed common counter with the following averments:
4. The petitioner was engaged as daily wager by R-1 intermittently as and when the services of the daily wagers were required for the office work. The contention of the petitioner that he was engaged on temporary basis is false and not correct. He was given certain job to be carried out as daily wager and they used to pay amount to the petitioner depending upon job entrusted to him. The respondents have denied the plea of petitioner that he discharged his duties for (8) years and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month but pleaded that the services of petitioner were obtained intermittently. The respondents have further pleaded that with the previous approval of the Central Government, LIC of India in exercise of the powers vested in it under clauses (b) and (bb) of sub section (2) of section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 has made the terms and conditions of services of the employees, vide LIC of India (staff) Regulations, 1960 and they are applicable to whole time (salaried) employees of the corporation. In view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA.Nos.953-968, dt.18-01-2011 between D.V.Anil Kumar and others vs. LIC of India, employment notice dt.20-05-2011 was issued by LIC of India can have applications from all the temporary class- IV employees of the fulfilling the following eligibility criteria:
1. All temporary class-IV employees working in LIC of India for more than (5) years as on 18-01-2011.
2. Possessing minimum eligible qualification (pass in standard IX) at the relevant time of their entry into LIC of India.
6998 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3. Age as prescribed by LIC of India in its recruitment rules/instructions at the relevant time of entry into LIC of India.
4. Candidates should not have crossed the age of superannuation of 60 years on the date of his/her appointment, if selected.
5. Remuneration to such candidates during their temporary employment in LIC should have been paid directly by the corporation and not through any contractor.
6. Candidates to submit copies of proof of working with the corporation for more than (5) years as on 18-01-2011 duly signed by the Chief Manager/Sr. Branch Manager in charge of the Branch Manager (P & IR), Manager (OS) of the respective Divisional Office or the Regional Manager (P& IR)/Regional Manager (OS) in respect of zones where the candidate is working. The above certificate has to be issued on the basis of payment details, attendance record, appointment letters and any other record with details. Details have to be mentioned in the service certificate.
7. Temporary Employment Certificate given on the basis of verbal statement or on the basis of declaration by other employees has to be supported by corroborative evidence.
8. Copies of certificates of age, educational qualification, caste along with MR for Rs.250/- wherever applicable and Temporary Employment Certificate from the concerned Authority have to be sent with the duly completed application form by the candidates to their respective divisional offices.
9. The onus of furnishing authentic documentary proof for the temporary service at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidate.
5. The respondents further pleaded that the petitioner was not found eligible as per the above mentioned eligibility criteria circumstances he was not issued admit card for the limited written test. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred cases stipulated that such of those temporary class-IV employees who don't apply and or are not successful shall cease to be in the employment. Those employment persons working in class-IV cadres who are not governed under this notice of employment shall also cease to be in employment. The action of termination of the petitioner is in accordance with the above order since the failure of implementation of the result contempt of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondents further stated that the documents submitted by the petitioner are false. They are not relevant thereby the documents failed to prove that all the payments made to the petitioner. It is also clear that there was no fixed salary to the petitioner. Document No.6 and onwards payment vouchers made to the daily wager for work done. Out of the documents filed by the petitioner some were payments made by the petitioner and other were payment made to the other workers. It is very clear that petitioner has not completed (5) years of service as on 18-01-2011. He is not eligible for appearing to the limited written test. The permanent peons selected through the above recruitment process were issued appointment letters in the months of February/March, 2012 and in view of the Supreme Court guidelines all the unsuccessful candidates shall cease to be in employment and the same is applicable to petitioner. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has no cause of action, he was only daily wager engaged intermittently as per the requirement of work. As such, the persons working in class IV cadres who are not governed under this notice of employment shall also cease to be in employment. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have heard both parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the employment and other benefits
including back wages as prayed for?
7. The petitioner has filed this ID with a specific plea that he was working in the 1st respondent office as a temporary employee but the 1st respondent terminated him by way of oral order. It is the specific case of petitioner that he was receiving Rs.3,000/- per month towards his salary and the same was enhanced from time to time. However the petitioner categorically stated that no written appointment order was served on him. In order to substantiate his plea about his employment with R-1 and his receiving salary from the respondent, the petitioner is examined himself as WW- 1 and one more witness was examined on his behalf. In the chief affidavit of petitioner he has reiterated what he has pleaded in the petition.
8. According to his evidence affidavit he was appointed has 1st respondent on 20-05-2005 but he was not served with any written appointment order, he used to get Rs.3,000/- per month. The 1st respondent continuously utilized his services without any break, his salary was enhanced from time to time but on 31-01-2013 he was removed from service by way of oral communication. R-1 did not issue any notice nor there was any compensation in lieu of the notice. The counsel for respondents has cross examined this witness, in the cross examination WW-1 further stated that he was working in R-1 without any written appointment order, it was an oral appointment according to him. WW-1 has admitted that if there is any appointment notification for the appointment of employee in LIC such notification will be published nation wide. The petitioner did not appear for any written examination. He claims that he filed an application to appear for a written examination but he did not file any proof about such applications. The petitioner claims that he has approached the union leaders. In addition to his oral evidence he has filed some photocopies of the documents alleged to have been obtained from R-1.
9. The petitioner has also examined one Gajula Jalapathi an LIC agent as WW-2. According to the evidence of WW-2 he found the petitioner while working in the 1st respondent office. The petitioner was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month, there was no charge memo against the petitioner. In the cross examination WW-2 further deposed that he did not[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 6999 receive any summons from the Court. He came to the court at the request of petitioner/workman. He is working as LIC agent since 1998. Duty of the LIC agent is to appoint the customers to the LIC and they used to collect premium from the customers which he has to deposit in the 1st respondent. WW-2 was not able to say the total number of departments in 1st respondent office. He has admitted that he never verified the salary particulars of the employees. From the cross examination it is very clear that WW-2 has been planted only to support the plea of the petitioner. He has no knowledge about the actual facts.
10. The contention of petitioner that he was orally appointed in R-1 and he served corporation for (5) years cannot be considered in the absence of any written or admissible proof. It is true the petitioner has produced photocopies of some documents. In fact the respondents did not dispute the work of petitioner but they have categorically stated that they have utilized the service of petitioner intermittently only as daily wager. The respondents have examined one D.Rama Rao as MW-1. According to the evidence affidavit filed by MW-1 it is categorically stated that R-1 used to get the service of petitioner intermittently as and when such service was required and petitioner was only a daily wager without any such appointment. Therefore, according to MW-1 the work if any rendered by the petitioner to R-1 was a temporary job for which R-1 used to pay remuneration on daily wage basis. In the cross examination MW-1 further deposed that there was no practice of issuing appointment letters to employees who worked intermittently thereby the petitioner was not served with any such appointment letter. When the witness was asked whether any departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner he has categorically deposed that since the petitioner was not a permanent employee there was no necessity to conduct any departmental enquiry for his termination. This witness was confronted with photocopies of documents produced by the petitioner, he has categorically stated that those documents are internal record of R-1 and the petitioner is no way concerned with those documents. This witness has denied the suggestion that petitioner worked in the 1st respondent for more than (5) years. He was also asked whether the petitioner paid any fees to appear for examination as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but he expressed that he is no knowledge about such payment. From the evidence of the above witness it is very clear that the petitioner worked in the 1st respondent only as a temporary employee that too for a short period, there was no regular employment and there was no appointment order served on the petitioner. Similarly there was no written termination order.
11. The counsel for respondents has represented that number of temporary employees of LIC have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there was specific guidelines by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in the case between LIC of India and another vs. D.V.Anil Kumar and etc. As could be seen from the above judgment it is very clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to direct the Life Insurance Corporation of India to formulate a scheme where under all the eligible temporary class IV employees as also the open market candidates who had taken the examination for recruitment be absorbed. As per terms and conditions of the said scheme there should be a one time recruitment examination for those temporary employees who are working in the LIC of India and who possess minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed by the LIC of India. The successful short listed candidates shall be called for interview. Such of those persons who are successful in the interview shall be initially appointed and posted anywhere in the respective zone. It was also observed in the order that such of those temporary employees who do not apply and or not successful shall cease to be in the employment. It was also clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed under these submissions shall also cease to be in the employment. Therefore, as per the above judgment the petitioner must prove that he was temporarily appointed in the 1st respondent, he has got required age and qualification as on the date of his entry. He has completed more than (5) years of service. Thereafter he was asked to appear for examination. The cross examination of WW-1 is very clear that he did not appear for any such schemes. Except his oral evidence he did not produce any proof about his age and qualification. Similarly there is no proof that he was in continuous service of more than (5) years in R-1 corporation. Therefore, even on that ground the petitioner cannot be considered as an eligible candidate for continuing in the service. In the light of the above judgment when once the petitioner is not coming within the scheme he ceased to be employee. Therefore, he cannot claim a direction for his reinstatement into the service. In a judgment between Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others in Appeal (civil) 3595-3612 of 1999, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in the following words:
"Public employment is a sovereign secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the
Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the
Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of
opportunity is the hallmark, and the constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that
unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.
A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got
done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a
law newly enacted. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to
at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a
regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a
particular point of time, are to filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard
manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule."
12. In the light of the other judgment between LIC of India vs D.V.Anil Kumar and others vide 2003 (4) ALD 721 decided on 10-06-2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.4 of the judgment made the following observation:
7000 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]"4. It will be necessary at this stage to take notice of certain facts. The LIC has been engaging a sub staff (peons) on temporary and ad hoc basis for the last several years. Their services were not being regularized and they were continued to be treated as temporary or on ad hoc basis. Employees had been agitating for regularization of their services. Finally the matter was referred by the Government of India to the National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Justice Tulpule. While the proceedings were pending before the National Industrial Tribunal, a compliant under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed on behalf of the Unions complaining that regular recruitment was taking place, the benefit under the award would be only illusory and as such they sought restraint orders. The Tribunal passed an order directing that during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, no recruitment of the staff on regular basis should be made. Award was finally passed on 17-04-1986 by the Tribunal, which was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court of Bombay in W.P.No.1801 of 1986. The Award was referred for interpretation to the National Tribunal presided over by Justice Jamadar. After Justice Jamadar gave his award, Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court by the Corporation being SLP (Civil) No.14906 of 1988 challenging both the awards. An application was filed in the SLP on 21-01-1989 to dispose of the SLP in terms of the compromise arrived at between the Corporation and the Unions. SLP was accordingly disposed of with directions to implement the terms of the compromise as an interim measure.
5. Subsequent to the interim order of Supreme Court dated 01-03-1989, some more writ petitions came
to be filed before various High Courts including Madras High Court. In the meanwhile, the Central
Government referred the dispute for adjudicator to Central Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on 04-03-1989.
During pendency of the reference, from out of an order passed by the Madras High Court, Special Leave
Petitions (SLP (C) Nos.10393-10413 of 1992 – E.Prabavathy and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India)
were filed by certain employees before the Supreme Court. On 27-10-1992 the Supreme Court passed an order
in the Civil Appeals arising out of the above SLPs, after noticing the statement made on behalf of the
Corporation with regard to the future ad hoc appointments/regularization to the effect that corporation was in
the process of making a scheme consistent with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of
Harayana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. Scheme was formulated and ultimately, the Supreme Court
approved the scheme on 14-12-1995. Salient features of the scheme were incorporated in the Order."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to further observed that to consider the case of such temporary employees the Life Insurance Corporation shall issue a public advertisement stating that those candidates who had been appointed on or after 28-06-1993 under LIC of India (employment of temporary staff instructions, 1993) and work in temporary capacity for a period of 85 days in a financial year will be allowed to compete in the recruitment process thereby they fulfill the remaining conditions. But in the case on hand the petitioner is not able to establish that he was one among such temporarily appointed staff with more than (5) years service. It is also not established by the petitioner that he possessed required qualifications and age prescribed by the respondent/corporation. If he was able to fulfill the criteria be could have been allowed to written examination. Therefore, I believe that he has no such qualification to appear for the examination thereby now he cannot question the 1st respondent by way of the present Industrial Dispute. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Senior Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of August, 2018.
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN: FOR MANAGEMENT:
WW-1 : B.Sadaiah, Petitioner
MW-1 : D.Rama Rao,
WW-2 : Gajula Jalapathi Administrative Officer (L & HPF)
E X H I B I T S
FOR WORKMAN
-Nil-
FOR MANAGEMENT:
-Nil-[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7001
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 1830183018301830....———— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक
विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 5/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो
के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavarikhani now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL.DIST. AND
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present: SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
I.D.No. 5 of 2015
Between:
Peddiraju Praveen Kumar, S/o.Prabhakar Rao, aged about 46 years, Occ: Substaff, R/o.Manthani, Mandal Manthani, District Karimnagar. … Petitioner/Employee
AND
1. The Branch Manager, LIC Peddapalli, Post Peddapalli, District Karimnagar.
2. The Divisional Manager, LIC Dept., Tower Circle, Karimnagar.
3. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, LIC of India, Saifabad,
Hyderabad, Post Hyderabad. … Respondents/Employer
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri N.Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act which herein after will be referred as ID Act for convenience sake against R-1 to R-3 with a prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by setting aside the oral removal order dt.31-01-2013 of the 1st respondent and to direct the respondent to give continuity of service, other attendant benefits, back wages to the petitioner herein. The following is the brief case of petitioner as per his petition:
2. The petitioner was appointed as an employee in Life Insurance Corporation on 05-08-2002 but it was an oral order without any written appointment order. The petitioner was paid monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- and he worked in the 1st respondent till 30-01-2013. The 1st respondent enhanced the salary of the petitioner from time to time by continuously utilizing the service of the petitioner. The petitioner claims he completed (8) years of service in the 1st respondent. The petitioner further pleaded that R-1 removed the petitioner on 31-01-2013 without any notice and without payment of compensation in lieu of the notice. There was no written removal order but the present removal is nothing but termination simplicitor. He has also claimed that he used to get Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of above said removal from service. The petition+-ner addressed a demand letter to the 1st respondent on 24-10-2014 but there was no response and the request of the petitioner was not considered for employment or for any compensation. The respondent's corporation adopted unfair labour practice and victimized the petitioner therefore, the petitioner prayed for a direction to7002 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the respondents to reinstate him into service by setting aside the oral removal order and also to give attendant benefits, back wages etc.
3. All the respondents have appeared before this Tribunal and filed common counter with the following averments:
4. The petitioner was engaged as daily wager by R-1 intermittently as and when the services of the daily wagers were required for the office work. The contention of the petitioner that he was engaged on temporary basis is false and not correct. He was given certain job to be carried out as daily wager and they used to pay amount to the petitioner depending upon job entrusted to him. The respondents have denied the plea of petitioner that he discharged his duties for (8) years and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month but pleaded that the services of petitioner were obtained intermittently. The respondents have further pleaded that with the previous approval of the Central Government, LIC of India in exercise of the powers vested in it under clauses (b) and (bb) of sub section (2) of section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 has made the terms and conditions of services of the employees, vide LIC of India (staff) Regulations, 1960 and they are applicable to whole time (salaried) employees of the corporation. In view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA.Nos.953-968, dt.18-01-2011 between D.V.Anil Kumar and others vs. LIC of India, employment notice dt.20-05-2011 was issued by LIC of India can have applications from all the temporary class- IV employees of the fulfilling the following eligibility criteria:
1. All temporary class-IV employees working in LIC of India for more than (5) years as on 18-01-2011.
2. Possessing minimum eligible qualification (pass in standard IX) at the relevant time of their entry into LIC of India.
3. Age as prescribed by LIC of India in its recruitment rules/instructions at the relevant time of entry into LIC of India.
4. Candidates should not have crossed the age of superannuation of 60 years on the date of his/her appointment, if selected.
5. Remuneration to such candidates during their temporary employment in LIC should have been paid directly by the corporation and not through any contractor.
6. Candidates to submit copies of proof of working with the corporation for more than (5) years as on 18-01- 2011 duly signed by the Chief Manager/Sr. Branch Manager in charge of the Branch Manager (P & IR), Manager (OS) of the respective Divisional Office or the Regional Manager (P& IR)/Regional Manager (OS) in respect of zones where the candidate is working. The above certificate has to be issued on the basis of payment details, attendance record, appointment letters and any other record with details. Details have to be mentioned in the service certificate.
7. Temporary Employment Certificate given on the basis of verbal statement or on the basis of declaration by other employees has to be supported by corroborative evidence.
8. Copies of certificates of age, educational qualification, caste along with MR for Rs.250/- wherever applicable and Temporary Employment Certificate from the concerned Authority have to be sent with the duly completed application form by the candidates to their respective divisional offices.
9. The onus of furnishing authentic documentary proof for the temporary service at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidate.
5. The respondents further pleaded that the petitioner was not found eligible as per the above mentioned eligibility criteria circumstances he was not issued admit card for the limited written test. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred cases stipulated that such of those temporary class-IV employees who don't apply and or are not successful shall cease to be in the employment. Those employment persons working in class-IV cadres who are not governed under this notice of employment shall also cease to be in employment. The action of termination of the petitioner is in accordance with the above order since the failure of implementation of the result contempt of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondents further stated that the documents submitted by the petitioner are false. They are not relevant thereby the documents failed to prove that all the payments made to the petitioner. It is also clear that there was no fixed salary to the petitioner. Document No.6 and onwards payment vouchers made to the daily wager for work done. Out of the documents filed by the petitioner some were payments made by the petitioner and other were payment made to the other workers. It is very clear that petitioner has not completed (5) years of service as on 18-01-2011. He is not eligible for appearing to the limited written test. The permanent peons selected through the above recruitment process were issued appointment letters in the months of February/March, 2012 and in view of the Supreme Court guidelines all the unsuccessful candidates shall cease to be in employment and the same is applicable to petitioner. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has no cause of action, he was only daily wager engaged intermittently as per the requirement of work. As such, the persons working in class IV cadres who are not governed under this notice of employment shall also cease to be in employment. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have heard both parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the employment and other benefits
including back wages as prayed for?
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 70037. The petitioner has filed this ID with a specific plea that he was working in the 1st respondent office as a temporary employee but the 1st respondent terminated him by way of oral order. It is the specific case of petitioner that he was receiving Rs.3,000/- per month towards his salary and the same was enhanced from time to time. However the petitioner categorically stated that no written appointment order was served on him. In order to substantiate his plea about his employment with R-1 and his receiving salary from the respondent, the petitioner is examined himself as WW- 1 and one more witness was examined on his behalf. In the chief affidavit of petitioner he has reiterated what he has pleaded in the petition.
8. According to his evidence affidavit he was appointed by 1st respondent on 05-08-2002 but he was not served with any written appointment order, he used to get Rs.3,000/- per month. The 1st respondent continuously utilized his services without any break, his salary was enhanced from time to time but on 31-01-2013 he was removed from service by way of oral communication. R-1 did not issue any notice nor there was any compensation in lieu of the notice. The counsel for respondents has cross examined this witness, in the cross examination WW-1 further stated that he was working in R-1 without any written appointment order, it was an oral appointment according to him. WW-1 has admitted that if there is any appointment notification for the appointment of employee in LIC such notification will be published nation wide. The petitioner did not appear for any written examination. He claims that he filed an application to appear for a written examination but he did not file any proof about such application. The petitioner claims that he has approached the union leaders. In addition to his oral evidence he has filed some photocopies of the documents alleged to have been obtained from R-1.
9. The petitioner has also examined one Gajula Jalapathi an LIC agent as WW-2. According to the evidence of WW-2 he found the petitioner while working in the 1st respondent office. The petitioner was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month, there was no charge memo against the petitioner. In the cross examination WW-2 further deposed that he did not receive any summons from the Court. He came to the court at the request of petitioner/workman. He is working as LIC agent since 1998. Duty of the LIC agent is to appoint the customers to the LIC and they used to collect premium from the customers which he has to deposit in the 1st respondent. WW-2 was not able to say the total number of departments in 1st respondent office. He has admitted that he never verified the salary particulars of the employees. From the cross examination it is very clear that WW-2 has been planted only to support the plea of the petitioner. He has no knowledge about the actual facts.
10. The contention of petitioner that he was orally appointed in R-1 and he served corporation for (5) years cannot be considered in the absence of any written or admissible proof. It is true the petitioner has produced photocopies of some documents. In fact the respondents did not dispute the work of petitioner but they have categorically stated that they have utilized the service of petitioner intermittently only as daily wager. The respondents have examined one D.Rama Rao as MW-1. According to the evidence affidavit filed by MW-1 it is categorically stated that R-1 used to get the service of petitioner intermittently as and when such service was required and petitioner was only a daily wager without any such appointment. Therefore, according to MW-1 the work if any rendered by the petitioner to R-1 was a temporary job for which R-1 used to pay remuneration on daily wage basis. In the cross examination MW-1 further deposed that there was no practice of issuing appointment letters to employees who worked intermittently thereby the petitioner was not served with any such appointment letter. When the witness was asked whether any departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner he has categorically deposed that since the petitioner was not a permanent employee there was no necessity to conduct any departmental enquiry for his termination. This witness was confronted with photocopies of documents produced by the petitioner, he has categorically stated that those documents are internal record of R-1 and the petitioner is no way concerned with those documents. This witness has denied the suggestion that petitioner worked in the 1st respondent for more than (5) years. He was also asked whether the petitioner paid any fees to appear for examination as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but he expressed that he is no knowledge about such payment. From the evidence of the above witness it is very clear that the petitioner worked in the 1st respondent only as a temporary employee that too for a short period, there was no regular employment and there was no appointment order served on the petitioner. Similarly there was no written termination order.
11. The counsel for respondents has represented that number of temporary employees of LIC have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there was specific guidelines by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in the case between LIC of India and another vs. D.V.Anil Kumar and etc. As could be seen from the above judgment it is very clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to direct the Life Insurance Corporation of India to formulate a scheme where under all the eligible temporary class IV employees as also the open market candidates who had taken the examination for recruitment be absorbed. As per terms and conditions of the said scheme there should be a one time recruitment examination for those temporary employees who are working in the LIC of India and who possess minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed by the LIC of India. The successful short listed candidates shall be called for interview. Such of those persons who are successful in the interview shall be initially appointed and posted anywhere in the respective zone. It was also observed in the order that such of those temporary employees who do not apply and or not successful shall cease to be in the employment. It was also clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed under these submissions shall also cease to be in the employment. Therefore, as per the above judgment the petitioner must prove that he was temporarily appointed in the 1st respondent, he has got required age and qualification as on the date of his entry. He has completed more than (5) years of service. Thereafter he was asked to appear for7004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] examination. The cross examination of WW-1 is very clear that he did not appear for any such schemes. Except his oral evidence he did not produce any proof about his age and qualification. Similarly there is no proof that he was in continuous service of more than (5) years in R-1 corporation. Therefore, even on that ground the petitioner cannot be considered as an eligible candidate for continuing in the service. In the light of the above judgment when once the petitioner is not coming within the scheme he ceased to be employee. Therefore, he cannot claim a direction for his reinstatement into the service. In a judgment between Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others in Appeal (civil) 3595-3612 of 1999, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in the following words:
"Public employment is a sovereign secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the
Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the
Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of
opportunity is the hallmark, and the constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that
unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.
A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got
done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a
law newly enacted. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to
at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a
regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a
particular point of time, are to filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard
manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule."
12. In the light of the other judgment between LIC of India vs D.V.Anil Kumar and others vide 2003 (4) ALD 721 decided on 10-06-2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.4 of the judgment made the following observation:
"4. It will be necessary at this stage to take notice of certain facts. The LIC has been engaging a sub staff (peons) on temporary and ad hoc basis for the last several years. Their services were not being regularized and they were continued to be treated as temporary or on ad hoc basis. Employees had been agitating for regularization of their services. Finally the matter was referred by the Government of India to the National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Justice Tulpule. While the proceedings were pending before the National Industrial Tribunal, a compliant under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed on behalf of the Unions complaining that regular recruitment was taking place, the benefit under the award would be only illusory and as such they sought restraint orders. The Tribunal passed an order directing that during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, no recruitment of the staff on regular basis should be made. Award was finally passed on 17-04-1986 by the Tribunal, which was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court of Bombay in W.P.No.1801 of 1986. The Award was referred for interpretation to the National Tribunal presided over by Justice Jamadar. After Justice Jamadar gave his award, Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court by the Corporation being SLP (Civil) No.14906 of 1988 challenging both the awards. An application was filed in the SLP on 21-01-1989 to dispose of the SLP in terms of the compromise arrived at between the Corporation and the Unions. SLP was accordingly disposed of with directions to implement the terms of the compromise as an interim measure.
5. Subsequent to the interim order of Supreme Court dated 01-03-1989, some more writ petitions came
to be filed before various High Courts including Madras High Court. In the meanwhile, the Central
Government referred the dispute for adjudicator to Central Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on 04-03-1989.
During pendency of the reference, from out of an order passed by the Madras High Court, Special Leave
Petitions (SLP (C) Nos.10393-10413 of 1992 – E.Prabavathy and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India)
were filed by certain employees before the Supreme Court. On 27-10-1992 the Supreme Court passed an order
in the Civil Appeals arising out of the above SLPs, after noticing the statement made on behalf of the
Corporation with regard to the future ad hoc appointments/regularization to the effect that corporation was in
the process of making a scheme consistent with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of
Harayana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. Scheme was formulated and ultimately, the Supreme Court
approved the scheme on 14-12-1995. Salient features of the scheme were incorporated in the Order."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to further observed that to consider the case of such temporary employees the Life Insurance Corporation shall issue a public advertisement stating that those candidates who had been appointed on or after 28-06-1993 under LIC of India (employment of temporary staff instructions, 1993) and work in temporary capacity for a period of 85 days in a financial year will be allowed to compete in the recruitment process thereby they fulfill the remaining conditions. But in the case on hand the petitioner is not able to establish that he was one among such temporarily appointed staff with more than (5) years service. It is also not established by the petitioner that he possessed required qualifications and age prescribed by the respondent/corporation. If he was able to fulfill the criteria be could have been allowed to written examination. Therefore, I believe that he has no such qualification to appear for the examination thereby now he cannot question the 1st respondent by way of the present Industrial Dispute. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Senior Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of August, 2018.
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7005
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN: FOR MANAGEMENT
WW-1 : P.Praveen Kumar, Petitioner
MW-1 : D.Rama Rao,
WW-2 : Gajula Jalapathi Administrative Officer (L & HPF).
EXHIBITS
FOR WORKMAN
-Nil-
FOR MANAGEMENT
-Nil-
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1818181831313131....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 7/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1831.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavarikhani now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT -CUM-VI ADDL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.
Present: SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
I.D. No. 7 of 2015
Between:
Rachakonda Ramesh, S/o.R.Kanakaiah, Aged about 29 years, Occ:Substaff, R/o.Peddapalli, Mandal Peddapalli, District Karimnagar. … Petitioner/Employee
AND
1. The Branch Manager, LIC Peddapalli, Post Peddapalli, District Karimnagar.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC Dept., Tower Circle, Karimnagar.
3. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, LIC of India, Saifabad,
Hyderabad, Post Hyderabad. … Respondents/Employer7006 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri N.Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act which herein after will be referred as ID Act for convenience sake against R-1 to R-3 with a prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by setting aside the oral removal order dt.31-01-2013 of the 1st respondent and to direct the respondent to give continuity of service, other attendant benefits, back wages to the petitioner herein. The following is the brief case of petitioner as per his petition:
2. The petitioner was appointed as an employee in Life Insurance Corporation on 05-11-2005 but it was an oral order without any written appointment order. The petitioner was paid monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- and he worked in the 1st respondent till 30-01-2013. The 1st respondent enhanced the salary of the petitioner from time to time by continuously utilizing the service of the petitioner. The petitioner claims he completed (8) years of service in the 1st respondent. The petitioner further pleaded that R-1 removed the petitioner on 31-01-2013 without any notice and without payment of compensation in lieu of the notice. There was no written removal order but the present removal is nothing but termination simplicitor. He has also claimed that he used to get Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of above said removal from service. The petitioner addressed a demand letter to the 1st respondent on 06-11-2014 but there was no response and the request of the petitioner was not considered for employment or for any compensation. The respondent's corporation adopted unfair labour practice and victimized the petitioner therefore, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service by setting aside the oral removal order and also to give attendant benefits, back wages etc.
3. All the respondents have appeared before this Tribunal and filed common counter with the following averments:
4. The petitioner was engaged as daily wager by R-1 intermittently as and when the services of the daily wagers were required for the office work. The contention of the petitioner that he was engaged on temporary basis is false and not correct. He was given certain job to be carried out as daily wager and they used to pay amount to the petitioner depending upon job entrusted to him. The respondents have denied the plea of petitioner that he discharged his duties for (8) years and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month but pleaded that the services of petitioner were obtained intermittently. The respondents have further pleaded that with the previous approval of the Central Government, LIC of India in exercise of the powers vested in it under clauses (b) and (bb) of sub section (2) of section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 has made the terms and conditions of services of the employees, vide LIC of India (staff) Regulations, 1960 and they are applicable to whole time (salaried) employees of the corporation. In view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA.Nos.953-968, dt.18-01-2011 between D.V.Anil Kumar and others vs. LIC of India, employment notice dt.20-05-2011 was issued by LIC of India can have applications from all the temporary class-IV employees of the fulfilling the following eligibility criteria:
1. All temporary class-IV employees working in LIC of India for more than (5) years as on 18-01-2011.
2. Possessing minimum eligible qualification (pass in standard IX) at the relevant time of their entry into LIC of India.
3. Age as prescribed by LIC of India in its recruitment rules/instructions at the relevant time of entry into LIC of India.
4. Candidates should not have crossed the age of superannuation of 60 years on the date of his/her appointment, if selected.
5. Remuneration to such candidates during their temporary employment in LIC should have been paid directly by the corporation and not through any contractor.
6. Candidates to submit copies of proof of working with the corporation for more than (5) years as on 18-01-2011 duly signed by the Chief Manager/Sr. Branch Manager in charge of the Branch Manager (P & IR), Manager (OS) of the respective Divisional Office or the Regional Manager (P& IR)/Regional Manager (OS) in respect of zones where the candidate is working. The above certificate has to be issued on the basis of payment details, attendance record, appointment letters and any other record with details. Details have to be mentioned in the service certificate.
7. Temporary Employment Certificate given on the basis of verbal statement or on the basis of declaration by other employees has to be supported by corroborative evidence.
8. Copies of certificates of age, educational qualification, caste along with MR for Rs.250/- wherever applicable and Temporary Employment Certificate from the concerned Authority have to be sent with the duly completed application form by the candidates to their respective divisional offices.
9. The onus of furnishing authentic documentary proof for the temporary service at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidate.
5. The respondents further pleaded that the petitioner was not found eligible as per the above mentioned eligibility criteria circumstances he was not issued admit card for the limited written test. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred cases stipulated that such of those temporary class-IV employees who don't apply and or are not successful shall[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7007 cease to be in the employment. Those employment persons working in class-IV cadres who are not governed under this notice of employment shall also cease to be in employment. The action of termination of the petitioner is in accordance with the above order since the failure of implementation of the result contempt of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondents further stated that the documents submitted by the petitioner are false. They are not relevant thereby the documents failed to prove that all the payments made to the petitioner. It is also clear that there was no fixed salary to the petitioner. Document No.6 and onwards payment vouchers made to the daily wager for work done. Out of the documents filed by the petitioner some were payments made by the petitioner and other were payment made to the other workers. It is very clear that petitioner has not completed (5) years of service as on 18-01-2011. He is not eligible for appearing to the limited written test. The permanent peons selected through the above recruitment process were issued appointment letters in the months of February/March, 2012 and in view of the Supreme Court guidelines all the unsuccessful candidates shall cease to be in employment and the same is applicable to petitioner. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has no cause of action, he was only daily wager engaged intermittently as per the requirement of work. As such, the persons working in class IV cadres who are not governed under this notice of employment shall also cease to be in employment. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have heard both parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the employment and other benefits
including back wages as prayed for?
7. The petitioner has filed this ID with a specific plea that he was working in the 1st respondent office as a temporary employee but the 1st respondent terminated him by way of oral order. It is the specific case of petitioner that he was receiving Rs.3,000/- per month towards his salary and the same was enhanced from time to time. However the petitioner categorically stated that no written appointment order was served on him. In order to substantiate his plea about his employment with R-1 and his receiving salary from the respondent, the petitioner is examined himself as WW-1 and one more witness was examined on his behalf. In the chief affidavit of petitioner he has reiterated what he has pleaded in the petition.
8. According to his evidence affidavit he was appointed has 1st respondent on 05-11-2005 but he was not served with any written appointment order, he used to get Rs.3,000/- per month. The 1st respondent continuously utilized his services without any break, his salary was enhanced from time to time but on 31-01-2013 he was removed from service by way of oral communication. R-1 did not issue any notice nor there was any compensation in lieu of the notice. The counsel for respondents has cross examined this witness, in the cross examination WW-1 further stated that he was working in R-1 without any written appointment order, it was an oral appointment according to him. WW-1 has admitted that if there is any appointment notification for the appointment of employee in LIC such notification will be published nation wide. The petitioner did not appear for any written examination. He claims that he filed an application to appear for a written examination but he did not file any proof about such application. The petitioner claims that he has approached the union leaders. In addition to his oral evidence he has filed some photocopies of the documents alleged to have been obtained from R-1.
9. The petitioner has also examined one Gajula Jalapathi an LIC agent as WW-2. According to the evidence of WW-2 he found the petitioner while working in the 1st respondent office. The petitioner was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month, there was no charge memo against the petitioner. In the cross examination WW-2 further deposed that he did not receive any summons from the Court. He came to the court at the request of petitioner/workman. He is working as LIC agent since 1998. Duty of the LIC agent is to appoint the customers to the LIC and they used to collect premium from the customers which he has to deposit in the 1st respondent. WW-2 was not able to say the total number of departments in 1st respondent office. He has admitted that he never verified the salary particulars of the employees. From the cross examination it is very clear that WW-2 has been planted only to support the plea of the petitioner. He has no knowledge about the actual facts.
10. The contention of petitioner that he was orally appointed in R-1 and he served corporation for (5) years cannot be considered in the absence of any written or admissible proof. It is true the petitioner has produced photocopies of some documents. In fact the respondents did not dispute the work of petitioner but they have categorically stated that they have utilized the service of petitioner intermittently only as daily wager. The respondents have examined one D.Rama Rao as MW-1. According to the evidence affidavit filed by MW-1 it is categorically stated that R-1 used to get the service of petitioner intermittently as and when such service was required and petitioner was only a daily wager without any such appointment. Therefore, according to MW-1 the work if any rendered by the petitioner to R-1 was a temporary job for which R-1 used to pay remuneration on daily wage basis. In the cross examination MW-1 further deposed that there was no practice of issuing appointment letters to employees who worked intermittently thereby the petitioner was not served with any such appointment letter. When the witness was asked whether any departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner he has categorically deposed that since the petitioner was not a permanent employee there was no necessity to conduct any departmental enquiry for his termination. This witness was confronted with photocopies of documents produced by the petitioner, he has categorically stated that those documents are internal record of R-1 and the petitioner is no way concerned with those documents. This witness has denied the suggestion that petitioner worked in the 1st respondent for more than (5) years. He was also asked whether the petitioner paid any fees to appear for examination as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but he expressed that he is no knowledge7008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] about such payment. From the evidence of the above witness it is very clear that the petitioner worked in the 1st respondent only as a temporary employee that too for a short period, there was no regular employment and there was no appointment order served on the petitioner. Similarly there was no written termination order.
11. The counsel for respondents has represented that number of temporary employees of LIC have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there was specific guidelines by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in the case between LIC of India and another vs. D.V.Anil Kumar and etc. As could be seen from the above judgment it is very clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to direct the Life Insurance Corporation of India to formulate a scheme where under all the eligible temporary class IV employees as also the open market candidates who had taken the examination for recruitment be absorbed. As per terms and conditions of the said scheme there should be a one time recruitment examination for those temporary employees who are working in the LIC of India and who possess minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed by the LIC of India. The successful short listed candidates shall be called for interview. Such of those persons who are successful in the interview shall be initially appointed and posted anywhere in the respective zone. It was also observed in the order that such of those temporary employees who do not apply and or not successful shall cease to be in the employment. It was also clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed under these submissions shall also cease to be in the employment. Therefore, as per the above judgment the petitioner must prove that he was temporarily appointed in the 1st respondent, he has got required age and qualification as on the date of his entry. He has completed more than (5) years of service. Thereafter he was asked to appear for examination. The cross examination of WW-1 is very clear that he did not appear for any such schemes. Except his oral evidence he did not produce any proof about his age and qualification. Similarly there is no proof that he was in continuous service of more than (5) years in R-1 corporation. Therefore, even on that ground the petitioner cannot be considered as an eligible candidate for continuing in the service. In the light of the above judgment when once the petitioner is not coming within the scheme he ceased to be employee. Therefore, he cannot claim a direction for his reinstatement into the service. In a judgment between Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others in Appeal (civil) 3595-3612 of 1999, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in the following words:
"Public employment is a sovereign secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the
Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the
Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of
opportunity is the hallmark, and the constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that
unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.
A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got
done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a
law newly enacted. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to
at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a
regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a
particular point of time, are to filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard
manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule."
12. In the light of the other judgment between LIC of India vs D.V.Anil Kumar and others vide 2003 (4) ALD 721 decided on 10-06-2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.4 of the judgment made the following observation:
"4. It will be necessary at this stage to take notice of certain facts. The LIC has been engaging a sub staff (peons) on temporary and ad hoc basis for the last several years. Their services were not being regularized and they were continued to be treated as temporary or on ad hoc basis. Employees had been agitating for regularization of their services. Finally the matter was referred by the Government of India to the National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Justice Tulpule. While the proceedings were pending before the National Industrial Tribunal, a compliant under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed on behalf of the Unions complaining that regular recruitment was taking place, the benefit under the award would be only illusory and as such they sought restraint orders. The Tribunal passed an order directing that during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, no recruitment of the staff on regular basis should be made. Award was finally passed on 17-04-1986 by the Tribunal, which was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court of Bombay in W.P.No.1801 of 1986. The Award was referred for interpretation to the National Tribunal presided over by Justice Jamadar. After Justice Jamadar gave his award, Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court by the Corporation being SLP (Civil) No.14906 of 1988 challenging both the awards. An application was filed in the SLP on 21-01-1989 to dispose of the SLP in terms of the compromise arrived at between the Corporation and the Unions. SLP was accordingly disposed of with directions to implement the terms of the compromise as an interim measure.
5. Subsequent to the interim order of Supreme Court dated 01-03-1989, some more writ petitions came
to be filed before various High Courts including Madras High Court. In the meanwhile, the Central
Government referred the dispute for adjudicator to Central Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on 04-03-1989.
During pendency of the reference, from out of an order passed by the Madras High Court, Special Leave
Petitions (SLP (C) Nos.10393-10413 of 1992 – E.Prabavathy and Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India)
were filed by certain employees before the Supreme Court. On 27-10-1992 the Supreme Court passed an order
in the Civil Appeals arising out of the above SLPs, after noticing the statement made on behalf of the
Corporation with regard to the future ad hoc appointments/regularization to the effect that corporation was in
the process of making a scheme consistent with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7009Harayana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. Scheme was formulated and ultimately, the Supreme Court
approved the scheme on 14-12-1995. Salient features of the scheme were incorporated in the Order."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to further observed that to consider the case of such temporary employees the Life Insurance Corporation shall issue a public advertisement stating that those candidates who had been appointed on or after 28-06-1993 under LIC of India (employment of temporary staff instructions, 1993) and work in temporary capacity for a period of 85 days in a financial year will be allowed to compete in the recruitment process thereby they fulfill the remaining conditions. But in the case on hand the petitioner is not able to establish that he was one among such temporarily appointed staff with more than (5) years service. It is also not established by the petitioner that he possessed required qualifications and age prescribed by the respondent/corporation. If he was able to fulfill the criteria be could have been allowed to written examination. Therefore, I believe that he has no such qualification to appear for the examination thereby now he cannot question the 1st respondent by way of the present Industrial Dispute. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Senior Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of August, 2018.
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN: FOR MANAGEMENT
WW-1 : R.Ramesh, Petitioner
MW-1 : D.Rama Rao,
WW-2 : Gajula Jalapathi Administrative Officer (L & HPF).
EXHIBITS
FOR WORKMAN:
-Nil-
FOR MANAGEMENT:
-Nil-
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1832183218321832....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधििनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स सहायक भविष्य निधि आयुक्त एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 45/2015)
को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 12.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. एल-15011/6/2015-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1832.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12.12.2018.
[No. L-15011/6/2015-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
7010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ANNEXURE
BEFORE, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Case ID No. 45/2015
Versus
1. The Assistant PF Commissioner, Regional Office, SCO No.4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
2. The Head, UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd., Plot No.3, Sector 11, HBD Belapaur, Navi Mumbai-400614.
3. The Jain Hydronics Private Ltd. 10066, Multani Dhanda, 1st Floor,
Street No.1, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. …Respondents
AWARD
Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide notification F.No.L-15011/6/2015-IR(M) Dated 28/09/2015, the Central Govt. has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh
interminating the services of Sh. Sunil Kant S/o?"
It is clear from the record that notice was sent to the parties when the reference was received by this Tribunal. However, workman has not turned up despite issuance of notice. Moreover, postal envelop was received back with the endorsement that "not known". This clear shows that the workman is not interested in the adjudication of matter. Resultantly, no claim award is passed against the workman. It is also clarified that passing of the no claim award would not bar the workman from approaching the Appropriate Government/this Tribunal for adjudication of this case on merits or filing any fresh claim. Let copy of this award be sent (both soft as well as hard copy) to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication. File after completion be consigned.
Dated:-02.07.2018
Place: Chandigarh
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1833183318331833....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स स्मेल्टर प्लांट नाल्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, भूवने}र के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 23/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. एल-43011/10/2013-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Smelter Plant, Nalco and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. L-43011/10/2013-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7011ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 23/2014
L-43011/10/2013 – IR(M), dated 4/4/2014
Date of Passing Order – 15th October, 2018
Between:
The Regional Manager, M/s. Smelter Plant, NALCO, P.O. & Dist. Angul, Orissa. …1st Party-Management
(And)
The General Secretary, Nalco Employees' Sangha, PO. Nalco Nagar, Dist. Angul (Orissa) …2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
Mr. S.S. Panda, Auth. Representative … For the 1st Party-Management None … For the 2nd Party-Union
ORDER
Authorized representative of the Management is present, whereas none appears on behalf of the 2nd party-Union on repeated calls. It is submitted by the authorized representative of the Management that the Union is not taking any step in the proceeding for the last several adjournments and probably the Union has no interest to prosecute the dispute. Perused the record. It is seen that after filing of the statements by the parties the 2nd party-Union is not taking any steps for which the proceeding is adjourned without adjudication of the dispute. The reference case cannot be protracted in such a manner for an indefinite period by giving mechanical adjournments awaiting the appearance of the 2nd party- Union at its sweet will. As the 2nd party-Union fails to adduce any evidence and he has defaulted in appearance, there is nothing before the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute, which has been referred to.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that until adjudication of the dispute referred to by the authority concerned, an award cannot be made within the meaning of the award as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. There is also no provision in the Act to pass a no-dispute award or a nil award in case the disputant fails to make appearance and prosecute its claim. In that view of the matter passing of a no-dispute award or nil award for absence of the disputant/parties would be a misconception and the above position has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case between M/s. IDL Chemicals Limited –versus- P.O. Labour Court, Sambalpur reported in 72(1991) CLT 73 and in the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of B.R. Bermen and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd., -versus- Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and others (short noted in 1977 Lab. I.C. (NOC) 13 (CAL). It has been also held by the Hon'ble Courts that so long as the dispute remains unsettled and the proceeding came to an end without adjudication of the dispute between the parties, there is no bar under the Act whereby the Government is precluded from referring the dispute over again so that there may be an industrial adjudication as contemplated by the Act.
3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as settled principles I am constrained to dismiss the case registered on the reference of the dispute without any award and accordingly the reference is disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer7012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1834183418341834....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स स्मेल्टर प्लांट, नाल्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद
में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, भूवने}र के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 25/2014) को प्रकाशित करती
है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. एल-43011/08/2013-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Smelter Plant, NALCO and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. L-43011/08/2013-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 25/2014
L-43011/08/2013 IR(M), dated 02.04.2014
Date of Passing Order – 22nd October, 2018
Between:
The General Manager, M/s. Smelter Plant, NALCO, Po. & Dist. Angul, Orissa
…st Party-Management
(And)
The General Secretary, Nalco Employees' Sangha, Po. Nalco Nagar, Dist. Angul (Orissa).
… 2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
Mr. S.S. Panda, Auth. Representative. … For the 1st Party-Management None … For the 2nd Party-Union
ORDER
Authorized representative of the Management is present, whereas none appears on behalf of the 2nd party-Union on repeated calls. It is submitted by the authorized representative of the Management that the Union is not taking any step in the proceeding for the last several adjournments and probably the Union has no interest to prosecute the dispute. Perused the record. It is seen that after filing of the statements by the parties the 2nd party-Union is not taking any steps for which the proceeding is adjourned without adjudication of the dispute. The reference case cannot be protracted in such a manner for a indefinite period by giving mechanical adjournments awaiting the appearance of the 2nd party-Union at its sweet will. As the 2nd party-Union fails to adduce any evidence and he has defaulted in appearance, there is nothing before the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute, which has been referred to.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 70132. It is pertinent to mention here that until adjudication of the dispute referred to by the authority concerned, an award cannot be made within the meaning of the award as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. There is also no provision in the Act to pass a no-dispute award or nil award in case the disputant fails to make appearance and prosecute its claim. In that view of the matter passing of a no-dispute award or nil award for absence of the disputant/parties would be a misconception and the above position has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case between M/s. IDL Chemicals Limited –versus- P.O. Labour Court, Sambalpur reported in 72(1991)CLT 73 and in the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of B.R. Bermen and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd., -versus- Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and others (short noted in 1977 Lab. I.C. (NOC) 13 (CAL). It has been also held by the Hon'ble Courts that so long as the dispute remains unsettled and the proceeding came to an end without adjudication of the dispute between the parties, there is no bar under the Act whereby the Government is precluded from referring the dispute over again so that there may be an industrial adjudication as contemplated by the Act.
3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as settled principles I am constrained to dismiss the case registered on the reference of the dispute without any award and accordingly the reference is disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1835183518351835....—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स ओडिशा माइनिंग कॉरपोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक
विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, भूवने}र के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 23/2015) को प्रकाशित
करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. एल-26011/12/2015-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Odisha Mining Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. L-26011/12/2015-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 23/2015
L-26011/12/2015 – IR(M), dated 01.06.2015
Date of Passing Order – 17th October, 2018
Between:
The Regional Manager, Odisha Mining Corporation, P. O. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar - 758035 …1st Party-Management7014 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(And)
The General Secretary, Shramik Surakshya Sangh, At./PO. Champua,Dist. Keonjhar-758041 …2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
Auth. Representative … For the 1st Party-Management None … For the 2nd Party-Union
ORDER
Authorized representative of the Management is present, whereas none appears on behalf of the 2nd party-Union on repeated calls. It is submitted by the authorized representative of the Management that the Union is not taking any step in the proceeding for the last several adjournments and probably the Union has no interest to prosecute the dispute. Perused the record. It is seen that after filing of the statements by the parties the 2nd party-Union is not taking any steps for which the proceeding is adjourned without adjudication of the dispute. The reference case cannot be protracted in such a manner for a indefinite period by giving mechanical adjournments awaiting the appearance of the 2nd party-Union at its sweet will. As the 2nd party-Union fails to adduce any evidence and he has defaulted in appearance, there is nothing before the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute, which has been referred to.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that until adjudication of the dispute referred to by the authority concerned, an award cannot be made within the meaning of the award as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. There is also no provision in the Act to pass a no-dispute award or nil award in case the disputant fails to make appearance and prosecute its claim. In that view of the matter passing of a no-dispute award or nil award for absence of the disputant/parties would be a misconception and the above position has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case between M/s. IDL Chemicals Limited –versus- P.O. Labour Court, Sambalpur reported in 72(1991)CLT 73 and in the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of B.R. Bermen and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd., -versus- Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and others (short noted in 1977 Lab. I.C. (NOC) 13 (CAL). It has been also held by the Hon'ble Courts that so long as the dispute remains unsettled and the proceeding came to an end without adjudication of the dispute between the parties, there is no bar under the Act whereby the Government is precluded from referring the dispute over again so that there may be an industrial adjudication as contemplated by the Act.
3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as settled principles I am constrained to dismiss the case registered on the reference of the dispute without any award and accordingly the reference is disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर,14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1836183618361836....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स एस्सेल माइनिंग ए2ड इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट
औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, भुवने}र के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 67/2002)
को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. एल-29011/8/2002-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. L-29011/8/2002 (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7015ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 67/2002
Date of Passing Award – 15th October, 2018
Between:
The Sr. Vice-President, Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Jilling Langlotta Iron Mines, At. Jilling, Po. Jajang, Dist. Keonjhar. …1st Party-Management
(And)
The General Secretary, Keonjhar Mines & Forest Workers Union, At./Po. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar. … 2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
M/s. Sukalyan Pattnaik, Advocate … For the 1st Party-Management M/s. Subrat Mishra, Advocate … For the 2nd Party-Union
AWARD
The award is directed against the reference made by the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.L-29011/8/2002-IR(M) dated 16.7.2002 exercising its powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein-after referred to as "The Act") and the terms of reference runs as follows:-
"Whether the action of the management of Essesl Mining Industries Ltd., Jilling Langlota Iron Mines, At. Jarudo, Po./Dist. Keonjhar by imposing the punishment of discharge from the service to Shri Harinath Ptra, Ex- Mining Mate w.e.f. 12.10.1999 for long absence is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. The case of the 2nd party-workman as emerging from his statement of claim is that he was working as a Mate at the relevant time in the establishment being appointed as Mate-cum-Blaster on 25.6.1987. On 30.11.1998 he remained absent from his work under a circumstance beyond his control since he was detained in jail custody on a false implication in a criminal case. A departmental enquiry was initiated by the Management against him for alleging absence from duty was unauthorized. But, no notice was served on him for such departmental proceeding. He was neither communicated with any charge-sheet nor any intimation in regard to the time and place of holding the enquiry on 20.7.1999. He was released on bail by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and he did not report to his duty after his release as he was suffering from illness as well as mental disturbance due to false implication in crime. On 11.10.1999 he received the letter of his discharge from service by virtue of an exparte domestic enquiry. On receiving the said letter he could know about the initiation of departmental proceeding and holding of the enquiry exparte due to his non-participation in the domestic enquiry for return of notice and intimation issued to him without service on him due to he being in jail custody for criminal charges. It is his claim that his absence from duty was not intentional and departmental proceeding was conducted without adhering to the principles of natural justice as he was not duly served with any notice on disciplinary charges and the enquiry. The departmental proceeding was not conducted fairly and he was not given opportunity to defend himself in the proceeding. Hence he has challenged his dismissal as illegal and unjustified and he has claimed for his reinstatement with back wages and all other service benefits. The 1st Party-Management has resisted the claim taking a stand that when the disputant workman remained absent from his duty without any intimation with effect from 30.11.1998 and his absence continued for a long period, a charge-sheet vide N.J.L.I.M/26/99/2000, dated 11.4.1999 was issued to him in his residential and official address by Regd. Post with A.D. asking him to report to his duty with immediate effect and written explanation was sought as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for his such long unauthorized absence. The said charge-sheet and notice was returned un-delivered with postal endorsement that addressee was out of station. It is also claimed by the Management that a departmental enquiry was initiated on 9.5.1999 as the disputant workman failed to report to his duty. The notice in regard to the departmental proceeding was also returned back without service with an endorsement that address is out of station. According to the Management all effort was made to notice the disputant workman to appraise him about the initiation of the departmental proceeding. When his attendance could not be secured, the departmental proceeding was held exparte. Being found guilty of un-authorized absence for a long period he was discharged from service as a punishment for his such misconduct. It is the claim of the Management that the disputant was aware of the initiation of departmental proceeding and he did not deliberately join in his duty and he remained absent unauthorizedly7016 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] as a result of which the departmental proceeding was conducted exparte. Due to his deliberate absence in the departmental proceeding he cannot claim that he was not given due opportunity to defend himself in the proceeding or the proceeding was conducted unfairly or in violation of the principle of natural justice. Long unauthorized absence from duty is a serious misconduct as per the Standing Order of the Management and no illegality or irregularity is committed by discharging the disputant for his proved misconduct and unauthorized absence. Thus, the Management has refuted the allegation of the disputant workman and claims for rejection of the statement of claim.
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for adjudication of the dispute.
ISSUES
1. Whether the reference is maintainable?
2. Whether the enquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper?
3. Whether the action of the Management in discharging the workman, Shri Harinath Patra from services as a matter of punishment w.e.f. 12.10.1999 was justified, proper and proportionate to the charges?
4. If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to?
The parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings and claim. The workman has examined himself as W.W.-1 and filed documents like copy of the appointment letter dated 25.6.1987, copy of the experience certificate dated 23.9.1987, copy of regularization letter issued to the workman dated 01.07.1988, copy of arrest Memo issued to the workman, copy of the certified copy of orders of JMFC, Barbil, dated 2.12.1998 regarding production of the workman and his release on bail dated 24.7.1999, copy of the letter dated 5.5.2000 of the Union addressed to the Management, copy of letter dated 4.7.2000 addressed to the A.L.C. (C), Rourkela, copy of the letter dated 25.11.2000 of the Union addressed to the A.L.C.(C), Rourkela, copy of the letter dated 20.8.2001 of the Union to the A.L.C.(C), Rourkela, copy of the certificate of congratulations issued by the Management, copy of the certified copy of the acquittal order in respect of the 2nd party-workman in a criminal case and copy of the Medical certificate issued to the workman about his illness from 29.7.1999 to 30.10.1999 which are marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-M, whereas the Management has examined two of its employees namely Shri Nityananda Das and Shri Pradeep Kumar Pradhan as M.W.-1 and M.W.-2 and filed documents like the copy of the letter dated 11.4.1999 to Shri the disputant workman, copy of postal cover sent to the disputant workman Rl. No. 5640/AD, dated 12.4.1999, copy of the letter dated 26.4.1999 to the disputant workman, copy of the postal cover addressed to the disputant workman RL. No. 5671/AD, dated 26.4.1999, copy of the letter dated 30.4.1999 to the disputant workman, copy of the postal cover addressed to the disputant workman RL. No. 5689,/AD, dated 3.5.1999, copy of the letter dated 9.5.1999 to the disputant workman, copy of the postal cover addressed to the disputant workman Rl. No. 5693. Dated 8.5.1999, copy of the proceeding of the enquiry, copy of the enquiry report, copy of the standing order of the company, copies of the attendance registers, copy of the discharge order dated 11.10.1999, copy of the postal A.D. and copy of the bank draft dated 7.10.1999 for Rs. 2615/- marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-9/2.
For the sake of convenience all the issues are taken up simultaneously for consideration.
As per the pleadings advanced by the parties there is no serious dispute to the fact that the disputant workman remained absent from his duty/job from 30.11.1998 to the date till he was served with a letter of his discharge i.e. on 11.10.1999. It is also emerging from the statement of claim as well as oral testimony of the workman that he did not send any information or letter to his employer seeking permission for his such absence. There is also no material or evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the employer of the disputant was aware of the arrest or remand of the disputant workman in judicial custody/jail custody when charge-sheet was issued to him or notice was sent to his residential address for holding the departmental enquiry. It is also in evidence as well as in the pleadings of the parties that when the disputant was found absent from his duty for a considerable period a charge-sheet was issued to him in his home/residential address by regd. post with A.D. Similarly notice/intimation in regard to the initiation of the departmental proceeding was also sent to him by regd. post. It is not in dispute that the above letters/intimations were returned back without service with a note that addressee was out of station. At the same time it is admitted by the disputant workman that he received the letter of discharge pursuant to the findings of the departmental proceeding. There is no evidence and pleadings by the workman that he had ever intimated his employer about cause of his absent from duty which is usually expected from an employee and required by the service condition/conduct rules. No evidence or material is emerging on behalf of the workman to show that he had taken any effort soon-after his discharge from service to communicate the Management that he was not duly served with the notice/intimation about the charges and the departmental proceeding for which he could not take part in the said departmental proceeding. On the other hand it is apparent from the pleadings of the parties and the letter of reference issued by the Central Government that the dispute alleging illegal dismissal was raised more than one year after issue of the letter of discharge.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstanced emerging from the pleadings and evidence of the parties it has been contended on behalf of the Management that the disputant workman had an obligation to inform his employer about his absence from duty. The Standing Order mandates that if an employee/workman remains absent continuously for eight days from his duty, his services terminates automatically and there is no obligation for the Management to notice or to issue show cause to him before dismissing or terminating his services. In the present circumstances the disputant have remained absent continuously for a long period and he could not report to his duty even after his release from jail custody in the month of July, 1999 and even till his discharge from service on 11.10.1999 pursuant to a departmental proceeding. Hence, he cannot claim that the departmental enquiry without proper service of notice/charge-sheet on him was not fair or his punishment of discharge from service being found guilty of serious misconduct for his unauthorized absence[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7017 cannot be held illegal and unjustified. The dispute having been raised two years after the alleged termination of service should not be entertained and the claim of the disputant shall be rejected out-rightly. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the 2nd party-workman that due notice for the departmental proceeding having not been served on the disputant workman it cannot be said that the departmental enquiry was held fairly and properly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Since the disputant was not given due opportunities to defend himself in the departmental proceeding due to non-service of notice, punishment of his discharge for holding him guilty of misconduct is not sustainable in the eye of law.
On the rival submission now it is to be determined if non-service of notice or charge-sheet on the disputant workman has caused any prejudice to him so as to hold his discharge from service as illegal and unjustified. Undoubtedly dismissal of a workman for his unauthorized absence without initiation of a departmental proceeding has no legal sanctity and such dismissal for unauthorized absence is not sustainable in the eye of law as per the settled principles of the Apex Court. But, in the case at hand there was a departmental proceeding and it is in evidence that notice was issued to the disputant workman in his residential address. The notice of the departmental proceeding could not be served on him as he was in jail custody. There is no evidence on the part of the 2nd party-workman to suggest that the Management was aware of his remand in judicial custody. Hence, it cannot be said that the Management has not taken due diligence while issuing intimation or notice to the disputant workman for the domestic enquiry. In this case the workman having been in jail custody was expected and required to inform his employer about his detention or cause of his non-reporting to duty. But, he did not take any effort or step to inform his employer about his detention and seek permission for his absence. Even, it is emerging that, he did not care to report to his duty after his release from the judicial custody. No plausible explanation or reason is coming-forth from the pleadings and evidence of the workman to establish that there was certain circumstances beyond his control to inform his employer and to seek permission for his absence. It is in evidence that he received the discharge letter and bank draft towards his untimely discharge from services on 11.10.1999. Had he been prejudiced by such action of the Management, he could have appraised the Management immediately about his very presence in his residential house as well as his grievance about non-service of notice on him. When the workman himself maintained a distance from the Management by failing to inform him about his detention in jail custody as well as his subsequent release from custody, he should not be allowed to take a plea that he was not offered due opportunities to defend himself in the departmental proceeding for his unauthorized absence for a period of one year. The Management having sent the notice/charge-sheet in residential address of the workman can be said to have taken due deligency to notice/intimate the workman and it has discharge its obligation of giving sufficient opportunity to the workman to defend himself in the departmental enquiry.
Further, it may be noted that contract of service come an end where the workman abandons his job. Abandonment of service has not been defined in the Act. In order to constitute an abandonment there must be a total or complete giving of the duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. A failure to perform the duties pertaining to an office, must be with actual or imparted intention on the part of the employee/workman to abandon and relinquish the office. Such abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention and can be determined from the facts and circumstances of a case. A temporary absence is not usually sufficient to constitute an abandonment. But, the length of absence and other surroundings constitutes an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon his service. Coming to the present case it is not disputed that the workman remained absent for a period of about one year without informing his employer the reasons for his such absence. He did not communicate the employer in any manner during his long absence from duty. Even if it is accepted that his detention in jail custody was justifiable ground for his absence, abandonment of service on his part cannot out-rightly be rejected in this case since had he been interested for the job he should have reported to his duty soon after his release on bail or soon after he was served with the letter of discharge. In the facts and circumstances of the case his non-reporting to duty cannot be termed as a mere unauthorized absence. Rather, in the above facts and circumstances his absence from duty can be presumed as an abandonment of services also.
Further, it cannot be over-sighted that there was an inordinate delay in raising the dispute. The disputant was allegedly discharged from services in October, 1999 whereas, the dispute seems to have been more than one year after the alleged discharge. No explanation is coming-forth from the pleadings and evidence of the workman for such inordinate delay in raising the dispute. Though there is no specific provision of limitation in the Act for raising an industrial dispute, the fact and circumstances of delay in raising the dispute can also be taken into consideration while deciding the merit of a dispute. Be that as it may, the workman does not seem to have any explanation for his non-participation in the departmental enquiry so also raising the dispute two years after his alleged illegal discharge.
For the reasons and discussions made above, the action of the Management in imposing the punishment of discharge from service to the disputant workman with effect from 5.10.1999 can be said free from latches and loopholes and cannot be held illegal and unsustainable. Hence the claim of the 2nd party-workman is rejected.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer7018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1837.1837.1837.1837.———— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट
औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 02/2005)
को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 11.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Misc. Application No.02 of 2005 U/S. 33A of the I.D. Act, 1947 (Arising out of Reference No. 92 OF 1980)
Parties: Shri Arup Samanta and 94 others, Sk. Faruk Ahmed, Resident of Radha Gobinda Road, 57, M.H. Khan Road, Banjan Haria, Budge Budge, 24 Parganas (South), Pin – 700137
…Applicant
Vs.
1. General Manager, BPCL, Hongkong House, 31, BBD Bag, Kolkata – 700001.
2 . The Senior Installation Manager, Budge Budge Installation, BPCL, P.O. Budge Budge, Dist. South 24 Parganas, Pin – 700137.
…Opp. Parties
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Applicant : None
On behalf of the Opp. Partiy : Mr. Janardan Mondal, Ld. Counsel
State: West Bengal. : Industry: Petroleum
Dated: 30th November, 2018
AWARD
This is an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) filed by the Applicants alleging violation of their service condition during the pendency of Reference No. 29 of 2001 then pending before this Tribunal.
2. When the case is taken up today for hearing, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties is present, but none is responding calls for the Applicant, though Applicants had already put in appearance in this case. However, due to gap of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7019 two years when this Tribunal was not functioning, an intimation was sent to the Applicants, but it has been returned with endorsement that he has left his place of residence.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the Opposite Parties that Reference No. 29 of 2001 has already been decided by this Tribunal, therefore, this application under Section 3A of the Act has become infractuous. An application has also been moved and pending regarding maintainability of this application under Section 33A of the Act.
4. As none is responding calls to press this application under Section 33A of the Act and intimation sent to the Applicant has been returned with endorsement left, this Tribunal is left with no option but to dismiss the application under Section 33A of the Act in default of the Applicant.
An Award is passed accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 30th November, 2018
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1838183818381838....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स ब्लू स्टार लिमिटेड कॉन्ट्रैक्टर ऑफ आईओसीएल एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 12/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. एल-30011/50/2015-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Blue Star Ltd. Contractor of IOCL and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. L-30011/50/2015-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 12 of 2016
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Haldia Refinery
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Ld. Counsel with Mr. S. Sharma, learned Counsel On behalf of the Workmen : None
State: West Bengal. Industry: Petroleum.
Dated: 28th November, 20187020 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By Order No.L-30011/50/2015-IR(M) dated 20.01.2016 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 M/s. Blue Star Ltd. contractor of IOCL, Haldia Refinery, in
denying the nine points of charter of demand raised by the union legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receipt of order of reference, notices were issued to the parties. In compliance to which the union and management of Haldia Refinery appeared before this Tribunal, but instead of filing statement of claim the union moved an application dated 26.07.2018 to the effect that with the pay revision for the subsequent period, the dispute regarding pay revision for the earlier period has become infractuous and there is no justification to continue adjudication of the same. Therefore, the General Secretary of the union requested to dispose of the case in the light of above.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the management of Haldia Refinery has no objection for disposal of the case as no dispute exists.
4. From the perusal of order of reference it transpires that IOCL Thika Mazdoor Union had raised 9 points of charter of demand before the management of M/s. Paira Electrical Construction which is a contractor of IOCL, Haldia Refinery, but the same was denied by the management resulting in reference of this dispute. As the pay revision has already taken place which was one of the points in the charter of demand and no other point has been pressed by the union, there exists no dispute for adjudication.
5. Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 28th November, 2018
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 1839183918391839....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स एस.बी.एस. कन्स्ट्रक्शन, कॉन्ट्रैक्टर ऑफ आईओसीएल, हल्दिया रिफाइनरी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 14/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था।
[सं. एल-30011/51/2015-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th December, 2018
S.O. 1839.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. S.B.S. Construction, Contractor of IOCL, Haldia Refinery and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. L-30011/51/2015-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7021ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 14 of 2016
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Haldia Refinery
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Ld. Counsel with Mr. S. Sharma, learned Counsel.
On behalf of the Workmen : None
State: West Bengal. Industry: Petroleum.
Dated: 28th November, 2018
AWARD
By Order No.L-30011/51/2015-IR(M) dated 20.01.2016 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 M/s. S.B.S. Construction, contractor of IOCL, Haldia Refinery, in
denying the nine points of charter of demand raised by the union legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receipt of order of reference, notices were issued to the parties. In compliance to which the union and management of Haldia Refinery appeared before this Tribunal, but instead of filing statement of claim the union moved an application dated 26.07.2018 to the effect that with the pay revision for the subsequent period, the dispute regarding pay revision for the earlier period has become infractuous and there is no justification to continue adjudication of the same. Therefore, the General Secretary of the union requested to dispose of the case in the light of above.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the management of Haldia Refinery has no objection for disposal of the case as no dispute exists.
4. From the perusal of order of reference it transpires that IOCL Thika Mazdoor Union had raised 9 points of charter of demand before the management of M/s. Paira Electrical Construction which is a contractor of IOCL, Haldia Refinery, but the same was denied by the management resulting in reference of this dispute. As the pay revision has already taken place which was one of the points in the charter of demand and no other point has been pressed by the union, there exists no dispute for adjudication.
5. Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata, The 28th November, 2018
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 fnlEcj] 2018
dk-vk- 1840-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 tuojh] 2019 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k flfDde jkT; ds igys ds vf/klwfpr {ks=ksa ds vykok fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%&
"flfDde jkT; ds iwohZ flfDde ,oa nf{k.kh flfDde ftyksa ds lHkh {[email protected] {ks=ksa"
[la- ,l&38013@07@2018&,l-,l&I]
Lkarks"k dqekj flag] voj lfpo7022 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 17th December, 2018
S.O. 1840.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2019 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas of State of Sikkim excluding the areas already notified) namely:-
"All the areas of the District of EAST SIKKIM & SOUTH SIKKIM, in the state of Sikkim.
[No. S-38013/07/2018-SS.I]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 fnlEcj] 2018
dk-vk- 1841-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 tuojh] 2019 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k vksfM+'kk jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~~ %&
| jkT; | ftyk | {ks= |
| vksfM+'kk | ucjaxiqj | ucjaxiqj ds uxjikfydk lhekvks esa 'kkfey lHkh a {ks= ,oa ucjaxiqj ds rglhy esa lnkf'kciqj ,oa dqlqfe rFkk uankgkafM ds rglhy esa i |
[la- ,l&38013@10@2018&,l-,l&I]
Larks"k dqekj flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th December, 2018
S.O. 1841.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2019 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following area of the State of Odisha namely:-
| State | DISTRICT | Area |
| Odisha | NABARANGPUR | All the areas comprising of the Municipal limits of Nabarangpur, Revenue villages of Sadasibpur and Kusumi in the Tahasil of Nabarangpur and Padalguda in the Tahasil of Nabarangpur |
[No. S-38013/10/2018-SS-I]
S.K. SINGH, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2018
dk-vk-1842-&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 ua- 1 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 334@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012@47@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7023
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2018
S.O. 1842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 334/2011) 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 Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.12.2018.
[No. L-41012/47/2011– 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. 334/2011
Shri Ram Juari, S/o. Shri Balwant Ram, 20 Block-J, Jhuggis, RPF Line Daya Basti, Delhi.
… Workman
Versus
The Management of Northern Railways, Through its General Manager, Baroda House, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
This Award shall decide a reference which was made by the appropriate Governmetn vide its letter No. L-41012/47/2011-IR(B-1) dated 21.10.2011 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 Northern Railway, Sarai rohilla, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Ram Juari from December, 2009 is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled?'
2. Both parties were put to notice and the workman/claimant Ram Juari filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was engaged as Safai Karamchari initially by Section Engineer, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi in 1999 and had worked under the supervisions of PWI from time to time . He had discharged his duties for cleaning rail lines regularly till December, 2009 without any break and was paid wages @ Rs.125 per day. The workman was not given any appointment letter and on demand he was assured that appointment letter & other facilities would be given but to no avail and his services were illegally terminated in December, 2009 without any notice or notice pay. However, a certificate of working dated 9/2/2001 was given by the Officer of the Management. The Management had not issued any notice prior to terminating his services. He got sent a demand/legal notice dated 28/1/2010 but no reply/response received from the Management. It is alleged that the workman is jobless since the date of termination of his services despite best efforts for alternative employment . Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman into service with full back wages and continuity of services with all consequential benefits.
3. The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary objections inter alia that there exists no relationship of Management and workmen between the partiers inasmuch as the workman concerned was engaged for performing miscellaneous work as per requirement on daily rate basis and whenever the requirement arose and the workman never worked with the Management regularly on regular basis and as such the present claim is not maintainable. The workman is not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act It is admitted that the workman was paid Rs.125 per day when his services were engaged by the Management. It is alleged that since the workman was not employed by the Management, question of terminating his services in December, 2009 did not arise. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 25/5/2012 my learned Predecessor observed that no other issue than those referred for adjudication is made out on the pleadings of the parties and the parties were called to lead their respective evidence.
7024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]5. 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 WW1/24. He also examined three other witnesses namely WW2 Shri Banarsi; WW3 Shri Umesh Prasad and WW4 Shri Satyavir Singh Yadav.
6. On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri G.K Salli, Section Incharge, SSE (PW) Delhi Saria Rohilla as MW1. He tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A in evidence and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/266 (though mentioned as Ex. WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/266).
7. I have heard Shri Umesh Singh, A/R for the claimant and Shri Vasudev Mehto, A/R for the Management and have gone though the records carefully.
8. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Management strongly contended that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Management & claimant, nor the claimant has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, preceding to his alleged termination. As such, provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not applicable to the case in hand. It was also contended that onus is also upon the claimant to prove that he was in the regular employment of the Management and has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimant submitted that the claimant was in service of the Management from 1999 till December, 2009 when his services were illegally terminated by the Management, despite the fact that the job which the claimant was performing was of regular and permanent nature.
10. This Tribunal has to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record so as to decide the question of relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the claimant herein. In this respect, it is appropriate to refer to the affidavit ExWW1/A of the claimant. It is clear from the perusal of the affidavit Ex.WW1/A that it is in consonance with the pleadings i.e. statement of claim filed by the claimant. The claimant has been cross examined and in his cross examination, he has specifically deposed that he was engaged as a Safai Karamchari by Site Incharge of Sarai Rohilla Station, Delhi and denied the suggestion that he was working as part time Safai Karamchari. As a proof of his engagement, he produced certificate Ex.WW1/16.
11. WW2 Shri Banarsi who was working as Mate at Patel Nagar Railway Station of Northern Railways and retired in the year 2001 deposed that the claimant was working as Safai Karamchari at Patel Nagar Railway Station till the date of his retirement and his attendance used to be marked by the Officers in the note book kept by the claimant. In cross examination he deposed that as and when Officer used to ask him to get the premises swept/cleaned, he used to take services of the claimant who was engaged as a casual labour. To the same effect is the testimony of WW3 Shri Umesh Prasad who served as a mate with Northern Railways during the year 2007 to 2012. He also clarified that Shri Supriya Majumdar –Officer of the Railways used to make payment to the claimant for the work performed by him. In cross examination he clarified that the claimant used to report for duty at 8 am and used to leave at about 1 pm and sometimes they used to take regular work from the claimant for whole of the month and sometimes break used to be given in his services. 12. WW3 Satvir Singh Yadav, Senior Clerk posted in the Senior Section Engineer (PW) at Sarai Rohilla Station also deposed that the Ram Juari was engaged as a daily wage Safai Karamchari at Patel Nagar Railway Station and he produced vouchers of payment made to the claimant as Ex.WW4/1 to Ex.WW2/262.
13. MW1 Shri G.K. Salli testified in his affidavit Ex.MW1/A that the workman/claimant was engaged by the Management for performing misc. work as per requirement on daily rate basis. He was engaged from time to time on daily basis for removing night soil before commencement of gangs work for two or three hours in the morning. According to him, the workman had not completed 240 days continuous service every year since 1999 till his alleged termination in December, 2009 .
14. From the evidence adduced on record it is evident that the workman/claimant was admittedly engaged by the Management as Safai Karamchari – may be on daily wage/temporary basis and he worked under the Management from 1999 to December, 2009. Needless to mention that casual/part time workers do come within the purview of definition of workman as provided under Section 2(S) of the Act. 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.
15. It is fairly settled 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 240 days or more in a calendar[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7025 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 from 1999 to December, 2009 when his services were illegally terminated.
16. As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant on temporary/casual basis, for doing intermittent nature of work of cleaning the railway lines and he was being paid @ Rs.125/- per day, 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.
17. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of Employer-employee between the Management and the claimant herein.
18. The version of the claimant that he has been retrenched/terminated from service from December, 2009 without issuance of any notice and without payment of compensation in lieu of notice period has gone unchallenged Even MW1 Shri GK. Salli –witness of the Management admitted that no notice was served upon the claimant, as he was not a regular daily wager. 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.
19. The claimant has categorically deposed that since the date of his termination, he could not get any employment despite his best efforts for alternative employment. 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 from December, 2009 is totally illegal, unjust and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
20. 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.
21. 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."
22. 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).
23. 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 simultaneously7026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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.
24. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year."
25. 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."
26. 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.
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 claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 07.12.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7027
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1843-&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 40@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@12@2018 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2018
S.O. 1843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2013) 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 19.12.2018.
[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. 40/2013
BETWEEN :
Sri Ravi Kumar S/o Sri Jawahar Lal Village – Chak Jalal, PO – Malwa Kurdh 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, Ravi 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. 01.04.2009 to 27.11.2011 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.
7028 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]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.
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. 01.04.2009 to 27.11.2011 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.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 702913. 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 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 filed affidavit in support; but did not turn for cross-examination inspite of several opportunities, resulting into closing of his opportunity to get cross-examined vide order dated 27.06.2016.
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."
7030 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]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. 01.04.2011 to 27.11.2011, 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. 01.04.2009 to 27.11.2011, 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.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 703120. 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.
03rd December, 2018
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1844-&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 54@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-12-2018 izkIr gqvk FkA
[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2018
S.O. 1844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2012) 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 19.12.2018.
[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. 54/2012
BETWEEN :
Mo. Naushad S/o Sri Mushahib Lalbagh, Khandari Bazar Mushraa Khan ka Hata 119/114, 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)7032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. Naushad, 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.
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
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 703311. 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 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 Shahid Faizan on 01.09.2003 and terminated him on 25.04.2009. He stated that the Railway neither appointed him nor terminated 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 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.
7034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]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
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.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 703519. 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.
03rd December, 2018.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 1845-&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 41@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-12-2018 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12025@01@2018&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2018
S.O. 1845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2013) of the 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 19.12.2018.
[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. 41/2013
BETWEEN :
Sri Shiv Kumar S/o Sri Suresh Chandra Village – Malwa Khurd Isipur, PO – Malwa Khurd Disst. – Allahabad - 211019.
AND
1. General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House New Delhi 110001.
2. Divisional Rail Manager Northern Railway, Hazratganj Lucknow 226001.
7036 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]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, Shiv 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. 05.01.2005 to 27.11.2011 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.
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. 05.01.2005 to 27.11.2011 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:
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7037(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 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 01.04.2009 and worked upto 27.11.2011 in supervision of the contractor. He stated that he had been terminated in 2011 by the contractor without notice. He admitted that the railway neither appointed nor terminated his services. He also stated that paper No. 9/5 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 Apex7038 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 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. 05.01.2005 to 27.11.2011, 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. 05.01.2005 to 27.11.2011, but has not produced[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7039 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.
03rd December, 2018.
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 1846184618461846....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
फू ड कारपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबp नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में
निYर्दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Iम न्यायालय, जोधपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या
1/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 27.11.2018 को प्राप्त iआ था ।
[सं. एल-22015/19/2014-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजें(cid:15) सिंह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 21st December, 2018
S.O. 1846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1/2014) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Food Corporation of India and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 27.11.2018.
[No. L-22015/19/2014-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer7040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh & Jh vt; dqekj 'kekZ&1
vkj-,p-ts-,l-
vkS|ksfxd fookn la[;k% & 01@2014
1- rksrkflag iq= Jh lqjrkjke xokfj;k] fuoklh jsYos dkWyksuh jsYos LVs'ku iksdj.k] ftyk tSlyesj
2- Fkkukjke iq= Jh xaxkjke xokfj;k] fuoklh jsYos dkWyksuh jsYos LVs'ku iksdj.k
3- jktsUnzflag iq= Jh y{e.kflag pkj.k] fuoklh jsYos dkWyksuh jsYos LVs'ku iksdj.k] ftyk tSlyesj
4- tsBwflag iq= Jh txnh'kflag 'ks[kkor] fuoklh jsYos dkWyksuh jsYos LVs'ku iksdj.k] ftyk tSlyesj
---izkFkhZx.k
cuke
lgk;d eSustj] QwM dkjiksjs'ku vkQ bf.M;k] iksdj.k] ftyk tSlyesj jktLFkkuA
---vizkFkhZ
mifLFkfr%&
1 izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Jh fot; esgrk@Jh ts-lh-fla?koh mi-A
2 vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k Mk- 'kSysUnz dkyk mi-A
vf/kfu.kZ;
fnukad%10-08-2017 dsUnz ljdkj dh vksj ls tfj;s vf/klwpuk uEcj ,y&22015@19@2014&vkbZvkj¼lh-II½ fnukad 17-10-2014 tks fookn vf/klwfpr fd;k x;k gS og bl izdkj gS&
"Whether the termination of S/Shri Tota Singh & three others (list enclosed) by the Management of Food Corporation of India, Pokran w.e.f. 22/09/1995 is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to and from which date ?"
la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gS%&
izkFkhZx.k us vf/klwfpr fookn ds lEcU/k esa viuk ekax i= is'k fd;kA izkFkhZ us vius ekax i= esa dgk gS fd izkFkhZ rksrkflag dh nSfud osruHkksxh Jfed ds :i esa o"kZ 1987 esa ,oa Fkkukjke] jktsUnzflag ,oa tsBwflag dh fu;qfDr nSfud osruHkksxh Jfed ds :i esa o"kZ 1989 dks vizkFkhZ QwM dkjiksjs'ku vkQ bf.M;k] iksdj.k ds in ij gqbZ rc ls izkFkhZx.k vizkFkhZ ds dk;kZy;
esa viuh lUrks"kizn lsok;s nsrs jgs gSA vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZx.k dks fnukad 22-9-1995 dks dk;kZy;ksijkUr ekSf[kd vkns'k ds }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZx.k dh mifLFkfr eLVj jksy@mifLFkfr jftLVj esa vafdr dh tkrh Fkh rFkk vizkFkhZ ds v/khu izkFkhZx.k dh HkkWfr 40 ls[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7041 vf/kd Jfed dk;Zjr Fks tks muls dfu"B FksA izkFkhZx.k dks izfrekg Hkqxrku osru Hkqxrku i= ds }kjk fd;k tkrk Fkk vkSj gLrk{kj djok;s tkrs Fks rFkk izkFkhZx.k dh ih ,Q dVkSfr Hkh dh tkrh FkhA izkFkhZx.k us lsok ls i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd fnukad rd dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZx.k dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ u rks uksfVlfn;k x;k u gh NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k vkSj u gh ofj;rk lwph dk fu;ekuqlkj izdk'ku fd;kA jkT; ljdkj dks NaVuh dh lwpuk ugha nh xbZ vkSj u gh NaVuh dh vuqefr izkIr dh xbZA izkFkhZx.k ls dfu"B O;fDr;ksa dks fu;ksftr j[kkA izkFkhZx.k dks ubZ fu;qfDr;ksa ls iwoZ vkQj ugha fd;k x;k bl izdkj vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q] 25&th ,oa 25&,p o fu;e 77 o 78 ds izfrdwy gksus ls lsok i`Fkdrk vkns'k fujLr o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX;; gSA
izkFkhZ us vius ekax i= esa dgk gS fd izkFkhZx.k }kjk iquZLFkkfir djus dk fuosnu djus ij vizkFkhZx.k us tkfgj fd;k fd os Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr fd;s x;s Fks blfy;s vizkFkhZ foHkkx ds deZpkjh ugha gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 esa jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk fd;s x;s la'kks/ku ds vuqlkj Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr fd;s x;s Jfed fizUlhiy fu;kstd ds gh Jfed ekus tkrs gSA izkFkhZx.k us lsok i`Fkdrk ds rqjUr i'pkr~ fcuk foyEc ds fookn izLrqr fd;k] le>ksrk okrkZ foQy gksus ds i'pkr izfrosnu dsUnzh; ljdkj ds Je foHkkx dks Hkstk x;k ysfdu Je foHkkx us fnukad 8-9-1998 ds vkns'k ds }kjk Je U;k;ky; esa jsQj djus ls euk fd;k ftlds fo:) fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dh ftl ij ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 2-7-2014 ds }kjk Je foHkkx dks fookn Je U;k;ky; esa jsQj djus dk vkns'k fn;k A bl izdkj fookn izLrqr djus esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh nsjh ugh dh xbZ gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks LFkkbZ izd`fr ,oa fujUrj izd`fr ds dk;Z fy;k tkdj fcuk fdlh dkj.k izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k tks vuQs;j yscj iszfDVl dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gSA
izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fuosnu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks lsok dh fujUrjrk esa iw.kZ osru lfgr lsok iquZ LFkkfir gksus]fu;qfDr frfFk ls LFkkbZ djus] cdk;k osru o lHkh ifjykHk ds lkFk lsok esa iquZLFkkfir gksus ds vf/kdkjh gSA
vizkFkhZ us vius tokc esa izkjfEHkd vkifr;k trkbZ gS vkSj dgk gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks QwM dkjiksjs'ku vkQ bf.M;k] iksdj.k fMiks }kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr dHkh ugha nh xbZ bl dkj.k ls uk rks mudks gVkus ,oa uk gh NaVuh djus dk iz'u mRiUu gksrk gSA izkFkhZx.k us dHkh Hkh 240 fnol dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZx.k }kjk crkbZ xbZ vof/k esa fiNys 9 ls 12 efgus esa u rks pkjksa dk uke gS vkSj u gh lafonk Jfed jksy esa budk uke gSA izkFkhZx.k }kjk tqykbZ 94 ls ebZ 95 dh vof/k esa dk;Z ugah fd;k x;k ,oa twu] 1995 esa dsoy 10 ls 12 fnol gh dstwvy Jfed ds rkSj ij dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA
vizkFkhZ us vius tokc esa dgk gS fd izkFkhZx.k ds ekax i= esa vafdr rF;ksa ls badkj fd;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd izkFkhZx.k us vizR;{k :i ls ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd os lafonk Jfed Fks bl dkj.k dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
vizkFkhZ us vius tokc esa fuonsu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= lO;; [kkfjt Qjek;k tkosA7042 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lo;a rksrkflag] Fkkukjke] jktsUnzflag ,oa tsBwflag ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;sA ftu ij vizkFkhZx.k us izfrijh{k.k fd;kA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa eukstdqekj e.Mksfr;k {ks= izcU/kd Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] ftyk tks/kiqj dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;kA ftl ij izkFkhZx.k us izfrijh{k.k fd;kA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izn'kZ&1 ls izn'kZ&8 nLrkost dh izfr;ka izLrqr dh xbZA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izn'kZ&,1 yxk;r izn'kZ&, 5 nLrkost dh izfr;ka izLrqr dh xbZA
nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lquh xbZ i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA
vf/klwfpr fookn ij izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; 'kiFk i= esa izkFkhZ rksrkflag dk dguk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr nSfud osruHkksxh Jfed ds in ij o"kZ 1987 esa vizkFkhZ ds v/khu ,Q-lh-vkbZ-] iksdj.k esa dh xbZA mldh HkkWfr Fkkukjke] jktsUnzflag] tsBwflag dh fu;qfDr nSfud osruHkksxh Jfed ds in ij o"kZ 1989 esa vizkFkhZ ds v/khu dh xbZA vizkFkhZ us mls o vU;
izkFkhZxk dks fnukad 22-9-1995 dks dk;ksZijkUr ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k A izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk gS fd lsoki`Fkdrk dh frfFk rd mlus o vU; izkFkhZx.k us yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA mudh eLVj jksy@mifLFkfr jftLVj esa gktjh dh tkrh FkhA ml le; izkFkhZ ds vykok 40 ls vf/kd Jfed dk;Zjr FksA izfrekg osru] osru Hkqxrku i= ds }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkAmldh rFkk vU; izkFkhZx.k dh bZ ih ,Q dh dVkSfr Hkh vizkFkhZ }kjk dh tkrh FkhA mnkgj.k ds rkSj ij ekg flrEcj]1995 dh mldh rFkk vU; izkFkhZx.k dks fd;s x;s Hkqxrku rFkk bZ ih ,Q dh dVkSfr dk nLrkost is'k fd;k gSA mldk dguk gS fd mlus o vU; izkFkhZx.k us ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ uksfVl lsok ls i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ ugha fn;k x;k vkSj u gh NaVuh eqvkotk fn;k x;k] u lsok i`Fkdrk ls iwoZ ofj"Brk lwph cukbZ xbZA jkT; ljdkj dks dksbZ NaVuh dh lwpuk ugha nh xbZ vkSj vizkFkhZ us mlls dfu"B deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;qfDr ij j[kkA iquZ lsok djus dk volj ugh fn;k x;kA 'kiFk i= esa dguk gS fd vizkFKhZ us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q] 25&th ,oa 25&,p o fu;e 77 o 78 ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k gS vr% lsoki`Fkdrk izkFkhZx.k fof/k fo:) gSA izkFkhZ rksrkflag dk dguk gS fd mls lsok dh fujUrjrk esa iqu% fu;qDr fd;k tkos vkSj lHkh ifjykHk mls fnyk;s tkos A
izfrijh{k.k esa rksrkflag dk dguk gS fd mls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= fyf[kr esa ugha fn;k x;k]ekSf[kd vkns'k ls j[kk FkkA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 240 fnol dke djus dk nLrkost mlus is'k ugha fd;k D;ksafd nLrkost vkfQl esa gSA mlds o ,QlhvkbZ ds e/; dksbZ dk;Z djus dk fyf[kr esa Bsdk ugha gSA izn'kZ&,1 dh mls tkudkjh ugha gSA fnlEcj]1987 esa mlus ,d ekg dke fd;k Fkk] mlds ckn mlus yxkrkj dke fd;kA gktjh jftLVj xksVu esa gSA gktjh jftLVj ds ckcr~ mlus dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;kA izn'kZ , 2 ls , 5 esa mudk uke ugha gS D;ksafd os ;wfu;u esa ugha gSA izn'kZ&2 nLrkost eu ls cukdj is'k ugha fd;k gsA ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds fdlh vkneh }kjk ekaxus ij fn;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd ,Q-lh-vkbZ- }kjk tkjh nLrkost ugha gSA mijksDr izdkj ds dFku vU; izkFkhZx.k jktsUnzflag] Fkkukjke o tsBwflag us fd;s gSA mijksDr rhuksa izkFkhZx.k us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd muds o ,QlhvkbZ ds e/; dksbZ fyf[kr djkj ugha gqvkA izn'kZ ,1 ls ,5 dh tkudkjh mUgsa ugha gSA izn'kZ ,4 nLrkost fdlh ,QlhvkbZ ds vkneh ds }kjk fn;k x;k gS ml vkneh dk uke fMLDykst ugah fd;k x;k gS vkSj mDr nLrkost dgka ls izkIr fd;k x;kA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7043 vc bl lEcU/k esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; dks ns[ks rks vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks eukstdqekj e.Mksfr;k lk{; esa is'k gqvk gS mUgksaus 'kiFk i= esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k us lgh fLFkfr U;k;ky; ls NqikbZ gS vius dk;Z dh lgh izd`fr ugha crkbZ gSA izkFkhZx.k dks ,QlhvkbZ }kjk dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ u rks gVkus dk o uk gh NaVuh djus dk iz'u iSnk ugh gksrkA izkFkhZx.k dk dguk gS fd 240 fnol dk;Z fd;k tks xyr gSA izkFkhZx.k ds crk;s vuqlkj mUgksaus dHkh ,QlhvkbZ] iksdj.k fMiks esa 240 fnol dk;Z ugh fd;kA izkFkhZ o ,QlhvkbZ ds e/; dksbZ fizfoVh vkQ dkUVsDV ugha gqvk A vius 'kiFk i= esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls Je ea=ky; ds l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk reke rF;ksa] nLrkostksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh tkap dj fu"d"kZ fudkyus ij ekeyk Je U;k;ky; esa jsQj djus ;ksX; ugha ekuk] tks bl izdkj gS%&
"Settlement between the FCI Workmen's Union and the Management have been arrived on 4 July 1995 for abolition of Contract Lablur System by introducing productivity linked piece rate system as "No Work No Pay" basis in 14 depots and a committee was constituted to prepare a list of workmen and their working days in compliance of terms and conditions given in para 1 of settlement.The four workmen have failed to fulfill the conditions of the settlements"
'kiFk i= esa ;g Hkh dguk gS fd izkFkhZx.k }kjk crkbZ xbZ vof/k ds fiNys 9 ls 12 efgus esa u rks pkjksa izkFkhZx.k dk uke ,QlhvkbZ esa gS vkSj u gh lafonk yscj ds jksy ij gSA pkjksa izkFkhZx.k us ,QlhvkbZ esa dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dk dguk gs fd fyLV vkQ odZl izLrqr dh gSA mijksDr tkjh fyLV ds ckn vkbZfMUVhfQds'ku vkSj osfjfQds'ku ds fy;s ,QlhvkbZ us ikap lnL;ksa dh desVh xfBr dh ftlesa ,QlhvkbZ odlZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; Hkh 'kkfey FksA bl lEcU/k esa vkns'k fMLVªhDV eSustj ,QlhvkbZ }kjk tkjh fd;k x;kA bl desVh us fjiskVZ is'k dh Fkh tks mlds tckc izn'kZ ,4 ds lkFk layXu dh gsA fjiskVZ esa izkFkhZx.k dk uke vafdr ugha gSA foLr`r pkVZ desVh }kjk izn'kZ ,5 cuk;k x;kA ftlesa izkFkhZx.k dh fLFkfr fuEu izdkj ls n'kkZbZ xbZ gS%&
| S.No. | Name of petitioner | Period (No. of days) July 94 to May 95 June 1995 | |
| 1 | Tota Singh | Nil | 12 |
| 2 | Thana Ram | Nil | 10 |
| 3 | Rajendra Singh | Nil | 11 |
| 4 | JethuSingh | Nil | 10 |
bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dh fLFkfr tks vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lohd`fr ds vuqlkj vkrh gS fd izkFkhZ rksrkflag us ekg twu esa 12 fnu] Fkkukjke us twu esa 10 fnu] jktsUnzflag us ekg twu esa 11 fnu o tsBwflag us ekg twu]1995 esa 10 fnu ek= dke fd;k gSA bl xokg dk ;g Hkh7044 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dguk gS fd bipartite settlement lHkh odZl ij ck/;dkjh izHkko j[krk gS A izkFkhZx.k bl lsVyesUV dh dk;Zokgh esa 'kkfey ugha FksA izkFkhZx.k dk ekeyk dsUnzh; ljdkj ds yscj foHkkx }kjk jsQjsUl ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;kA izkFkhZx.k }kjk dwVjfpr nLrkost i=koyh ij is'k fd;s x;s gSA izkFkhZx.k us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og dkUVªsDV yscj Fks vr% vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA
izfrijh{k.k esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg eukstdqekj us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ftl le; izkFkhZx.k }kjk vkiuh fu;qfDr iksdj.k esa crkbZ gS ml le; og iksdj.k esa rSuku ugh Fkk mlus 'kiFk i= lEcfU/kr fjdkWMZ ns[kdj is'k fd;k gSA xokg us crk;k gS fd izn'kZ ,1 ls ,5 nLrkost mlus is'k fd;s gSaA o"kZ] 1985 ls 1987 rd dk mifLFkfr jftLVj is'k ugha fd;k gSA i=koyh esa o"kZ 1994 ls 1995 ukS ekg esa fdl izkFkhZx.k us D;k dke fd;k] fdrus fnu dke fd;k] bldk lR;kiu dk fooj.k izn'kZ ,5 is'k fd;k gSA izn'kZ ,5 xsV dh ,sUVªh jftLVj ls vkadjs izkIr dj rS;kj fd;k gSA xsV dk ,sUVªh jftLVj is'k ughaa fd;k D;ksafd bldh t:jr ugha gSA dkUVªsDVj jftLVj mUgksaus is'k ugha fd;kA izn'kZ ,5 esa tks mifLFkfr fn[kkbZ xbZ gS og mUgksaus xsV ds ,sUVªh jftLVj o Bsdsnkj }kjk esUVsu jftLVj ds vk/kkj ij mifLFkfr ntZ dh gSA etnwjksa dks dc o fdruh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k] bl ckcr jftLVj is'k ugha fd;k A Bsdsnkj dk jftLVj ugah ns[kk vkSj u gh xsV dk bUnzkt dk jftLVj ns[kk tks Bsdsnkj }kjk fooj.k fn;k x;k mlh ds vk/kkj ij c;ku fn;s gSA Bsdsnkj ds ;gka dk;Zjr etnwjksa dh ofj"Brk lwph mUgksaus rS;kj ugh dh A muds ;gka dksbZ jksy ugha gSA jksy Bsdsnkj dk gS blfy;s ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ xbZ og ugha dg ldrk fd muds foHkkx o Bsdsnkj ds chp dksbZ fyf[kr vuqcU/k gqvk gksA fyf[kr vuqcU/k is'k ugha fd;kA mUgksaus izkFkhZx.k dks j[kk gh ugha blfy;s fudkyus dk iz'u gh ugha D;ksafd muds ;gka dke pkyw FkkA mls irk ugha fd izkFkhZx.k dk bZih,Q dVrk gS ;k ugha] ;g Bsdsnkj gh crk ldrk gSA Bsdsnkj dk odZ dkUVªsDV Fkk eSuikWoj lIykbZ dk ugha FkkA izn'kZ ,&1 ds le; ;wfu;u ds dkSu dkSu inkf/kdkjh Fks o foHkkx ds dkSu vf/kdkjh Fks D;ksafd ml le; og rSukr ugha FkkA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd ,Dth ,4 ij muds foHkkx dh lhy ugha yxh gS D;ksafd ;g vko';d ugh gSA izn'kZ ,2 o 4 esa vafdr 29 etnwjksa dk uke dfFkr mifLFkfr jftLVj esa ugha gSA nLrkost dh dwVjpuk ckcr dksbZ tkap ugha dhA ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd dk;Zjr etnwjksa dk ;wfu;u dk lnL; gksuk vko';d ugha gSA
mijksDr nksuksa i{kksa dh tks lk{; vkbZ gS mlls ;g rks izekf.kr gS fd izkFkhZx.k }kjk ,slk dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugh fd;k fd izkFkhZx.k us rFkkdfFkr lsoki`Fkdj.k ls iwoZ ;kuh fnukad 22-9-1995 ls iwoZ 240 fnol dys.Mj o"kZ esa yxkrkj dke fd;kA blds fy;s flQZ viuk 'kiFk i= gh is'k fd;k gSA izkFkhZx.k }kjk U;k;ky; ds ek/;e vizkFkhZx.k ls Hkh dksbZ fjdkWMZ ryc djkus dh izkFkZuk ugha dh xbZ fd tks nLrkost mifLFkfr jftLVj] etnwjh Hkqxrku jftLVj o vU; muds ikl miyC/k ugha gS mudks vizkFkhZ ls ryc fd;s tkosA izkFkhZx.k us bZih,Q ds lEcU/k esa lEcfU/kr foHkkx ls ,slk dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugh fd;k fd vizkFkhZ ,QlhvkbZ mudh bZih,Q dh dVkSrh djrk gSA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ fu;qfDr i= is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS fd ,QlhvkbZ }kjk mudks fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZx.k us vius ekax i= ds in la[;k 07 esa ijks{k :i ls ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr fd;s x;s Fks vkSj os ,QlhvkbZ ds deZpkjh gksrs rks bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr djrs ;k ryc djokrs A izkFkhZx.k dk ;g dguk gS fd Bsdsnkj ds deZpkjh fizfUliy fu;kstd ds deZpkjh gh ekus tkrs gS ysfdu izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ vuqcU/k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k fd Bsdsnkj vkSj vizkFkhZ ds chp esa dksbZ vuqcU/k jgk gksA Bsdsnkj dks i{kdkj izkFkhZx.k us ugha cuk;k gSA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 29, 2018/पौष 8, 1940 7045 izkFkhZx.k }kjk tks nLrkostkr is'k fd;s gS mu ij fopkj djsaA izn'kZ 1 Je vk;qDr dks ,QlhvkbZ }kjk tkjh i= gS mlesa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g Li"V mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ la[;k ,d us twu 1995 esa 12 fnu] izkFkhZ la[;k nks us twu 95 esa 10 fnu] vkSj izkFkhZ la[;k rhu us twu] 1995 esa 11 fnu rFkk izkFkhZ la[;k 4 us ekg twu 1995 esa 10 fnu dke fd;k gSA rFkkdfFkr lsoki`Fkdrk ls iwoZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa ek= ,d ekg dke fd;k gS tcfd fnukad 1-7-1995 dks ;g le>ksrk gqvk Fkk fd os deZpkjh ftUgksaus ukS efgus dys.Mj o"kZ esa dk;Z fd;k gS oks gh bl le>ksrs ls ykHkkfUor gksaxs D;ksafd izkFkhZx.k mDr le>ksrs dh ifjf/k esa ugh vkrs Fks vr% mudks ;g ykHk ugh fn;k x;kA izkFkhZx.k ds bl nLrkost dks ns[ks rks izkFkhZx.k us og lkslZ ugh crk;k gS fd mDr nLrkost mUgsa dgk ls izkIr gqvk A izkFkhZx.k }kjk dkxt j[kdj QksVksLVsV djk;k x;k gS ftlesa ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd egRoiw.kZ lwpuk NqikbZ xbZ gSA izn'kZ 2 nLrfkost ls ;g izdV ugha gks jgk gS fgd ;g fdlds }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS D;ksafd blesa u rks ,QlhvkbZ dh eksgj gS vkSj u gh fdlh vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj gSA izn'kZ&3 izn'kZ 1 dh gh izfrfyfi gSA izn'kZ 4 izn'kZ 2 dh izfrfyfi gSA izn'kZ 5 Hkh izn'kZ ,d gh gh QksVks izfr gSA blh izdkj izn'kZ 6 Hkh izn'kZ&2 dh izfrfyfi gSA izn'kZ&7 Hkh izn'kZ&12 dh izfrfyfi gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr nLrkostkr ls ;g dgh Hkh izekf.kr ugha gqvk fd izkFkhZx.k us lsok i`Fkdrk fnukd 22-9-1995 ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ ds ;gka nSfud osruHkksxh Jfed ds :i esa 240 fnol dys.Mj o"kZ esa dk;Z fd;kA vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr nLrkostkr ls Hkh izkFkhZx.k dk vizkFkhZ ds ;gka 240 fnol dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha gSA izn'kZ ,5 tks vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tkjh fd;k x;k gS mlls Hkh izkFkhZx.k dk dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tgka 240 fnol dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha gS ogka vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk laj{k.k izkFkhZx.k dks ugha feyrk gS o dksbZ NaVuh eqvkotk o uksfVl is nsuk vko';d ugha gSA izkFkhZx.k }kjk mu dfu"B etnwjksa ds uke ugha crk;s x;s gS tks izkFkhZx.k ds }kjk dk;Z eqDr gksus ds i'pkr~ fu;kstd }kjk fu;qDr fd;s x;s u gh 'kiFk i= esa muds uke dk mYys[k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 25&th ,oa 25&,p dk laj{k.k Hkh izkIr ugha gSA tc izkFkhZx.k vizkFkhZ ds ;gka fu;ksftr ugha gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mUgsa ofj"Brk lwph esa 'kkfey ugha fd;k tk ldrk A ftl Bsdsnkj ds v/khu izkFkhZx.k }kjk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS mldks i{kdkj eqdnek ugah cuk;k x;k gS vkSj u gh mldks lk{; esa is'k fd;k x;k gSA
ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izdk'kpUnz cuke Je U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ,l ch flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 3779@2010 fnukad 2&4&2015 dks fuf.kZr djrs gq;s ;g vfHker O;Dr fd;k gS fd %&
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this writ petition,petitioner is challenging validity of order dated 2-12-2012 whereby ,the Judge,Labour Court,Jodhpur held that the petitioners claim for appointing him on permanent basis on the post of Class IV employee.w.e.f. 1984 and not granting regular payscale is not illegal because there is no documentary eivdence on record to prove the fact that petitioner is working in the respondents office from last 20 years.
In the award, it is specifically observed in para 9 while discussing the entire evidence that although the contention is raised by the petitioner workmen in his claim that he is working from last 20 years but there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the fact that petitioner was never been appointed.
7046 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]In view of above, there is no perversity and illegality in the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur in passing the award,therefore,this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
mijksDr U;kf;dn`"VkUr ds vuqlkj tgka izkFkhZx.k us ;g izekf.kr ugah fd;k gS fd mUgksaus dys.Mj o"kZ esa lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ 240 fnol dk;Z fd;k gS rks ml fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k dks NaVuh eqvkotk o uksfVl&is nsuk vko';d ugah gSA vr% ekeys esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk dksbZ mYya?ku ugha gSA
;g lgh gS fd Jfed ij bl dFku dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkjEHk ls gh gksrk gSA tc Jfed lk{; esa mifLFkr gks tkrk gS rks nLrkosth lk{; ls tks fu;kstd ds ikl gksrh gS mldks izLrqr djus dk Hkkj vizkFkhZ ij pyk tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ&Jfed us dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnol dk;Z ugha fd;kA bl n`f"V ls Hkh vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks lk{; miyC/k Fkh oks mUgksaus is'k dj nhA
vizkFkhZ ds bl rdZ esa Hkh otu utj ugha vkrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 2&, ds rgr fookn dks ;wfu;u ds ek/;e ls ugh mBk;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2008 ¼4½ lhlhlh ist 81 jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe cuke jes'kdqekj 'kekZ ds ekeys esa Li"V dgk gS fd ;fn fdlh Je fookn dks ;wfu;u ;k cksMh vkQ odZeSu }kjk ugh mBk;k x;k gS rks og fookn **vkS|ksfxd fookn** dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrk gSA ijUrq bl ekeys esa pkjksa Jfedksa }kjk ;g fookn mBk;k x;k gS tks cksMh vkQ odZeSu dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl rduhdh vk/kkj ij fookn dks [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ijUrq mijksDr foospu ds QyLo:i U;k;ky; dk ;gh er gS fd izkFkhZx.k }kjk vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fnukad 22-09-1995 lsoki`Fkddj.k frfFk ls iwoZ 240 fnol dys.Mj o"kZ esa dk;Z ugh fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dks vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 22-09-1995 dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS rks mlesa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ugha gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dksbZ jkgr ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA mudk ekax i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; izrhr gksrk gSA
vf/kfu.kZ;
vr% ;g vf/kfu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gS fd%&
1- izkFkhZx.k rksrkjke iq= Jh lwjrkjke xokfj;k] Fkkukjke iq= Jh xaxkjke xokfj;k] jktsUnzflag iq= Jh y{e.kflag pkj.k ,o tsBwflag iq= Jh txnh'kflag 'ks[kkor fuoklh;ku jsYos dkWyksuh] jsYos LVs'ku iksdj.k ftyk tSlyesj dks vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 22-09-1995 dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA
2- izkFkhZx.k dksbZ jkgr ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr ekax i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA
vt; dqekj 'kekZ&1] U;k;k/kh'k
;g vkns'k esjs }kjk fyfic} djok;k tkdj vkt fnukad 10-08-2017 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA
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.