7390 GI/2018

(6963)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 51]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 23—fnlEcj 29] 2018] 'kfuokj@IkkS"k 2—ikS"k 8] 1940

No. 51]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 23—DECEMBER 29, 2018, SATURDAY/ PAUSHA 2— PAUSHA 8, 1940

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

भारी उोग और लोक उम मंालय

भारी उोग और लोक उम मंालय

भारी उोग और लोक उम मंालय

भारी उोग और लोक उम मंालय

(भारी उोग िवभाग

भारी उोग िवभाग

भारी उोग िवभाग

भारी उोग िवभाग)

नई द ली, 14 नव बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1819

1819

1819

1819.—केीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम 1976

(यथा संशोिधत 1987, 2007 और 2011) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म-, भारी उ/ोग और लोक

उ/म मं0ालय, भारी उ/ोग िवभाग के शासिनक िनयं0णाधीन लोक उ/म, “ए23 यूल एंड कंपनी िलिमटेड,

कोलकाता”, िजसके 80% से अिधक कम;चारीवृद ने िहदी का काय;साधक ?ान ा@ कर िलया है, को एतदCारा

अिधसूिचत करती है।

[सं. ई-11012/2/2018-िहदी]

िवD वजीत सहाय, संयुE त सिचव

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.

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का

का

का

का.आ. 1820

1820

1820

1820.—क ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोकिहत म यह आवयक है क आं

देश राय म पेोिलयम उ"पाद# के प$रवहन के िलए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प$रयोजना के

'या(वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड +ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवयक तीत होता है क ऐसी

भूिम म जो इस से ऊपाब- अनुसूची म व.ण0त है, और िजसम उ1 पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 2ताव है,

उपयोग के अिधकार का अज0न कया जाए;

अतः अब, के(ीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ(स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज0न)

अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) क< धारा 3 क< उपधारा (1) +ारा द? शि1य# का योग करते Aए

उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज0न करने के अपने आशय क< घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी Cि1, जो उ1 अनुसूची म व.ण0त भूिम म िहतब- है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म

यु1 भारत के राजपE क< ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलGध करा दी जाती हI, इJ क<स (21) दन के

भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार के संब(ध म Lी के. ए.

एस जेिMसन, सNम ािधकारी (आं देश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन भाग),

पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प$रयोजना, Oलॉट संQया 33,कनका दुगा0 ऑफसस0 कॉलोनी, गुTनानक

नगर मेन रोड िवजयवाड़ा-520008, आं देश राय को िलिखत Uप से आNेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला: : : : ई ट

ई ट

ई ट

ई ट गोदावरी

गोदावरी

गोदावरी

गोदावरी

राय

राय

राय

राय: : : : आ

आ

आ

आ देश

देश

देश

देश

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव नबर

नबर

नबर

नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

जFग पेटा

कांडरेगुला

199

00

19

40

193/1

00

16

02

194

00

26

15

192

00

20

37

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6965

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव नबर

नबर

नबर

नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

191

00

31

17

जFग पेटा

मयनवाGरपालेम

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

कोHकडा

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

कोHकडा

Iीरंगापटनम

117

00

24

81

गोकावरम

गु मलादोJी

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

िचKाकदेपुड़ी

466

00

30

09

468

00

00

91

467

00

21

20

सीतानगरम

Mसंगावरम

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)]

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव नबर

नबर

नबर

नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(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 क(डो, 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)

Jaggampeta

Kandregula

199

00

19

40

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6967

Name of Mandal

Name of Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

518

00

00

46

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 द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1821

1821

1821

1821.—क ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म यह आवयक है क आं

देश राय म पेोिलयम उ"पाद# के प$रवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प$रयोजना के

'या(वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड +ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवयक तीत होता है क ऐसी

भूिम म जो इस से ऊपाब- अनुसूची म व.ण0त है, और िजसम उ1 पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 2ताव है,

उपयोग के अिधकार का अज0न कया जाए;

अतः अब, के(ीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ(स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज0न)

अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) क< धारा 3 क< उपधारा (1) +ारा द? शि1य# का योग करते Aए

उस भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज0न करने के अपने आशय क< घोषणा करती है;

6968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कोई भी Cि1, जो उ1 अनुसूची म व.ण0त भूिम म िहतब- है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म

यु1 भारत के राजपE क< ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलGध करा दी जाती हI, इb<स (21) दन के

भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार के संब(ध म Lी एम.

आर. आर. शेषु, सNम ािधकारी (आं देश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ(स भाग),

पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प$रयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी. एनेJसी भवन, िथbना (डायमंड

पाक0) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पलेJस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं देश राय को िलिखत Uप

से आNेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला: िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

राय

राय

राय

राय : : : :आं

आं

आं

आं देश

देश

देश

देश

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5

(5

(5

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

सGबावरम

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

सGबावरम

द#गलामरg सीतारामपुरम

45

00

58

07

44

00

53

26

42

00

48

67

अनकापिल

अनकापिल

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6969

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5

(5

(5

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

अनकापिल

अनकापिल

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)]

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5

(5

(5

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

अनकापिल

अनकापिल

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6971

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5

(5

(5

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

1530

00

51

62

प दु.त0

जेरgपोतुलापालेम

74

01

32

49

76

01

48

35

67

00

34

61

66

00

11

76

प दु.त0

hचंतागटला

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

प दु.त0

पेदागाड़ी

422

00

30

89

प दु.त0

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)]

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5

(5

(5

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

िवशाखापटनम Nामीण

पुलमबOापालेम

16

00

55

19

सPबावरम

गोलालापालेम

45

00

21

97

67

00

31

71

62

00

07

42

68

00

38

37

70

00

24

59

69

00

21

40

सGबावरम

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

सGबावरम

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6973

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

न"बर

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

$ेफल

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

हे'टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

वग)मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5

(5

(5

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

सGबावरम

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 क(डो, 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

SABBAVARAM

DONGALAMARRI

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1822

1822

1822

1822.—क ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म यह आवयक है क आं देश

राय म पेोिलयम उ"पाद# के प$रवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प$रयोजना के 'या(वयन हेतु

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड +ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म

जो इस से ऊपाब- अनुसूची म व.ण0त है, और िजसम उ1 पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 2ताव है, उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज0न कया जाए;

अतः अब, के(ीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ(स (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज0न)

अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) क< धारा 3 क< उपधारा (1) +ारा द? शि1य# का योग करते Aए उस भूिम

म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज0न करने के अपने आशय क< घोषणा करती है;

6978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कोई भी Cि1, जो उ1 अनुसूची म व.ण0त भूिम म िहतब- है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म यु1

भारत के राजपE क< ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलGध करा दी जाती हI, इb<स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के

नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार के संब(ध म Lी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सNम

ािधकारी (आं देश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप*रेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ(स भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद

पाइपलाइन प$रयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी. एनेJसी भवन, िथbना (डायमंड पाक0) रोड़, आर.टी.सी.

कॉ पलेJस के पास, िवशाशापटनम - 530004, आं देश राय को िलिखत Uप से आNेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला: *ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

राय

राय

राय

राय: आं देश

आं देश

आं देश

आं देश

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

पलासा

रामकृQणपुरम

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

कंिचिल

भोगाबेनी

504

00

70

05

मंदासा

डबाH

4

00

22

88

5

00

09

22

पलासा

गुडाGर

281/2

00

03

19

पलासा

अमलाकुिड़या

36/11

00

01

14

नंदगाम

कोमाटूH

155/5

00

01

66

164/9

00

00

23

नंदगाम

दिमलाड़ा

96/3

00

05

24

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6979

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

97/8

00

11

76

नंदगाम

संतोषापुरम

40/5C

00

00

40

टेE किल

तेिलनीलापुरम

39/1

00

06

65

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]

नोवस क(डो, 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 द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का

का

का

का. . . . आ. 1823

1823

1823

1823.—केीय सरकार ने पेRोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम- इसके पTात उU अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के

अधीन जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेRोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मं0ालय क अिधसूचना का.आ. 2100 तारीख

06.09.2017 िजसका काशन भारत के राजप0 संVया 36, भाग II, ख2ड 3, उप ख2ड (II) तारीख 03.09.2017 से

09.09.2017 म- कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना म- संलX अनुसूची म- िविनYद;Z आं\देश रा]य के िजला िवशाखापटनम के

मंडल : सPबावरम, अनकापिल, मुनगापाका, रामिबिल, एस. रायवरम, न^ापिल, और पायाकरावुपेटा क भूिम म-,

ओडीशा रा]य म- पारादीप से तेलंगाना रा]य म- हैदराबाद तक पेRोिलयम उ_पाद के पGरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपaरेशन िलिमटेड के Cारा bयािवत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना”के संबंध म- पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी:

और उU राजप0 अिधसूचना क ितयाँ जनता को उपलPध करा दी गई थd।और उU अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1)

के अनुसरण म- सgम ािधकारी न- केीय सरकार को अपनी Gरपोट; दे दी है।

और केीय सरकार ने उU Gरपोट; पर िवचार करने के पTात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उU भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिgत है, उसम- उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न करने का िविनD चय कया है:

अतः अब, केीय सरकार उU अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) Cारा दh शिUय का योग करते iए एतद् Cारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलX अनुसूची म- िविनYद;Z भूिम म- पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार

अjज;त कया जाए:

और केीय सरकार उU अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Cारा दh शिUय का योग करते iए, यह िनदaश देती है

क उU भूिम म- उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से केीय सरकार म- िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी

िबलंगम से मुU होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपaरेशन िलिमटेड म- िनिहत होगा।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6981

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला:

िजला:

िजला:

िजला: िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

िवशाखापटनम

राय:

राय:

राय:

राय: आं

आं

आं

आं देश

 देश

 देश

 देश

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव नबर

नबर

नबर

नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

सPबावरम

नारापाड़k

194/3

00

19

48

225

00

36

99

अनकापिल

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

पाGटपिल

180

00

30

01

रामिबिल

वेलचेH

67

00

06

01

36

00

08

63

170/6

00

45

74

69/2

00

07

17

रामिबिल

राजाला

111

00

05

53

रामिबिल

दिमिल

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)]

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

का नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव नबर

नबर

नबर

नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

रामिबिल

दिमिल

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

एस. रायवरम

जंगुलूHवेल पालेम

100

00

44

58

113

00

42

59

एस. रायवरम

पेनुगोलु

338/2

00

04

02

न^ापिल

गुिलपाड़k

97

00

16

27

न^ापिल

न^ापिल

117

00

25

54

पायाकरावुपेटा

पेदारामाभापुरम

109/2

00

43

02

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]

नोवस क(डो, 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6983

SCHEDULE

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 द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1824

1824

1824

1824.—क- ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म- यह आवDयक है क आं\ देश रा]य म-

पेRोिलयम उ_पाद के पGरवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना के bयावयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड Cारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क- ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवDयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म- जो इस से

उपाबp अनुसूची म- वjण;त है, और िजसम- उU पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का qताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न कया

जाए;

अतः अब, केीय सरकार, पेRोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Cारा दh शिUय का योग करते iए उस भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज;न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी vिU, जो उU अनुसूची म- वjण;त भूिम म- िहतबp है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म- युU भारत के

राजप0 क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलPध करा दी जाती हx, इ^स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन

िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम- उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म- Iी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सgम ािधकारी (आं\ देश), इंिडयन

ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइस भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.

एनेEसी भवन, िथ^ना (डायमंड पाक; ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पलेEस के पास, िवशाशापटनम - 530004, आं\ देश रा]य को

िलिखत zप से आgेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : )ीकाकुलम

िजला : )ीकाकुलम

िजला : )ीकाकुलम

िजला : )ीकाकुलम

राय : आं देश

राय : आं देश

राय : आं देश

राय : आं देश

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव

नबर

नबर

नबर

नबर

े

े

े

े फल

फल

फल

फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

नंदगाम

दिमलाड़ा

95/3

00

00

54

96/1

00

00

34

97/8

00

13

16

96/3

00

03

04

नंदगाम

देवलाभा

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6985

नंदगाम

देवलाभा

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 क(डो, अवर सिचव

6986

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6987

DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM

STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH

MANDAL

VILLAGE

SURVEY NO.

AREA

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mt.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

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

[F. No. R-11025(11)/252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का.

का.

का.

का. आ. 1825

1825

1825

1825.—क- ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म- यह आवDयक है क आं\ देश रा]य म-

पेRोिलयम उ_पाद के पGरवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना के bयावयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड Cारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क- ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवDयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म- जो इस से

उपाबp अनुसूची म- वjण;त है, और िजसम- उU पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का qताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न कया

जाए;

अतः अब, केीय सरकार, पेRोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Cारा दh शिUय का योग करते iए उस भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज;न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी vिU, जो उU अनुसूची म- वjण;त भूिम म- िहतबp है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म- युU भारत के

राजप0 क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलPध करा दी जाती हx, इ^स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन

िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम- उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म- Iी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सgम ािधकारी (आं\ देश), इंिडयन

ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइस भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.

एनेEसी भवन, िथ^ना (डायमंड पाक; ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पलेEस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं\ देश रा]य को

िलिखत zप से आgेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला :

:

:

: *ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

राय

राय

राय

राय :

:

:

: आं

आं

आं

आं देश

 देश

 देश

 देश

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

इ{छापुरम

रhाकKा

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

6988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला :

:

:

: *ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

*ीकाकुलम

राय

राय

राय

राय :

:

:

: आं

आं

आं

आं देश

 देश

 देश

 देश

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

166/3

00

00

60

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 क(डो, 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1826

1826

1826

1826.—क- ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म- यह आवDयक है क आं\ देश रा]य म-

पेRोिलयम उ_पाद के पGरवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना के bयावयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड Cारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क- ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवDयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म- जो इस से

उपाबp अनुसूची म- वjण;त है, और िजसम- उU पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का qताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न कया

जाए;

अतः अब, केीय सरकार, पेRोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Cारा दh शिUय का योग करते iए उस भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज;न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी vिU, जो उU अनुसूची म- वjण;त भूिम म- िहतबp है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म- युU भारत के

राजप0 क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलPध करा दी जाती हx, इ^स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन

िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम- उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म- Iी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सgम ािधकारी (आं\ देश), इंिडयन

ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइस भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.

एनेEसी भवन, िथ^ना (डायमंड पाक; ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पलेEस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं\ देश रा]य को

िलिखत zप से आgेप भेज सकेगा।

6990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला: िविजयानगरम

िविजयानगरम

िविजयानगरम

िविजयानगरम

राय

राय

राय

राय : : : : आं

आं

आं

आं देश

देश

देश

देश

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल

मंडल का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

ाम

ाम

ाम

ाम का

का

का

का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

सव

सव

सव

सव नबर

नबर

नबर

नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(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 क(डो, 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6991

DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM

STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH

MANDAL

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NO.

AREA

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mt.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

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 द ली, 20 दस बर, 2018

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1827

1827

1827

1827.—क- ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म- यह आवDयक है क आं\ देश रा]य म-

पेRोिलयम उ_पाद के पGरवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना के bयावयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड Cारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और क- ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवDयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी म- जो इस से

उपाबp अनुसूची म- वjण;त है, और िजसम- उU पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का qताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न कया

जाए;

अतः अब, केीय सरकार, पेRोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का अज;न) अिधिनयम 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Cारा दh शिUय का योग करते iए उस भूिम म- उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज;न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी vिU, जो उU अनुसूची म- वjण;त भूिम म- िहतबp है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म- युU भारत के

राजप0 क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलPध करा दी जाती हx, इ^स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन

िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम- उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म- Iी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सgम ािधकारी (आं\ देश), इंिडयन

ऑयल कॉपnरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइस भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन पGरयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.

एनेEसी भवन, िथ^ना (डायमंड पाक; ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पलेEस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं\ देश रा]य को

िलिखत zप से आgेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला : )ीकाकुलम

िजला : )ीकाकुलम

िजला : )ीकाकुलम

िजला : )ीकाकुलम

राय :

राय :

राय :

राय : आं

आं

आं

आं देश

 देश

 देश

 देश

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

टे^िल

िचनाराकलापले

308/3

00

02

24

308/4

00

02

23

6992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

मंडल का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

ाम का नाम

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

सव नबर

े फल

े फल

े फल

े फल

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

हे$टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

वग%मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

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

टे^ल

तलागाम

10/15

10

00

00

159/1B

00

42

00

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]

नोवस क(डो, 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)

TEKKALI

CHINA RAKALLAPALLE

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

TEKKALI

TALAGAM

10/15

00

10

00

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 एवं

एवं

एवं

एवं रोजगार मं ालय

रोजगार मं ालय

रोजगार मं ालय

रोजगार मं ालय

नई दली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1828

1828

1828

1828.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मैसस; भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक

िववाद म- औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 2/2015) को कािशत करती है जो

केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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

Jh nsosUnz ekgs'ojh iq= Jh dSyk'k ekgs'ojh] fuoklh&

fuEckgsMk] tfj;s&Hkkjrh; etnwj la?k] fprkSMx<A

…izkFkhZ

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&fprkSMx<A

--foi{kh@fu;kstd

6994

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 dksbZ 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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<k p<k dj crk jgk gSA

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;&vLFkk;h 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 cqd

6996

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 दली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1829

1829

1829

1829.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक

िववाद म- औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 4/2015) को कािशत करती है जो

केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

6997

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. 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7001

नई दली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1830

1830

1830

1830.— औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक

िववाद म- औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 5/2015) को कािशत करती है जो

केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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 to

7002

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?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7003

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 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 for

7004

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 दली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 18

18

18

1831

31

31

31.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक

िववाद म- औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 7/2015) को कािशत करती है जो

केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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/Employer

7006

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 knowledge

7008

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7009

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 : R.Ramesh, Petitioner

MW-1 : D.Rama Rao,

WW-2 : Gajula Jalapathi

Administrative Officer (L & HPF).

EXHIBITS

FOR WORKMAN:

-Nil-

FOR MANAGEMENT:

-Nil-

नई द ली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1832

1832

1832

1832.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; सहायक भिवQय िनिध आयुU एवं अय के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z

औ/ोिगक िववाद म- केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 45/2015)

को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 12.12.2018 को ा@ 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

Sh. Sunil Kant S/o Sh. Inderjit Singh, H.No.1080 L, T-2, Sector-1,

Talwara Township, Distt. Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

…Petitioner

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 द ली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1833

1833

1833

1833.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; q मे टर | लांट ना को के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक िववाद म-

केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, भूवने}र के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 23/2014) को कािशत करती है

जो केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7011

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. 23/2014

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 Officer

7012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1834

1834

1834

1834.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; qमेटर |लांट, नाको के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक िववाद

म- केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, भूवने}र के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 25/2014) को कािशत करती

है जो केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7013

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 द ली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1835

1835

1835

1835.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; ओिडशा माइMनंग कॉरपोरेशन के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक

िववाद म- केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, भूवने}र के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 23/2015) को कािशत

करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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-Management

7014

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 द ली, दस बर,14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1836

1836

1836

1836.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; एqसेल माइMनंग ए2ड इंडqRीज िलिमटेड के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z

औ/ोिगक िववाद म- केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, भुवने}र के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 67/2002)

को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7015

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. 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 unauthorizedly

7016

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 Officer

7018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 29, 2018/PAUSHA 8, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1837.

1837.

1837.

1837.— औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; भारत पेRोिलयम कॉरपोरेशन िलिमटेड के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z

औ/ोिगक िववाद म- केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 02/2005)

को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.12.2018 को ा@ 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 द ली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1838

1838

1838

1838.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; Pलू qटार िलिमटेड कॉRैEटर ऑफ आईओसीएल एवं अय के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच

अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक िववाद म- केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ;

संVया 12/2016) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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, 2018

7020

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 द ली, 14 दस बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ.

का. आ. 1839

1839

1839

1839.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

मेसस; एस.बी.एस. कqREशन, कॉRैEटर ऑफ आईओसीएल, हिदया Gरफाइनरी के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके

कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म- िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक िववाद म- केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, कोलकाता

के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया 14/2016) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 को ा@ 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7021

ANNEXURE

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 lfpo

7022

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 lhekvksa esa 'kkfey lHkh

{ks= ,oa ucjaxiqj ds rglhy esa lnkf’kciqj ,oa

dqlqfe rFkk uankgkafM ds rglhy esa i<kyxqM+k ds

jktLo xkWo

[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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 simultaneously

7026

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7029

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 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7031

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

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7033

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 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 8] 1940

7035

19.

On the other hand the management of the railways has well proved its case by filing copy of the contract with

the M/s. Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s for supply of labourers for transportation of Driver line boxes at railway

platform.

Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. Initial burden of establishing the fact of continuous work on the

date of alleged termination was on the workman but he failed to discharge the above burden. There is no reliable

material for recording findings that the workman had been appointed by the railway administration on the post of Box

Porter or he worked continuously with the opposite party No. 01 & 02; and the alleged unjust or illegal order of

termination was passed by the management of opposite party No. 01 & 02 or any provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 had been violated by them.

20.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made herein above I am of considered

opinion that the workman could not be able to prove through cogent evidence that there was a relationship of employee

and employer between him and the opposite party No. 01 & 02; rather from the evidence adduced it is established that he

was an employee of the contractor viz. M/s Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brother’s, therefore, the workman can not be

granted the relief of reinstatement or any other relief sought by the workman against the opposite party No. 01 & 02.

21.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

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:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 Apex

7038

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 द ली, 21 दस बर, 2018

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1846

1846

1846

1846.—औ/ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म- केीय सरकार

फूड कारपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंिडया एवं उनके कम;चारी के बंधतं0 के संबp िनयोजक और उनके कम;कार के बीच अनुबंध म-

िनYद;Z औ/ोिगक िववाद म- केीय सरकार औ/ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Iम यायालय, जोधपुर के पंचाट (संदभ; संVया

1/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 27.11.2018 को ा@ iआ था ।

[सं. एल-22015/19/2014-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

राज- Mसंह, 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 Officer

7040

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 tkosA

7042

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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 Hkh

7044

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 ugha 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 29] 2018@ikS"k 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. ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed by

ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2019.01.16

11:44:58 +05'30'