7560 GI/2018
(1)
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- 1]
ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 30—tuojh 5] 2019] 'kfuokj@IkkS"k 9—ikS"k 15] 1940
No. 1]
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 30—JANUARY 5, 2019, SATURDAY/ PAUSHA 9— PAUSHA 15, 1940
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
िव
िव
िव
िव मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(िवीय
िवीय
िवीय
िवीय सेवाएं
सेवाएं
सेवाएं
सेवाएं िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग)
नई द ली, 22 नव बर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1.— बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) क धारा 53 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द
शिय का योग करते %ए, के'(ीय सरकार, भारतीय +रजव- बक क िसफा+रश पर एत/ारा, यह घोषणा करती है क उ
अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उप-धारा (1) के ख6ड (ग) के उप-ख6ड (i) के उपबंध यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया पर लागू नह<
ह गे, जहां तक इसका संबंध बक के बंध िनदेशक एवं मु>य काय-कारी अिधकारी ?ी राज करन राय जी. को Aटार यूिनयन
दाई-ईची लाइफ इंCयोरDस कंपनी िलिमटेड के बोड- मD िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करने से है।
[फा.सं. 13/2/2016-बीओ-I]
Fानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव
2
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2018
S.O. 1.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act,
1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the
provisions of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Union Bank of
India in relation to the nomination of Shri Raj Kiran Rai G., Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Union
Bank of India on the Board of Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company Limited as Director.
[F. No. 13/2/2016-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 4 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 2.—बककारी कंपनी (उपGम का अज-न एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के
खंड (ख) ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए, के'(ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, ?ी आनंद मधुकर, िवशेष काय- अिधकारी
(ओएसडी), भारत सरकार, िव मंHालय, िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग को तIकाल भाव से और अगले आदेश तक, सु?ी Kसधु
िपलई के Aथान पर यूको बक के िनदेशक म6डल मD सरकारी नािमती िनदेशक नािमत करती है।
[फा. सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]
Fानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi the 4th December, 2018
S.O. 2.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Anand
Madhukar, Officer on Special Duty, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services as
Government nominee Director on the Board of Directors of UCO Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders,
vice Ms. Sindhu Pillai.
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 11 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 3.—भारतीय +रजव- बक अिधिनयम, 1934 क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (6) ारा द शिय का योग
करते %ए, के'(ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, भारतीय +रजव- बक के गवन-र डॉ. उQजत आर. पटेल के Iयाग-पH को Aवीकार करती है।
[फा. सं. 1/3/2013-बीओ-I]
Fानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 3.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Reserve Bank of India Act,
1934, the Central Government, hereby accepts the resignation of Dr Urjit R. Patel as Governor, Reserve Bank of India.
[F. No. 1/3/2013-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 11 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 4.— भारतीय +रजव- बक अिधिनयम, 1934 क धारा 8 क उप-धारा (4) के साथ प+ठत उप-धारा (1) के
खंड (क) ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए, के'(ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, ?ी शिकांत दास, आईएएस सेवािनवृ (टीएन:
80), भूतपूव- सिचव, आQथक काय- िवभाग को तीन वष- क अविध के िलए भारतीय +रजव- बक (आरबीआई) के गवन-र के पद
पर िनयु करती है।
[फा. सं. 1/3/2013-बीओ-I]
Fानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
3
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 4.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of section
8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shaktikanta Das, IAS Retd.
(TN:80), former Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, as Governor, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), for a period of
three years.
[F. No. 1/3/2013-BO-I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 21 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 5.—भारतीय िनया-त-आयात बक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड
(ग) के अनुसरण मD, के'(ीय सरकार, एत/ारा, आईडीबीआई बक के बंध िनदेशक एवं मु>य काय-कारी अिधकारी (एमडी एवं
सीईओ) को तIकाल भाव से अगले आदेश तक, भारतीय िनया-त-आयात बक (एिWजम बक) के िनदेशक म6डल मD पदेन
आधार पर िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करती है।
[फा. सं. 9/16/2012-आईएफ-I]
सौ यिजत घोष, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 21st December, 2018
S.O. 5.—In pursuance of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import Bank of India Act,
1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates MD&CEO, IDBI Bank as Director on ex-officio basis on
the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of India (EXIM Bank) with immediate effect until further orders.
[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]
SOUMYAJIT GHOSH, Under Secy.
िवदेश मंालय
िवदेश मंालय
िवदेश मंालय
िवदेश मंालय
(पी. ए
(पी. ए
(पी. ए
(पी. ए-1 अनुभाग)
1 अनुभाग)
1 अनुभाग)
1 अनुभाग)
नई द ली, 30 नव बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 6.—उI वासन अिधिनयम 1983 (1983 का 31) क धारा 3 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द शिय का
योग करते %ए के' ( सरकार एतदारा िवदेश मंHालय मD संयुW त सिचव ?ी अमृत लुगून को पदभार Yहण करने क तारीख
अथा-त 30.11.2018 (अपराZन) से अगले आदेश तक िवदेश मंHालय मD उI वासी महा संर[क के \प मD िनयुW त करती है।
[सं. पीए-I/34/2018 ]
िमजीतो िविनतो, अवर सिचव (एफएसपी एवं कैडर)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(PA-I SECTION)
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018
S.O. 6.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of
1983), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Amrit Lugun, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs as
Protector General of Emigrants, Ministry of External Affairs w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge of the post i.e.
30.11.2018 (A/N) until further orders.
[No. PA-I/34/2018]
MIJITO VINITO, Under Secy. (FSP & Cadre)
4
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
वाय और प रवार कयाण मंालय
वाय और प रवार कयाण मंालय
वाय और प रवार कयाण मंालय
वाय और प रवार कयाण मंालय
नई दली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 7.—के'(ीय सरकार, सरकारी Aथान (अािधकृत अिधभोिगय क बदेखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971 का
40) क धारा 3 ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए, नीचे सारणी के Aतंभ (2) मD उिलिखत अिधकारी को, जो सरकार के
राजिपHत अिधकारी ह, उ अिधिनयम के योजन के िलए संपदा अिधकारी िनयु करती है और उ अिधकारी उ
सारणी के Aतंभ (3) मD तIAथानी िवि_ मD िविन`द_ सरकारी Aथान के वगa क बावत अपनी अिधका+रता को Aथानीय
सीमाb के भीतर उ अिधिनयम ारा या उसके अधीन वगa संपदा अिधकारी को द शिय का योग और उन पर
अिधरोिपत क-c का पालन करेगा ।
सारणी
सारणी
सारणी
सारणी
Gम सं.
अिधकारी का नाम और पदािभधान
सरकारी Aथान के वग- और अिधका+रता क Aथानीय
सीमाएं
)
1
(
)
2
(
)
3
(
1
डॉ. एस. आनंद पशुिचकIसक, बीसीजी टीका
योगशाला, चेdई
बीसीजी टीका योगशाला, Kगडी, चेdई 600032 के
शासिनक िनयंHाणीन और कम-चा+रवृंद W वाट-र के
वत-न संबंधी प+रसर, W वाट-र से बेदखली और अAथायी
आंवटन से संबंिधत मामले ।
[फा. सं. जेड – 28020/11/2018-ईपीआई]
व+र'दर कौर भला, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 7.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in the column (2) of
the Table below, being Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be the Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, and
the said officer shall exercise all powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by under the said
Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the categories of Public Premises specified in the
corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.
TABLE
Sl. No.
Name & Designation of the Officer Categories of Public Premises and Local limits of
Jurisdiction.
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
Dr. S. Anand, Veterinarian, BCG Vaccine
Laboratory, Chennai
Premises relating to enforcement, eviction of quarters and
matters relating to BCG Staff Quarters and temporary
allotment under the administrative control of the BCG
Vaccine Laboratory, Guindy, Chennai – 600032.
[F. No. Z-28020/11/2018-EPI]
Ms. VARINDER KAUR BHALLA, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
5
मिहला एवं बाल िवकास मंालय
मिहला एवं बाल िवकास मंालय
मिहला एवं बाल िवकास मंालय
मिहला एवं बाल िवकास मंालय
(बाल क या
बाल क या
बाल क या
बाल क याण-I अनुभाग
अनुभाग
अनुभाग
अनुभाग)
शुि
शुि
शुि
शुि-प
प
प
प
नई द ली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 8.—बाल अिधकार संर[ण आयोग अिधिनयम, 2005 (2006 का 4) क धारा 4 के अनुसरण मD, मिहला
एवं बाल िवकास मंHालय ने अिधसूचना सं> या 13/106/2015/यूएस(सीडg यू-I) का काया-लय, दनांक 31.10.2018 के
माh यम से ?ी ियंक कानूनगो को 17.10.2018 (पूवा-Zन) से तीन वष- क अविध के िलए, अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो
भी पहले हो, राi jीय बाल अिधकार संर[ण आयोग का अh य[ िनयुW त कया था ।
2. अिधसूचना दनांक 31.10.2018 के Kहदी पाठ मD '?ी ियांक कानूनगो' शg द को '?ी ियंक कानूनगो' पढ़ा जाए ।
[सं.13/106/2015/यूएस(सीडg यू-I) का काया-लय (ई-13342)]
आA था सW सेना खटवानी, संयुW त सिचव
MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
(CHILD WELFARE-I SECTION)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 8.—In pursuance of Section 4 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 ( 4 of 2006),
Ministry of Women & Child Development vide notification No.13/106/2015-O/O US(CW-I) dated 31.10.2018 had
appointed Shri Priyank Kanoongo as Chairperson, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights with effect from
17.10.2018 (A/N) for a period of three years, or until further orders, whichever is the earlier.
2.) In the Hindi version of notification dated 31.10.2018 , the words '?ी ियांक कानूनगो' may be read as
‘‘?ी ियंक कानूनगो'’।
[No. 13/106/2015-O/O US(CW-I) (e-13342)]
AASTHA SAXENA KHATWANI, Jt. Secy.
नई द ली, 10 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 9.—बाल अिधकार संर[ण आयोग अिधिनयम, 2005 (2006 का 4) क धारा 4 के अनुसरण मD भारत
सरकार एतदारा बk च से संबंिधत कानून के [ेH मD ?ी यशवंत जैन को दनांक 02.11.2018 (अपराZन) को पद पर
काय-भार Yहण करने क ितिथ से तीन वष- क अविध, या 60 वष- क आयु ाm त करने, अथवा अगले आदेश के होने, इनमD से
जो भी पहले हो, तक राi jीय बाल अिधकार संर[ण आयोग मD सदA य के \प मD िनयुW त करती है।
[सं. 13/100/2015-सीडg यू-I(ई-12860)]
आA था सW सेना खटवानी, संयुW त सिचव
New Delhi, the 10th December, 2018
S.O. 9.—In pursuance of Section 4 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006), the
Government of India hereby appoint Shri. Yashwant Jain as Member, National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights for the field Laws relating to Children with effect from 02.11.2018 (A/N) for a period of three years from the date
of assumption of charge of the post or till attaining the age of 60 yrs or till further orders, whichever is the earlier.
[No. 13/100/2015-CW-I(e-12860)]
AASTHA SAXENA KHATWANI, Jt. Secy.
6
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
आयुष मंालय
आयुष मंालय
आयुष मंालय
आयुष मंालय
नई द ली, 30 अW तूबर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 10
10
10
10.—कD(ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम 1976 (यथा संशोिधत
1987) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मD, आयुष मंHालय के शासिनक िनयंHणाधीन िन निलिखत काया-लय,
िजसके 84.21% ितशत कम-चारीवृ' द ने Kहदी का काय-साधक Fान ाm त कर िलया है, को एतदारा अिधसूिचत करती
ह:—
‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ेीय
ेीय
ेीय
ेीय आयुव दीय
आयुव दीय
आयुव दीय
आयुव दीय " व
" व
" व
" वकरोग
करोग
करोग
करोग अनुसंधान
अनुसंधान
अनुसंधान
अनुसंधान सं था
सं था
सं था
सं थान, , , , अहमदाबाद
अहमदाबाद
अहमदाबाद
अहमदाबाद’’’’’’’’
[सं. ई-11018/1/2018-आयुष (रा.भा.)]
पी. एन. र6 जीत कुमार, संयुW त सिचव
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
New Delhi, the 30th October, 2018
S.O. 10.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the
administrative control of the Ministry of AYUSH, wherein 84.21% Officials have acquired the working knowledge of
Hindi:
“Regional Ayurveda Research Institute for Skin Disorders, Ahmedabad”
[No. E-11018/1/2018-AYUSH(O.L.)]
P.N. RANJIT KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
पे$ोिलयम और &ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पे$ोिलयम और &ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पे$ोिलयम और &ाकृितक गैस मंालय
पे$ोिलयम और &ाकृितक गैस मंालय
नई दली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का
का
का
का.आ.
.आ.
.आ.
.आ. 11.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 ( 1962-50) ( िजसे इसमD इसके पnात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन
जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेjोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंHालय क अिधसूचना िजसका काशन भारत के राजपH
सं>या 15 दनाक 15-21 अैल 2018 का.आ. 607, 609 दनाक 10.04.2018 भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) मD कया गया
है! इस अिधसूचना से सलंq अनुसूची मD िविनद_ महाराr राsय क तहसील- आ_ी, िजला बीड क भूिम मD महाराr राsय मD
कोयली (गुजरात) से अहमदनगर एवं सोलापुर तक पेjोिलयम प+रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा
Gयाि'वत कए जा रहे “कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर प+रयोजना” के स ब'ध मD पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए
उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी :
और उ राजपH अिधसूचनाओ क ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 14 िसत बर 2018 को उपलgध करा दी गई थी।
और उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण मD स[म ािधकारी ने के'(ीय सरकार को अपनी +रपोट- दे दी
है।
और के'(ीय सरकार ने उ +रपोट- पर िवचार करने के पnात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ भूिम मD पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के िलए अपेिछत है, उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न करने का िविनnय कया है:
अत: अब, के'(ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) ारा दत शिय का योग करते %ए एत/ारा
ारा घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से सलq अनुसूची मD िविनद_ भूिम मD पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार
अQजत कया जाए:
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
7
और के'(ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) ारा दत शिय का योग करते %ए, यह िनदyश देती
है क उ भूिम मD उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से के'(ीय सरकार मD िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी
िव लंगमो से मु होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड मD िनिहत होगा।
पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी [ितपूQत के िलए इंिडयन
ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड पूण-तया उतरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से संबंिधत कसी भी मामले पर के'(ीय सरकार के
िवzद कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय-वाही नही हो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तालुका
तालुका
तालुका
तालुका : आ+ी
आ+ी
आ+ी
आ+ी
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला : बीड
बीड
बीड
बीड
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य : महारा-
महारा-
महारा-
महारा-
गां
गां
गां
गांव का नाम
का नाम
का नाम
का नाम
सव
सव
सव
सव नंनंनंनं.//लॉक नं
//लॉक नं
//लॉक नं
//लॉक नं.
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हे3टर
हे3टर
हे3टर
हे3टर
आर
आर
आर
आर
वग5
वग5
वग5
वग5 मीटर
मीटर
मीटर
मीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
कोयाल
114
00
55
01
115
00
03
75
120
00
54
10
121
00
33
35
122
00
88
58
129
00
90
48
13
00
48
92
12
00
53
71
06
00
26
94
07
00
05
10
04
00
68
58
05
00
33
75
31
00
53
75
32
00
39
86
खुंटेफल (वाटेफल)
30
00
83
16
29
00
00
03
सुंबेवाडी
41
00
24
34
42
00
63
04
43
00
52
49
8
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
सुंबेवाडी
44
00
59
77
45
00
29
66
46
00
08
67
नांदुर
104
00
25
19
105
00
43
37
107
00
71
76
96
00
55
51
98
00
24
06
97
00
30
97
बालेवाडी
25
00
42
27
26
00
44
86
28
00
44
32
29
00
45
32
32
01
16
45
30
00
02
85
31
00
51
10
53
00
82
61
54
00
22
11
52
00
36
43
55
00
36
50
59
00
25
31
58
00
61
30
57
00
28
68
धानोरा
108
00
15
31
107
00
17
79
105
00
25
32
106
00
28
99
99
00
64
04
98
00
56
72
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
9
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
धानोरा
97
00
42
31
96
00
25
09
90
00
39
73
88
00
20
44
87
00
42
74
86
00
00
02
77
00
11
56
78
00
09
85
81
00
07
16
80
00
07
15
82
00
10
13
67
00
36
10
66
00
05
74
65
00
21
76
64
00
00
15
63
00
29
13
58
00
20
06
57
00
15
36
55
00
18
53
53
00
12
73
52
00
14
69
48
00
13
59
49
00
02
54
46
00
15
46
45
00
45
58
साबलखेड
12
00
10
60
117
00
25
82
118
00
24
60
97
00
91
47
10
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
साबलखेड
115
00
47
04
98
00
27
35
Kचचोली
01
00
51
33
02
00
38
06
03
00
40
88
08
00
10
76
9/4
00
06
76
9/5
00
06
70
10
00
16
71
11/8
00
03
66
11/9
00
04
42
11/10
00
08
64
13/1
00
14
31
13/2
00
05
55
13/3
00
07
66
14
00
36
56
17/4
00
15
31
17/5
00
16
10
18/5
00
57
68
कडा
54
00
42
45
55
00
47
38
48
00
43
47
47
00
36
58
61
00
05
43
38
00
65
48
39
00
40
01
40
00
24
10
36
00
09
85
35
00
44
90
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
11
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
कडा
34
00
34
76
30
00
18
97
29
00
41
73
101
00
25
54
102
00
17
13
103
00
31
71
104
00
48
10
105
00
41
11
124
00
26
91
123
00
29
43
121
00
74
83
119
00
34
41
141
00
37
39
142
00
15
14
143
00
11
86
शेरी खुद-
15
00
34
22
14
00
27
83
13
00
05
91
11
00
14
94
12
00
13
50
09
00
30
53
07
00
30
49
06
00
05
91
05
00
01
54
83
00
67
82
शेरी बु(ुक
84/3
00
09
39
84/4
00
12
00
नीमगाव चोभा
75
00
23
95
76
00
57
98
12
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
नीमगाव चोभा
69
00
09
76
77
00
45
94
80
00
50
83
81
00
53
65
वटणवाडी
58
00
95
63
57
00
00
48
जलगांव
74
00
34
59
72
00
27
63
71/2
00
16
27
69
00
18
07
68
00
45
07
66
00
03
59
47
00
65
76
58
00
31
62
57
00
23
96
56
00
29
95
50
00
13
62
55
00
57
08
Kपी आ_ी
83
00
27
76
84
00
59
40
86
00
56
63
87
00
03
70
88
00
35
91
97
00
45
24
98
00
46
50
05
00
52
10
03
00
29
14
17
00
42
18
16
00
53
37
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
13
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
15
00
40
38
मुश-दपुर
7/1
00
26
39
6/1
00
33
36
6/2
00
28
14
5/1
00
27
46
5/2
00
20
11
11/1/1
00
11
86
11/1/2
00
14
13
11/1/3
00
12
38
12/2
00
04
27
02
00
22
63
19/2
00
35
20
20
00
46
26
42
00
51
50
40/4
00
08
70
40/5
00
16
60
40/9
00
07
19
40/10
00
16
17
44
00
18
50
45/1
00
20
26
46
00
83
00
आ_ी
908
00
00
03
907
00
28
17
906
00
44
22
785
00
98
89
788
01
15
06
790
00
05
65
786
00
00
40
781
00
09
99
14
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
आ_ी
780
00
21
30
703
00
33
06
704
00
39
50
705
00
37
93
706
00
43
09
474
00
50
57
475
00
09
59
476
00
49
15
491
00
26
59
489
00
07
50
490
00
66
96
487
00
63
08
552
00
19
40
554
00
00
20
555
00
11
37
556
00
11
62
564
00
00
67
पोखरी
875
00
04
16
876
00
14
75
877
00
06
31
878
00
05
79
879
00
06
37
880
00
05
70
873
00
46
12
872
00
00
38
871
00
09
79
870
00
08
57
868
00
53
97
844
00
33
68
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
15
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
पोखरी
841
00
01
26
847
00
04
95
840
00
02
80
848
00
04
73
839
00
02
88
838
00
13
45
837
00
37
08
836
00
13
72
824
00
06
57
825
00
08
54
826
00
10
86
827
00
15
18
365
00
00
15
364
00
07
00
362
00
04
60
363
00
15
88
368
00
25
04
371
00
05
97
103
00
02
03
384
00
07
67
385
00
02
21
386
00
01
98
387
00
02
42
388
00
05
59
391
00
00
21
390
00
01
84
389
00
03
07
395
00
03
48
408
00
14
92
16
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
पोखरी
417
00
11
14
356
00
18
40
346
00
06
89
343
00
12
30
310
00
25
15
105
00
14
38
294
00
34
71
161
00
00
01
157
00
00
37
162
00
26
73
156
00
16
04
116
00
15
18
117
00
10
41
119
00
04
14
123
00
19
33
125
00
10
23
128
00
00
78
127
00
13
36
129
00
31
28
132
00
49
96
134
00
15
88
135
00
02
99
136
00
09
00
137
00
23
93
गांधनवाडी
195
00
07
13
196
00
25
52
203
00
06
85
197
00
05
39
204
00
19
88
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
17
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
गांधनवाडी
205
00
10
94
207
00
10
15
208
00
05
94
206
00
01
28
209
00
23
84
222
00
03
93
223
00
24
69
224
00
17
63
225
00
20
13
226
00
03
59
240
00
03
58
Kचचपुर
328
00
21
45
332
00
05
62
325
00
04
63
320
00
02
37
321
00
09
19
322
00
18
83
323
00
05
63
324
00
05
77
306
00
15
63
303
00
13
70
302
00
39
31
301
00
04
05
222
00
38
63
239
00
45
79
241
00
03
26
236
00
36
52
238
00
34
00
237
00
00
02
18
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
Kचचपुर
202
00
09
98
200
00
08
28
199
00
08
90
196
00
09
43
171
00
43
73
195
00
00
16
189
00
66
90
भातोडी
80
00
25
18
82
00
28
60
84
00
01
22
83
00
10
94
86
00
15
01
खाकलवाडी
30/1
00
34
16
30/3
00
17
79
30/4
00
16
54
30/5
00
02
40
29/1
00
10
26
29/2
00
00
98
31/1
00
05
99
31/2
00
25
04
31/3
00
05
69
31/5
00
00
08
31/6
00
04
07
31/12
00
09
65
32/1
00
15
95
32/2
00
24
96
32/4
00
13
24
32/5
00
00
01
33/6
00
14
30
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
19
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
खाकलवाडी
35/1
00
21
15
35/2
00
11
39
35/3
00
08
76
34
00
53
24
22
00
36
94
21
00
45
77
पांढरी
191
00
55
49
192
00
83
09
195
00
47
37
171
00
49
04
196
00
58
03
149
00
81
91
169
00
34
96
154
01
00
52
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I /ई-23678]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 11.—Whereas by the notification of The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, Published in the Gazette No. 15 date 15-21 April 2018 S.O No. 607, 609 date 10.04.2018 Part-II,Section-3,Sub-
Section (ii) 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 Tehsil Ashti, District Beed in Maharashtra State,
specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of
petroleum from Koyali in the State Gujrat to Solapur in the Maharashtra by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for
implementing the ‘’Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline Project’’.
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 12 September
2018.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted
his report 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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free
from all encumbrances.
20
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P &
MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to
pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Taluka : Ashti
District : Beed
State : Maharashtra
Name of Village
Survey No./
Block No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Koyal
114
00
55
01
115
00
03
75
120
00
54
10
121
00
33
35
122
00
88
58
129
00
90
48
13
00
48
92
12
00
53
71
06
00
26
94
07
00
05
10
04
00
68
58
05
00
33
75
31
00
53
75
32
00
39
86
Khuntephal (Watephal)
30
00
83
16
29
00
00
03
Sumbewadi
41
00
24
34
42
00
63
04
43
00
52
49
44
00
59
77
45
00
29
66
46
00
08
67
Nandur
104
00
25
19
105
00
43
37
107
00
71
76
96
00
55
51
98
00
24
06
97
00
30
97
Balewadi
25
00
42
27
26
00
44
86
28
00
44
32
29
00
45
32
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
21
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Balewadi
32
01
16
45
30
00
02
85
31
00
51
10
53
00
82
61
54
00
22
11
52
00
36
43
55
00
36
50
59
00
25
31
58
00
61
30
57
00
28
68
Dhanora
108
00
15
31
107
00
17
79
105
00
25
32
106
00
28
99
99
00
64
04
98
00
56
72
97
00
42
31
96
00
25
09
90
00
39
73
88
00
20
44
87
00
42
74
86
00
00
02
77
00
11
56
78
00
09
85
81
00
07
16
80
00
07
15
82
00
10
13
67
00
36
10
66
00
05
74
65
00
21
76
64
00
00
15
63
00
29
13
58
00
20
06
57
00
15
36
55
00
18
53
53
00
12
73
52
00
14
69
48
00
13
59
49
00
02
54
46
00
15
46
45
00
45
58
22
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Sabalkhed
12
00
10
60
117
00
25
82
118
00
24
60
97
00
91
47
115
00
47
04
98
00
27
35
Chincholi
01
00
51
33
02
00
38
06
03
00
40
88
08
00
10
76
9/4
00
06
76
9/5
00
06
70
10
00
16
71
11/8
00
03
66
11/9
00
04
42
11/10
00
08
64
13/1
00
14
31
13/2
00
05
55
13/3
00
07
66
14
00
36
56
17/4
00
15
31
17/5
00
16
10
18/5
00
57
68
Kada
54
00
42
45
55
00
47
38
48
00
43
47
47
00
36
58
61
00
05
43
38
00
65
48
39
00
40
01
40
00
24
10
36
00
09
85
35
00
44
90
34
00
34
76
30
00
18
97
29
00
41
73
101
00
25
54
102
00
17
13
103
00
31
71
104
00
48
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
23
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Kada
105
00
41
11
124
00
26
91
123
00
29
43
121
00
74
83
119
00
34
41
141
00
37
39
142
00
15
14
143
00
11
86
Sheri Khurd
15
00
34
22
14
00
27
83
13
00
05
91
11
00
14
94
12
00
13
50
09
00
30
53
07
00
30
49
06
00
05
91
05
00
01
54
83
00
67
82
Sheri Budruk
84/3
00
09
39
84/4
00
12
00
Nimgaon Chobha
75
00
23
95
76
00
57
98
69
00
09
76
77
00
45
94
80
00
50
83
81
00
53
65
Watanwadi
58
00
95
63
57
00
00
48
Jalgaon
74
00
34
59
72
00
27
63
71/2
00
16
27
69
00
18
07
68
00
45
07
66
00
03
59
47
00
65
76
58
00
31
62
57
00
23
96
56
00
29
95
50
00
13
62
55
00
57
08
Pimpri Ashti
83
00
27
76
24
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Pimpri Ashti
84
00
59
40
86
00
56
63
87
00
03
70
88
00
35
91
97
00
45
24
98
00
46
50
05
00
52
10
03
00
29
14
17
00
42
18
16
00
53
37
15
00
40
38
Murshadpur
7/1
00
26
39
6/1
00
33
36
6/2
00
28
14
5/1
00
27
46
5/2
00
20
11
11/1/1
00
11
86
11/1/2
00
14
13
11/1/3
00
12
38
12/2
00
04
27
02
00
22
63
19/2
00
35
20
20
00
46
26
42
00
51
50
40/4
00
08
70
40/5
00
16
60
40/9
00
07
19
40/10
00
16
17
44
00
18
50
45/1
00
20
26
46
00
83
00
Ashti
908
00
00
03
907
00
28
17
906
00
44
22
785
00
98
89
788
01
15
06
790
00
05
65
786
00
00
40
781
00
09
99
780
00
21
30
703
00
33
06
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
25
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Ashti
704
00
39
50
705
00
37
93
706
00
43
09
474
00
50
57
475
00
09
59
476
00
49
15
491
00
26
59
489
00
07
50
490
00
66
96
487
00
63
08
552
00
19
40
554
00
00
20
555
00
11
37
556
00
11
62
564
00
00
67
Pokhari
875
00
04
16
876
00
14
75
877
00
06
31
878
00
05
79
879
00
06
37
880
00
05
70
873
00
46
12
872
00
00
38
871
00
09
79
870
00
08
57
868
00
53
97
844
00
33
68
841
00
01
26
847
00
04
95
840
00
02
80
848
00
04
73
839
00
02
88
838
00
13
45
837
00
37
08
836
00
13
72
824
00
06
57
825
00
08
54
826
00
10
86
827
00
15
18
365
00
00
15
364
00
07
00
26
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Pokhari
362
00
04
60
363
00
15
88
368
00
25
04
371
00
05
97
103
00
02
03
384
00
07
67
385
00
02
21
386
00
01
98
387
00
02
42
388
00
05
59
391
00
00
21
390
00
01
84
389
00
03
07
395
00
03
48
408
00
14
92
417
00
11
14
356
00
18
40
346
00
06
89
343
00
12
30
310
00
25
15
105
00
14
38
294
00
34
71
161
00
00
01
157
00
00
37
162
00
26
73
156
00
16
04
116
00
15
18
117
00
10
41
119
00
04
14
123
00
19
33
125
00
10
23
128
00
00
78
127
00
13
36
129
00
31
28
132
00
49
96
134
00
15
88
135
00
02
99
136
00
09
00
137
00
23
93
Gandhanwadi
195
00
07
13
196
00
25
52
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
27
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Gandhanwadi
203
00
06
85
197
00
05
39
204
00
19
88
205
00
10
94
207
00
10
15
208
00
05
94
206
00
01
28
209
00
23
84
222
00
03
93
223
00
24
69
224
00
17
63
225
00
20
13
226
00
03
59
240
00
03
58
Chinchpur
328
00
21
45
332
00
05
62
325
00
04
63
320
00
02
37
321
00
09
19
322
00
18
83
323
00
05
63
324
00
05
77
306
00
15
63
303
00
13
70
302
00
39
31
301
00
04
05
222
00
38
63
239
00
45
79
241
00
03
26
236
00
36
52
238
00
34
00
237
00
00
02
202
00
09
98
200
00
08
28
199
00
08
90
196
00
09
43
171
00
43
73
195
00
00
16
189
00
66
90
Bhatodi
80
00
25
18
82
00
28
60
28
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Bhatodi
84
00
01
22
83
00
10
94
86
00
15
01
Khakalwadi
30/1
00
34
16
30/3
00
17
79
30/4
00
16
54
30/5
00
02
40
29/1
00
10
26
29/2
00
00
98
31/1
00
05
99
31/2
00
25
04
31/3
00
05
69
31/5
00
00
08
31/6
00
04
07
31/12
00
09
65
32/1
00
15
95
32/2
00
24
96
32/4
00
13
24
32/5
00
00
01
33/6
00
14
30
35/1
00
21
15
35/2
00
11
39
35/3
00
08
76
34
00
53
24
22
00
36
94
21
00
45
77
Pandhari
191
00
55
49
192
00
83
09
195
00
47
37
171
00
49
04
196
00
58
03
149
00
81
91
169
00
34
96
154
01
00
52
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 12-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]
1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh
xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 2221 rkjh[k 14 flrEcj] 2017 tks
Hkkjr ds jkti= Øekad 38] rkjh[k 17 flrEcj & 23 flrEcj 2017 ,oa dk-vk- 1103 rkjh[k 17 tqykÃ] 2018 tks Hkkjr ds
jkti= Øekad 29] rkjh[k 22 tqykà & 28 tqykà 2018 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
29
fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª jkT; esa ftyk uanqjckj esa rkYkqdk uokiqj dks;yh & vgenuxj & lksykiqj isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds
fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius
vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh (
vkSj mä jkti= vf/kfu;e dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 19 flrEcj 2018 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUæh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ dh gS (
vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbiykbZu fcNkus
ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk
djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu
fd;k tk, (
vkSj ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs’k nsrh gS fd mä
Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls
eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxh A
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku
fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUæh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k
dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwPkh
rkyqdk%&
uokiqj
ftyk%& uanqjckj
jkT;%& egkjk"Vª
{ks=Qy
ekSts @xzke
losZ @ Cykd
@
la-
¼IyksV la-½
lc&Mho&la-
gsDVj
vkj
oxZ ehVj
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
e¨guikMk
38@2
00
00
20
41
00
29
14
40
00
12
94
43@1
00
19
21
43@2
00
00
84
43@3
00
17
45
44
00
11
09
45@1@d
00
18
61
46@1
00
10
23
48@1@v
00
00
57
48@2
00
22
03
50@1
00
15
67
50@2
00
15
51
50@3
00
09
48
51@1
00
16
37
djath cqnzqd
121@1
00
21
80
121@3
00
14
42
121@4
00
09
23
30
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
djath cqnzqd
122@1
00
36
54
127@1
00
05
62
127@2@c
00
05
35
127@2@M
00
14
31
127@3
00
08
99
126@1
00
08
30
126@2
00
07
22
126@3
00
07
17
126@4
00
07
45
126@5
00
09
85
9@1@v
00
18
57
8@1
00
01
68
8@2
00
22
24
13@1@d
00
18
54
13@1@c
00
01
04
13@3
00
04
10
14@1
00
24
46
14@2
00
20
48
7
00
00
68
15
00
00
21
6@1
00
03
21
5
00
02
63
4@2
00
19
24
23@1@v
00
16
23
23@1@c
00
00
37
23@2
00
15
09
33@1@c
00
13
61
32@1
00
09
48
32@2
00
23
62
35
00
17
56
36 iSdh
00
18
01
52@3
00
01
97
53
00
47
35
54@1
00
03
82
54@2
00
10
51
54@3@v
00
09
83
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
31
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
djath cqnzqd
54@3@c
00
00
22
55@4
00
03
48
55@5
00
10
49
56
00
09
21
59@1@c@1
00
00
11
59@1@d
00
19
61
59@2@c
00
08
63
59@1@c@2
00
06
16
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S. O. 12.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas vide S.O. No. 2221 dated the 14th September, 2017, Gazette of India, No. 38 dated 17 – 23 September, 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), (here in after referred to as the said Act), Published in the Gazette of India, No. 29 dated 22 – 28 July,
2018 S. O. No. 1103 dated 17th July 2018 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in
the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur
Pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Taluka Navapur in Nandurbar District in the State of
Maharashtra by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 19th September
2018;
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of said act submitted report to the
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 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 right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the
P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Taluka:- Navapur
District:- Nandurbar
State :- Maharashtra
Mouje / Village
Survey/Block No.
Sub-Div-No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Mohanpada
38/2
00
00
20
41
00
29
14
40
00
12
94
43/1
00
19
21
32
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Mohanpada
43/2
00
00
84
43/3
00
17
45
44
00
11
09
45/1/K
00
18
61
46/1
00
10
23
48/1/A
00
00
57
48/2
00
22
03
50/1
00
15
67
50/2
00
15
51
50/3
00
09
48
51/1
00
16
37
Karanji Budruk
121/1
00
21
80
121/3
00
14
42
121/4
00
09
23
122/1
00
36
54
127/1
00
05
62
127/2/B
00
05
35
127/2/D
00
14
31
127/3
00
08
99
126/1
00
08
30
126/2
00
07
22
126/3
00
07
17
126/4
00
07
45
126/5
00
09
85
9/1/A
00
18
57
8/1
00
01
68
8/2
00
22
24
13/1/K
00
18
54
13/1/B
00
01
04
13/3
00
04
10
14/1
00
24
46
14/2
00
20
48
7
00
00
68
15
00
00
21
6/1
00
03
21
5
00
02
63
4/2
00
19
24
23/1/A
00
16
23
23/1/B
00
00
37
23/2
00
15
09
33/1/B
00
13
61
32/1
00
09
48
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
33
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Karanji Budruk
32/2
00
23
62
35
00
17
56
36 Paiki
00
18
01
52/3
00
01
97
53
00
47
35
54/1
00
03
82
54/2
00
10
51
54/3/A
00
09
83
54/3/B
00
00
22
55/4
00
03
48
55/5
00
10
49
56
00
09
21
59/1/B/1
00
00
11
59/1/K
00
19
61
59/2/B
00
08
63
59/1/B/2
00
06
16
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ
का.आ. . . . 13
13
13
13.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ' स (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 ( 1962-50) ( िजसे इसमD इसके पnात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन
जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेjोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंHालय क अिधसूचना िजसका काशन भारत के राजपH
सं>या 15 दनाक 15-21 अैल 2018 का.आ. 607 दनाक 10.04.2018 भाग II खंड 3 उपखंड (II) मD कया गया है! इस
अिधसूचना से सलंq अनुसूची मे िविनद_ महाराr राsय क तहसील- नगर, िजला अहमदनगर क भूिम मे महाराr राsय मे
कोयली (गुजरात) से अहमदनगर एव सोलापुर तक पेjोिलयम प+रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा
Gयाि'वत कए जा रहे “कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर प+रयोजना” के स ब'ध मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए
उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी :
और उ राजपH अिधसूचनाओ क ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 12 िसत बर 2018 को उपलgध करा दी गई थी।
और उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण मे स[म ािधकारी ने के'(ीय सरकार को अपनी +रपोट- दे
दी है।
और के'(ीय सरकार ने उ +रपोट- पर िवचार करने के पnात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ भूिम पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के िलए अपेिछत है, उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न करने का िविनnय कया है:
अत: अब, के'(ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) ारा पदत शिय का योग करते %ए, एतद्
ारा घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से सलq अनुसूची मे िविबद_ भूिम मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार
अQजत कया जाए:
और क'(ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) ारा पदत शिय का योग करते %ए, यह िनदyश देती
है क उ भूिम मे उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से के'(ीय सरकार मे िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी
िवगमो से मु होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड मे िनिहत होगा।
पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी [ितपूQत के िलए इंिडयन
ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड पूण-तया उतरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सबिधत कसी भी मामले पर क'(ीय सरकार के
िवzद कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय-वाही नह< हो सकेगी।
34
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तालुका
तालुका
तालुका
तालुका : नगर
नगर
नगर
नगर
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला : : : : अहमदनगर
अहमदनगर
अहमदनगर
अहमदनगर
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य : : : : महारा-
महारा-
महारा-
महारा-
गांव का नाम
गांव का नाम
गांव का नाम
गांव का नाम
सव न.
सव न.
सव न.
सव न.\/लॉक
/लॉक
/लॉक
/लॉक न.
न.
न.
न.
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हेहेहेहे3 टे
3 टे
3 टे
3 टेयर
यर
यर
यर
आर
आर
आर
आर
वग5 मीटर
वग5 मीटर
वग5 मीटर
वग5 मीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
अकोलनेर
358
00
03
59
359
00
34
99
360
00
05
14
340
00
44
77
339
00
34
30
338
00
14
60
300
00
51
48
302
00
13
83
303
00
13
52
334
00
09
53
333
00
04
51
332
00
07
94
330
00
03
57
328
00
11
85
327
00
15
47
326
00
07
29
325
00
09
21
324
00
16
27
323
00
09
09
322
00
09
35
320
00
21
09
318
00
23
76
317
00
14
58
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
35
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
अकोलनेर
316
00
30
62
311
00
20
35
खंडाला
237
00
60
40
244
00
11
70
246
00
36
56
250
00
34
53
251
00
07
48
253
00
13
07
262
00
17
41
263
00
12
61
264
00
26
77
219
00
04
62
218
00
21
74
217
00
03
80
216
00
07
48
214
00
05
65
213
00
07
79
198
00
12
00
196
00
04
02
199
00
03
89
191
00
02
82
190
00
10
65
112
00
05
26
113
00
02
12
114
00
01
91
115
00
03
32
116
00
03
90
110
00
22
07
109
00
06
11
36
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
खंडाला
109p
00
04
60
108
00
04
99
106
00
02
07
105p
00
06
10
123
00
11
00
128
00
61
52
134
00
14
30
133
00
31
47
139
00
09
16
140
00
20
68
141
00
19
94
142
00
12
61
143
00
10
24
130
00
25
21
146
00
41
02
बाबुड| घुमट
266
00
00
90
267
00
10
27
261
00
17
31
262
00
16
89
263
00
15
30
264
00
38
20
260
00
50
57
251
00
10
19
252
00
09
22
253
00
07
50
254
00
08
64
255
00
06
27
247
00
40
97
220
00
05
99
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
37
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
वालक
1265/1
00
52
82
1265/2
00
24
55
1266
00
10
29
1267
00
05
99
1268
00
04
75
1269
00
05
71
1270
00
27
61
1284
00
10
35
1283
00
60
33
1282
00
38
70
1280
00
01
03
1281
00
47
53
1297
00
29
16
1298
00
46
19
02
00
02
56
23
00
39
26
22
00
34
48
21
00
34
05
20/3
00
33
38
43
00
28
66
59
00
06
12
60
00
02
39
62
00
01
92
63
00
09
55
64/2
00
34
76
69
00
11
51
64/3
00
01
20
70
00
15
74
296
00
21
30
38
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
वालक
285
00
06
32
284
00
00
21
288
00
10
69
282
00
06
95
272
00
05
11
271
00
06
15
268
00
03
53
263
00
02
39
265
00
08
72
253
00
01
08
254
00
09
92
256
00
01
06
233
00
02
58
244
00
02
17
230
00
05
09
229
00
01
52
239
00
02
19
231
00
02
79
232
00
02
22
233
00
02
63
222
00
04
79
221
00
03
36
220
00
04
18
216
00
08
96
211
00
02
41
210
00
32
88
209
00
03
97
200
00
10
24
199
00
05
31
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
39
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
वालक
198
00
13
24
193
00
38
10
330
00
57
45
331
00
35
10
353
00
44
77
352
00
38
36
458
00
37
23
457
00
36
31
456
00
25
77
485
00
15
93
486
00
17
46
492
00
06
77
493
00
20
37
504
00
26
93
503
00
32
91
502
00
05
00
495
00
07
51
501
00
15
35
496
00
17
77
497
00
09
05
480
00
13
52
479
00
40
59
478
00
39
80
476
00
78
85
साकत खुद-
95
00
23
19
तांदली वडगांव
109
00
76
15
110
00
32
97
107
00
56
31
40
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
तांदली वडगांव
82
00
11
61
83
00
49
94
85
00
16
53
77
00
20
77
76
00
08
60
73
00
39
06
71
00
43
02
69
00
11
63
68
00
18
37
67
00
16
21
66
00
15
88
वाटेफल
155
00
49
55
132/B
00
51
61
287
00
00
35
132/C
00
51
99
131
00
12
04
130
00
07
47
129
00
05
63
122
00
11
30
124
00
32
90
114
00
07
97
117
00
04
01
118
00
03
79
90
00
17
28
87
00
24
49
84
00
12
07
82
00
12
64
77
00
23
75
76
00
12
97
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
41
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
वाटेफल
75
00
13
34
70
00
11
73
69
00
10
34
68
00
10
78
67
00
11
76
62
00
15
65
60
00
22
67
59
00
31
71
58
00
34
66
57
00
26
92
07
00
12
77
08
00
07
06
09
00
08
68
10
00
04
28
11
00
03
60
12
00
03
38
14
00
03
93
15
00
02
39
16
00
03
86
17
00
07
12
18
00
05
68
19
00
04
54
20
00
07
99
21
00
04
23
24
00
02
17
25
00
05
26
26
00
02
74
27
00
02
60
28
00
04
20
42
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
वाटेफल
30
00
12
26
31
00
09
13
32
00
02
92
35
00
07
71
36
00
03
75
38
00
07
72
39
00
11
87
40
00
39
25
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I /ई-23678]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 13.—Whereas by the notification of The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, Published in the Gazette No. 15 date 15-21 April 2018 S.O No. 607 date 10.04.2018 Part-II,Section-3,Sub-
Section (ii) 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 Tehsil Nagar, District Ahmednagar in Maharashtra
State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation
of petroleum from Koyali in the State Gujrat to Solapur in the Maharashtra by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
for implementing the ‘’Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline Project’’.
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 12 September
2018.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted
his report 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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free
from all encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Taluka : Nagar
District : Ahmednagar
State : Maharashtra
Name of Village
Survey No./ Block
No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Akolner
358
00
03
59
359
00
34
99
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
43
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Akolner
360
00
05
14
340
00
44
77
339
00
34
30
338
00
14
60
300
00
51
48
302
00
13
83
303
00
13
52
334
00
09
53
333
00
04
51
332
00
07
94
330
00
03
57
328
00
11
85
327
00
15
47
326
00
07
29
325
00
09
21
324
00
16
27
323
00
09
09
322
00
09
35
320
00
21
09
318
00
23
76
317
00
14
58
316
00
30
62
311
00
20
35
Khandala
237
00
60
40
244
00
11
70
246
00
36
56
250
00
34
53
251
00
07
48
253
00
13
07
262
00
17
41
263
00
12
61
264
00
26
77
219
00
04
62
218
00
21
74
217
00
03
80
216
00
07
48
214
00
05
65
213
00
07
79
198
00
12
00
196
00
04
02
199
00
03
89
44
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Khandala
191
00
02
82
190
00
10
65
112
00
05
26
113
00
02
12
114
00
01
91
115
00
03
32
116
00
03
90
110
00
22
07
109
00
06
11
109p
00
04
60
108
00
04
99
106
00
02
07
105p
00
06
10
123
00
11
00
128
00
61
52
134
00
14
30
133
00
31
47
139
00
09
16
140
00
20
68
141
00
19
94
142
00
12
61
143
00
10
24
130
00
25
21
146
00
41
02
Baburdi Ghumat
266
00
00
90
267
00
10
27
261
00
17
31
262
00
16
89
263
00
15
30
264
00
38
20
260
00
50
57
251
00
10
19
252
00
09
22
253
00
07
50
254
00
08
64
255
00
06
27
247
00
40
97
220
00
05
99
Walki
1265/1
00
52
82
1265/2
00
24
55
1266
00
10
29
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
45
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Walki
1267
00
05
99
1268
00
04
75
1269
00
05
71
1270
00
27
61
1284
00
10
35
1283
00
60
33
1282
00
38
70
1280
00
01
03
1281
00
47
53
1297
00
29
16
1298
00
46
19
02
00
02
56
23
00
39
26
22
00
34
48
21
00
34
05
20/3
00
33
38
43
00
28
66
59
00
06
12
60
00
02
39
62
00
01
92
63
00
09
55
64/2
00
34
76
69
00
11
51
64/3
00
01
20
70
00
15
74
296
00
21
30
285
00
06
32
284
00
00
21
288
00
10
69
282
00
06
95
272
00
05
11
271
00
06
15
268
00
03
53
263
00
02
39
265
00
08
72
253
00
01
08
254
00
09
92
256
00
01
06
233
00
02
58
244
00
02
17
230
00
05
09
46
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Walki
229
00
01
52
239
00
02
19
231
00
02
79
232
00
02
22
233
00
02
63
222
00
04
79
221
00
03
36
220
00
04
18
216
00
08
96
211
00
02
41
210
00
32
88
209
00
03
97
200
00
10
24
199
00
05
31
198
00
13
24
193
00
38
10
330
00
57
45
331
00
35
10
353
00
44
77
352
00
38
36
458
00
37
23
457
00
36
31
456
00
25
77
485
00
15
93
486
00
17
46
492
00
06
77
493
00
20
37
504
00
26
93
503
00
32
91
502
00
05
00
495
00
07
51
501
00
15
35
496
00
17
77
497
00
09
05
480
00
13
52
479
00
40
59
478
00
39
80
476
00
78
85
Sakat Khurd
95
00
23
19
Tandali Wadgaon
109
00
76
15
110
00
32
97
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
47
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Tandali Wadgaon
107
00
56
31
82
00
11
61
83
00
49
94
85
00
16
53
77
00
20
77
76
00
08
60
73
00
39
06
71
00
43
02
69
00
11
63
68
00
18
37
67
00
16
21
66
00
15
88
Watephal
155
00
49
55
132/B
00
51
61
287
00
00
35
132/C
00
51
99
131
00
12
04
130
00
07
47
129
00
05
63
122
00
11
30
124
00
32
90
114
00
07
97
117
00
04
01
118
00
03
79
90
00
17
28
87
00
24
49
84
00
12
07
82
00
12
64
77
00
23
75
76
00
12
97
75
00
13
34
70
00
11
73
69
00
10
34
68
00
10
78
67
00
11
76
62
00
15
65
60
00
22
67
59
00
31
71
58
00
34
66
57
00
26
92
07
00
12
77
48
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Watephal
08
00
07
06
09
00
08
68
10
00
04
28
11
00
03
60
12
00
03
38
14
00
03
93
15
00
02
39
16
00
03
86
17
00
07
12
18
00
05
68
19
00
04
54
20
00
07
99
21
00
04
23
24
00
02
17
25
00
05
26
26
00
02
74
27
00
02
60
28
00
04
20
30
00
12
26
31
00
09
13
32
00
02
92
35
00
07
71
36
00
03
75
38
00
07
72
39
00
11
87
40
00
39
25
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. . . . 14
14
14
14.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न)
अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसमD इसके पnात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के
अधीन जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेjोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंHालय क अिधसूचना का.आ. 372 तारीख
16.12.2017 िजसका काशन भारत के राजपH सं>या 9, भाग II, ख6ड 3, उप ख6ड (II) तारीख 25.02.2018 से
30.03.2018 मD कया गया है। इस अिधसूचना मD संलq अनुसूची मD िविन`द_ आं} देश राsय के िजला िवशाखापटनम के
मंडल : सgबावरम, अनकापिल, मुनगापाका, अkयुतापुरम, रामिबिल, यलामंिचिल, एस. रायवरम, न~ापिल, और
पायाकरावुपेटा क भूिम मD, ओडीशा राsय मD पारादीप से तेलंगाना राsय मD हैदराबाद तक पेjोिलयम उIपाद के प+रवहन के
िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपyरेशन िलिमटेड के ारा Gयाि'वत कए जा रहे “पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना” के
संबंध मD पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी:
और उ राजपH अिधसूचना क ितयाँ जनता को उपलgध करा दी गई थ<।और उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1)
के अनुसरण मD स[म ािधकारी नD के'(ीय सरकार को अपनी +रपोट- दे दी है।
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
49
और के'(ीय सरकार ने उ +रपोट- पर िवचार करने के पnात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ भूिम पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के िलए अपेि[त है, उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न करने का िविनiचय कया है:
अतः अब, के'(ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए एतद् ारा
घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलq अनुसूिच मD िविन`द_ भूिम मD पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार
अQजत कया जाए:
और के'(ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए, यह िनदyश देती है
क उ भूिम मD उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से के'(ीय सरकार मD िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी
िबलंगम से मु होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपyरेशन िलिमटेड मD िनिहत होगा।
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
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
वगमीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
सबावारम
नारपाडू
226
00
90
45
अनकापि ल
तुमपाला
704
00
33
32
13
00
18
11
705
00
16
87
15
00
28
18
`
17
00
13
19
47
00
37
50
मुनगापाका
नागावरम
143
00
39
64
203
00
61
19
202
00
39
11
199
00
38
99
198
00
26
04
196
00
04
61
197
00
31
03
191
00
16
94
190
00
25
37
187
00
18
95
185
00
22
36
183
00
03
82
184
00
05
51
311
00
01
71
302
00
31
63
310
00
03
68
303
00
24
85
304
00
26
89
305
00
14
29
342
00
23
73
341
00
24
06
340
00
26
13
339
00
35
44
50
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
मुनगापाका
नागावरम
347
00
13
7
358
00
13
43
357
00
03
33
354
00
11
53
352
00
06
21
351
00
25
87
अयुतापुरम
मडुतु
477
00
13
76
469
00
00
04
468
00
61
83
460
00
15
30
462
00
14
44
463
00
13
98
464
00
24
54
456
00
01
64
457
00
29
86
424
00
26
30
293
00
12
47
294
00
01
46
296
00
14
87
288
00
18
47
303
00
62
70
305
00
04
11
306
00
00
13
308
00
38
37
309
00
00
01
310
00
23
50
103
00
13
93
104
00
41
12
105
00
08
75
106
00
00
78
102
00
01
99
96
00
07
27
100
00
25
06
62
00
01
04
66
00
24
27
75
00
16
68
74
00
13
70
76
00
08
38
77
00
20
40
78
00
47
80
377
00
21
73
रामिबि ल
दिमिल
265
00
25
84
रामिबि ल
राजाला
28
00
31
34
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
51
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
रामिबि ल
िवजयारामपुरम अहारम
27
00
68
21
26
00
05
28
24
00
06
48
31
00
04
43
25
00
18
14
23
00
04
34
21
00
06
87
19
00
24
39
14
00
23
42
17
00
02
74
16
00
01
13
यलामंिचिल
ृणापुरम
200
00
16
03
यलामंिचिल
पदमानाबाराजुपेटा
144/1E
00
31
35
144/1E-6A
00
31
35
144/1E-6B
00
31
35
एस.रायवरम
पेटासूदपुरम
50-4
00
0
27
322
00
07
42
338
00
26
24
न#ापि ल
गुि लपाडु
100
00
21
25
103
00
21
59
105
00
08
66
107
00
37
34
पायाकरावुपेटा
अरटलाकोटा
143
00
13
64
143/A-1
00
13
64
143/A-2
00
13
64
पायाकरावुपेटा
प टे%
34
00
02
75
33
00
27
90
32
00
37
58
3
00
01
37
4
00
16
7
5
00
04
97
6
00
15
19
7
00
27
51
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 14.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, published in the Gazette of India No.9 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 25.02.2018 to 03.03.2018 vide
S.O. Number 372 dated 16.12.2017 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, Achutapuram, Rambilli, Yelamanchilli, 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".
52
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT:VISAKHAPATNAM
STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH
MANDAL
VILLAGE
SURVEY No.
AREA
Hectare
Are
Sq. Mt.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
SABBAVARAM
NAARAPADU
226
00
90
45
ANAKAPALLI
TUMMAPALA
704
00
33
32
13
00
18
11
705
00
16
87
15
00
28
18
`
17
00
13
19
47
00
37
50
MUNAGAPAKA
NAGAVARAM
143
00
39
64
203
00
61
19
202
00
39
11
199
00
38
99
198
00
26
04
196
00
04
61
197
00
31
03
191
00
16
94
190
00
25
37
187
00
18
95
185
00
22
36
183
00
03
82
184
00
05
51
311
00
01
71
302
00
31
63
310
00
03
68
303
00
24
85
304
00
26
89
305
00
14
29
342
00
23
73
341
00
24
06
340
00
26
13
339
00
35
44
347
00
13
7
358
00
13
43
357
00
03
33
354
00
11
53
352
00
06
21
351
00
25
87
ACHUTAPURAM
MADUTURU
477
00
13
76
469
00
00
04
468
00
61
83
460
00
15
30
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
53
ACHUTAPURAM
MADUTURU
462
00
14
44
463
00
13
98
464
00
24
54
456
00
01
64
457
00
29
86
424
00
26
30
293
00
12
47
294
00
01
46
296
00
14
87
288
00
18
47
303
00
62
70
305
00
04
11
306
00
00
13
308
00
38
37
309
00
00
01
310
00
23
50
103
00
13
93
104
00
41
12
105
00
08
75
106
00
00
78
102
00
01
99
96
00
07
27
100
00
25
06
62
00
01
04
66
00
24
27
75
00
16
68
74
00
13
70
76
00
08
38
77
00
20
40
78
00
47
80
377
00
21
73
RAMBILLI
DIMILI
265
00
25
84
RAMBILLI
RAJALA
28
00
31
34
RAMBILLI
VIJAYARAMPURAM
AGRAHARAM
27
00
68
21
26
00
05
28
24
00
06
48
31
00
04
43
25
00
18
14
23
00
04
34
21
00
06
87
19
00
24
39
14
00
23
42
17
00
02
74
16
00
01
13
YELAMANCHILLI
KRISHNAPURAM
200
00
16
03
YELAMANCHILLI
PADMANABHARAJUPETA
144/1E
00
31
35
144/1E-6A
00
31
35
144/1E-6B
00
31
35
S.RAYAVARAM
PETASUDIPURAM
50-4
00
0
27
322
00
07
42
338
00
26
24
NAKKAPALLI
GULLIPADU
100
00
21
25
103
00
21
59
NAKKAPALLI
GULLIPADU
105
00
08
66
107
00
37
34
PAYAKARAOPETA
ARATLAKOTA
143
00
13
64
54
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
PAYAKARAOPETA
ARATLAKOTA
143/A-1
00
13
64
143/A-2
00
13
64
PAYAKARAOPETA
PALTERU
34
00
02
75
33
00
27
90
32
00
37
58
3
00
01
37
4
00
16
7
5
00
04
97
6
00
15
19
7
00
27
51
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. . . . 15
15
15
15.—के'(ीय सरकार को लोकिहत मD यह आवCयक तीत होता है क उर देश राsय मD टू6डला टQमनल
से कानपुर टQमनल तक पेjोिलयम उIपाद के प+रवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई
जानी चािहए।
और के'(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये यह आवCयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम मD
जो इस से उपाब अनुसूची मे वQणत है, और िजसमD उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का Aताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज-न कया जाए ।
अतः अब, के'(ीय सरकार, पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न) अिधिनयम,
1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए उस भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज-न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ।
कोई cि, जो उ अनुसूची मD वQणत भूिम मD िहतब है , उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मD यु भारत
के राजपH क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलgध करा दी जाती ह, इ~स दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार के संबंध मD स[म ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइ'स
भाग, िनमा-ण काया-लय, उरी [ेH पाइपलाइ'स, टू6डला - गौ+रया पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना,ई-160, थम व ितीय तल,
कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को िलिखत \प मD आ[ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तअसील
तअसील
तअसील
तअसील Ð रसुलाबाद
रसुलाबाद
रसुलाबाद
रसुलाबाद
जला
जला
जला
जला Ð कानपुर
कानपुर
कानपुर
कानपुर देहात
देहात
देहात
देहात
राय
राय
राय
राय Ð उर
उर
उर
उर ूदेश
ूदेश
ूदेश
ूदेश
म
संसंसंसं.
गांव
गांव
गांव
गांव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
ख़सरा
ख़सरा
ख़सरा
ख़सरा संसंसंसं.
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वग
वग
वग
वग मीटर
मीटर
मीटर
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
1.
1.
1.
नार
नार
नार
नार खुद5
खुद5
खुद5
खुद5
460
00
14
26
465
00
05
21
457
00
06
52
456
00
01
01
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
नार
नार
नार
नार खुद5
खुद5
खुद5
खुद5
459
00
00
17
436
00
13
90
435
00
18
81
434
00
04
58
433
00
00
10
420
00
14
16
304
00
00
25
311
00
05
80
419
00
15
59
312
00
08
02
418
00
06
47
315
00
01
84
317
00
27
00
316
00
00
10
318
00
13
47
325
00
02
66
324
00
10
32
323
00
05
69
340
00
18
59
337
00
06
54
339
00
16
33
346
00
00
36
347
00
10
20
348
00
18
16
392
00
15
13
393
00
16
10
394
00
00
10
877
00
00
39
878
00
00
87
56
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
नार
नार
नार
नार खुद5
खुद5
खुद5
खुद5
879
00
14
59
880
00
08
37
881
00
08
36
882
00
03
40
892
00
12
66
897
00
15
02
921
00
02
41
1386
00
01
07
1387
00
16
20
1389
00
15
78
1392
00
08
17
1450
00
14
44
1469
00
10
52
1477
00
07
26
1478
00
11
50
1482
00
06
93
1483
00
16
50
1485
00
00
65
1519
00
07
89
1520
00
15
45
1522
00
21
50
1523
00
08
24
2.
2.
2.
2.
नार
नार
नार
नार खास
खास
खास
खास
234
00
06
80
235
00
06
91
236
00
08
46
231
00
12
90
237
00
19
36
240
00
19
13
250
00
21
49
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
नार
नार
नार
नार खास
खास
खास
खास
247
00
33
21
246
00
00
10
257
00
30
07
258
00
00
10
259
00
00
37
260
00
10
08
199
00
21
03
266
00
00
36
267
00
00
10
268
00
14
99
269
00
07
56
271
00
07
28
272
00
00
10
273
00
17
17
189
00
03
09
188
00
26
92
3.
3.
3.
3.
भवनपु
भवनपु
भवनपु
भवनपुर
440
00
22
52
434
00
09
20
432
00
04
58
431
00
02
49
430
00
12
67
429
00
04
55
428
00
08
53
419
00
08
36
418
00
12
55
417
00
12
99
415
00
25
08
414
00
03
69
413
00
03
44
58
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
भवनपुर
भवनपुर
भवनपुर
भवनपुर
412
00
10
67
276
00
00
37
411
00
07
11
410
00
18
11
409
00
00
10
281
00
10
11
366
00
05
15
397
00
10
00
396
00
10
40
395
00
06
22
386
00
07
01
384
00
15
02
381
00
14
51
376
00
16
21
335
00
10
09
332
00
05
49
331
00
09
64
330
00
09
70
327
00
04
83
326
00
01
02
325
00
09
67
324
00
01
44
4.
4.
4.
4.
मनक8
मनक8
मनक8
मनक8
48
00
02
34
59
00
00
64
49
00
00
36
58
00
28
72
71
00
01
31
238
00
17
40
239
00
21
52
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
मनक8
मनक8
मनक8
मनक8
240
00
14
65
242
00
09
35
246
00
06
03
247
00
01
83
248
00
00
34
251
00
04
74
255
00
00
44
254
00
11
65
253
00
01
79
5.
5.
5.
5.
सलेमपुर
सलेमपुर
सलेमपुर
सलेमपुर महेरा
महेरा
महेरा
महेरा
1056
00
05
57
1061
00
07
04
1060
00
02
85
1059
00
09
71
1065
00
06
37
1066
00
03
20
746
00
01
91
6.
6.
6.
6.
क ठका
क ठका
क ठका
क ठका
98
00
03
35
93
00
10
90
92
00
01
54
94
00
07
10
91
00
04
67
95
00
10
40
97
00
07
28
127
00
15
18
99
00
01
63
107
00
15
57
108
00
16
33
7.
7.
7.
7.
मलगांव
मलगांव
मलगांव
मलगांव
72
00
24
09
73
00
00
99
60
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
मलगांव
मलगांव
मलगांव
मलगांव
74
00
11
14
76
00
10
51
75
00
00
26
78
00
00
73
79
00
17
92
34
00
00
45
33
00
10
98
230
00
07
31
227
00
20
05
150
00
15
23
141
00
34
91
143
00
00
10
139
00
12
97
138
00
00
10
137
00
05
39
135
00
02
68
136
00
03
42
373
00
08
68
372
00
07
46
375
00
00
10
376
00
00
52
377
00
00
24
380
00
01
43
371
00
06
41
381
00
31
50
392
00
17
59
652
00
00
95
703
00
01
73
702
00
02
32
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
मलगांव
मलगांव
मलगांव
मलगांव
701
00
08
35
700
00
16
46
695
00
06
98
694
00
00
20
693
00
23
33
881
00
17
77
879
00
00
25
880
00
00
10
871
00
11
15
872
00
00
10
870
00
02
48
867
00
17
76
858
00
10
12
1265
00
06
33
1264
00
01
02
1277
00
09
53
1276
00
21
92
8.
8.
8.
8.
केशीपुर
केशीपुर
केशीपुर
केशीपुर
88
00
17
47
89
00
06
16
90
00
05
12
93
00
22
66
91
00
04
54
92
00
01
35
94
00
17
14
95
00
04
59
100
00
00
34
101
00
02
23
102
00
08
51
152
00
38
43
62
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
केशीपुर
केशीपुर
केशीपुर
केशीपुर
157
00
51
12
85/175
00
21
27
9.
9.
9.
9.
गाऊपुर
गाऊपुर
गाऊपुर
गाऊपुर
155
00
12
46
156
00
17
86
157
00
04
02
158
00
04
06
186
00
01
45
142
00
12
09
188
00
16
14
193
00
06
95
194
00
24
45
192
00
02
97
195
00
01
93
197
00
00
56
198
00
00
48
644
00
13
50
643
00
14
34
652
00
19
02
653
00
00
72
642
00
10
38
595
00
08
83
554
00
11
10
551
00
01
60
550
00
06
83
546
00
13
41
521
00
01
18
565
00
02
52
567
00
08
36
519
00
04
05
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
गाऊपुर
गाऊपुर
गाऊपुर
गाऊपुर
518
00
08
18
517
00
08
03
515
00
06
03
514
00
16
02
466
00
01
69
513
00
27
47
474
00
00
69
470
00
00
10
501
00
09
11
500
00
08
68
499
00
21
57
498
00
13
51
497
00
00
72
496
00
11
57
476
00
00
54
495
00
04
94
494
00
08
83
491
00
03
78
489
00
03
71
10.
10.
10.
10.
देवरा
देवरा
देवरा
देवरा
169
00
20
91
170
00
14
63
178
00
16
75
180
00
16
10
185
00
06
88
183
00
00
10
186
00
14
57
184
00
00
10
187
00
08
99
11.
11.
11.
11.
मुलही
मुलही
मुलही
मुलही
202
00
00
26
64
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
मुलही
मुलही
मुलही
मुलही
203
00
01
06
204
00
06
24
207
00
00
10
205
00
20
05
206
00
10
75
217
00
10
50
218
00
05
38
31
00
01
07
32
00
03
98
33
00
05
21
34
00
05
96
35
00
24
88
58
00
05
55
59
00
06
39
60
00
05
97
61
00
06
94
62
00
06
56
63
00
03
92
64
00
19
93
68
00
02
08
65
00
16
00
76
00
09
04
75
00
07
18
77
00
05
93
81
00
02
83
82
00
06
39
83
00
11
24
84
00
11
51
97
00
24
62
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
मुलही
मुलही
मुलही
मुलही
98
00
14
13
125
00
16
34
124
00
04
43
128
00
22
69
136
00
00
15
137
00
23
75
152
00
20
03
153
00
12
22
159
00
22
51
166
00
06
43
169
00
05
36
176
00
19
38
177
00
07
31
175
00
13
26
178
00
12
04
181
00
12
63
183
00
00
10
12.
12.
12.
12.
सु:दरपुर
सु:दरपुर
सु:दरपुर
सु:दरपुर गजेन
गजेन
गजेन
गजेन
594
00
12
05
595
00
12
00
596
00
01
46
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 15.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by 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 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 interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the
copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing
to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil
Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline
Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
66
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Rasulabad
District:- Kanpur Dehat
State :- Uttar Pradesh
Sl.
No.
Name of the Village
Khasara No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
Nar Khurd
460
00
14
26
465
00
05
21
457
00
06
52
456
00
01
01
459
00
00
17
436
00
13
90
435
00
18
81
434
00
04
58
433
00
00
10
420
00
14
16
304
00
00
25
311
00
05
80
419
00
15
59
312
00
08
02
418
00
06
47
315
00
01
84
317
00
27
00
316
00
00
10
318
00
13
47
325
00
02
66
324
00
10
32
323
00
05
69
340
00
18
59
337
00
06
54
339
00
16
33
346
00
00
36
347
00
10
20
348
00
18
16
392
00
15
13
393
00
16
10
394
00
00
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
67
Nar Khurd
877
00
00
39
878
00
00
87
879
00
14
59
880
00
08
37
881
00
08
36
882
00
03
40
892
00
12
66
897
00
15
02
921
00
02
41
1386
00
01
07
1387
00
16
20
1389
00
15
78
1392
00
08
17
1450
00
14
44
1469
00
10
52
1477
00
07
26
1478
00
11
50
1482
00
06
93
1483
00
16
50
1485
00
00
65
1519
00
07
89
1520
00
15
45
1522
00
21
50
1523
00
08
24
2.
Nar Khas
234
00
06
80
235
00
06
91
236
00
08
46
231
00
12
90
237
00
19
36
240
00
19
13
250
00
21
49
247
00
33
21
246
00
00
10
257
00
30
07
258
00
00
10
68
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Nar Khas
259
00
00
37
260
00
10
08
199
00
21
03
266
00
00
36
267
00
00
10
268
00
14
99
269
00
07
56
271
00
07
28
272
00
00
10
273
00
17
17
189
00
03
09
188
00
26
92
3.
Bhavanpur
440
00
22
52
434
00
09
20
432
00
04
58
431
00
02
49
430
00
12
67
429
00
04
55
428
00
08
53
419
00
08
36
418
00
12
55
417
00
12
99
415
00
25
08
414
00
03
69
413
00
03
44
412
00
10
67
276
00
00
37
411
00
07
11
410
00
18
11
409
00
00
10
281
00
10
11
366
00
05
15
397
00
10
00
396
00
10
40
395
00
06
22
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
69
Bhavanpur
386
00
07
01
384
00
15
02
381
00
14
51
376
00
16
21
335
00
10
09
332
00
05
49
331
00
09
64
330
00
09
70
327
00
04
83
326
00
01
02
325
00
09
67
324
00
01
44
4.
Manki
48
00
02
34
59
00
00
64
49
00
00
36
58
00
28
72
71
00
01
31
238
00
17
40
239
00
21
52
240
00
14
65
242
00
09
35
246
00
06
03
247
00
01
83
248
00
00
34
251
00
04
74
255
00
00
44
254
00
11
65
253
00
01
79
5.
Salempur Mahera
1056
00
05
57
1061
00
07
04
1060
00
02
85
1059
00
09
71
1065
00
06
37
1066
00
03
20
746
00
01
91
70
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
Kathika
98
00
03
35
93
00
10
90
92
00
01
54
94
00
07
10
91
00
04
67
95
00
10
40
97
00
07
28
127
00
15
18
99
00
01
63
107
00
15
57
108
00
16
33
7.
Malgaon
72
00
24
09
73
00
00
99
74
00
11
14
76
00
10
51
75
00
00
26
78
00
00
73
79
00
17
92
34
00
00
45
33
00
10
98
230
00
07
31
227
00
20
05
150
00
15
23
141
00
34
91
143
00
00
10
139
00
12
97
138
00
00
10
137
00
05
39
135
00
02
68
136
00
03
42
373
00
08
68
372
00
07
46
375
00
00
10
376
00
00
52
377
00
00
24
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
71
Malgaon
380
00
01
43
371
00
06
41
381
00
31
50
392
00
17
59
652
00
00
95
703
00
01
73
702
00
02
32
701
00
08
35
700
00
16
46
695
00
06
98
694
00
00
20
693
00
23
33
881
00
17
77
879
00
00
25
880
00
00
10
871
00
11
15
872
00
00
10
870
00
02
48
867
00
17
76
858
00
10
12
1265
00
06
33
1264
00
01
02
1277
00
09
53
1276
00
21
92
8.
Keshipur
88
00
17
47
89
00
06
16
90
00
05
12
93
00
22
66
91
00
04
54
92
00
01
35
94
00
17
14
95
00
04
59
100
00
00
34
101
00
02
23
102
00
08
51
72
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Keshipur
152
00
38
43
157
00
51
12
85/175
00
21
27
9.
Gaupur
155
00
12
46
156
00
17
86
157
00
04
02
158
00
04
06
186
00
01
45
142
00
12
09
188
00
16
14
193
00
06
95
194
00
24
45
192
00
02
97
195
00
01
93
197
00
00
56
198
00
00
48
644
00
13
50
643
00
14
34
652
00
19
02
653
00
00
72
642
00
10
38
595
00
08
83
554
00
11
10
551
00
01
60
550
00
06
83
546
00
13
41
521
00
01
18
565
00
02
52
567
00
08
36
519
00
04
05
518
00
08
18
517
00
08
03
515
00
06
03
514
00
16
02
466
00
01
69
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
73
Gaupur
513
00
27
47
474
00
00
69
470
00
00
10
501
00
09
11
500
00
08
68
499
00
21
57
498
00
13
51
497
00
00
72
496
00
11
57
476
00
00
54
495
00
04
94
494
00
08
83
491
00
03
78
489
00
03
71
10.
Devra
169
00
20
91
170
00
14
63
178
00
16
75
180
00
16
10
185
00
06
88
183
00
00
10
186
00
14
57
184
00
00
10
187
00
08
99
11.
Mulhi
202
00
00
26
203
00
01
06
204
00
06
24
207
00
00
10
205
00
20
05
206
00
10
75
217
00
10
50
218
00
05
38
31
00
01
07
32
00
03
98
33
00
05
21
34
00
05
96
74
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mulhi
35
00
24
88
58
00
05
55
59
00
06
39
60
00
05
97
61
00
06
94
62
00
06
56
63
00
03
92
64
00
19
93
68
00
02
08
65
00
16
00
76
00
09
04
75
00
07
18
77
00
05
93
81
00
02
83
82
00
06
39
83
00
11
24
84
00
11
51
97
00
24
62
98
00
14
13
125
00
16
34
124
00
04
43
128
00
22
69
136
00
00
15
137
00
23
75
152
00
20
03
153
00
12
22
159
00
22
51
166
00
06
43
169
00
05
36
176
00
19
38
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
75
Mulhi
177
00
07
31
175
00
13
26
178
00
12
04
181
00
12
63
183
00
00
10
12.
Sundarpur Gajen
594
00
12
05
595
00
12
00
596
00
01
46
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018-OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 16
16
16
16.—के'(ीय सरकार को लोकिहत मD यह आवCयक तीत होता है क उर देश राsय मD टू6डला टQमनल
से कानपुर टQमनल तक पेjोिलयम उIपाद के प+रवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई
जानी चािहए।
और के'(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये यह आवCयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम मD
जो इस से उपाब अनुसूची मD वQणत है, और िजसमD उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का Aताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज-न कया जाए ।
अतः अब, के'(ीय सरकार, पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न) अिधिनयम,
1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शियो का योग करते %ए उस भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज-न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ।
कोई cि, जो उ अनुसूची मD वQणत भूिम मD िहतब है , उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मD यु भारत
के राजपH क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलgध करा दी जाती है, इ~स दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार के संबंध मD स[म ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइ'स
भाग, िनमा-ण काया-लय, उरी [ेH पाइपलाइ'स, टू6डला - गौ+रया पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना,ई-160, थम व ितीय तल,
कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को िलिखत \प मD आ[ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तहसी
हसी
हसी
हसील – डेरापुर
डेरापुर
डेरापुर
डेरापुर
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला – कानपुर
कानपुर
कानपुर
कानपुर देहात
देहात
देहात
देहात
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य – उर
उर
उर
उर &देश
&देश
&देश
&देश
<म
<म
<म
<म संसंसंसं.
गांव
गांव
गांव
गांव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
ख़सरा
ख़सरा
ख़सरा
ख़सरा संसंसंसं.
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वग5
वग5
वग5
वग5 मीटर
मीटर
मीटर
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
1.
1.
1.
बचीतपुरवा
बचीतपुरवा
बचीतपुरवा
बचीतपुरवा
542
00
20
58
541
00
23
73
546
00
03
75
76
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
बचीतपु
बचीतपु
बचीतपु
बचीतपुरवा
रवा
रवा
रवा
537
00
11
80
536
00
09
80
517
00
16
52
513
00
01
94
512
00
04
59
510
00
06
48
511
00
01
27
498
00
00
12
500
00
12
58
501
00
00
85
499
00
04
19
504
00
09
79
505
00
13
94
683
00
00
11
682
00
00
10
681
00
00
10
678
00
11
22
676
00
05
72
679
00
30
37
680
00
01
79
674
00
10
55
671
00
33
09
670
00
16
26
670/1351
00
01
58
667
00
00
60
668
00
11
92
666
00
16
36
664
00
08
84
663
00
05
25
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
बचीतपुरवा
बचीतपुरवा
बचीतपुरवा
बचीतपुरवा
1145
00
16
33
1146
00
08
30
1147
00
13
00
1168
00
01
17
1176
00
03
20
1215
00
03
39
1214
00
05
51
1177
00
01
26
1213
00
06
81
1212
00
14
99
1209
00
10
19
1208
00
22
81
1206
00
05
28
1205
00
07
45
1204
00
08
38
1203
00
03
63
1201
00
02
98
1202
00
02
38
1197
00
09
91
2.
2.
2.
2.
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा िजनई
िजनई
िजनई
िजनई
519
00
07
79
518
00
09
41
509
00
26
12
506
00
21
03
501
00
24
75
500
00
27
14
499
00
16
85
577
00
00
44
582
00
08
02
583
00
07
29
78
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा िजनई
िजनई
िजनई
िजनई
584
00
07
20
586
00
34
05
457
00
00
10
587
00
00
14
456
00
03
40
455
00
21
12
610
00
06
77
618
00
00
41
617
00
05
43
619
00
21
66
425
00
02
45
424
00
08
17
423
00
03
51
422
00
06
20
421
00
08
99
420
00
00
69
428
00
01
16
417
00
00
63
415
00
00
95
414
00
03
57
411
00
15
08
410
00
27
20
406
00
00
38
407
00
11
98
3.
3.
3.
3.
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा महाराज
महाराज
महाराज
महाराज
35
00
05
20
66
00
25
13
67
00
01
65
64
00
23
08
63
00
02
62
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा महाराज
महाराज
महाराज
महाराज
492
00
00
41
496
00
03
59
495
00
00
93
493
00
20
90
494
00
07
16
588
00
05
84
544
00
00
36
545
00
14
37
546
00
04
62
547
00
02
28
548
00
00
70
549
00
09
10
551
00
25
53
566
00
00
54
569
00
07
63
570
00
06
42
577
00
09
90
576
00
00
15
580
00
16
86
910
00
05
20
909
00
06
00
908
00
33
31
906
00
12
46
902
00
20
02
897
00
11
34
4.
4.
4.
4.
देवक8
देवक8
देवक8
देवक8 पुपुपुपुरवा
रवा
रवा
रवा
313
00
06
31
312
00
01
68
318
00
00
38
317
00
05
58
80
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
देवक8
देवक8
देवक8
देवक8 पुरवा
पुरवा
पुरवा
पुरवा
316
00
00
21
320
00
05
41
321
00
07
21
322
00
00
93
369
00
09
84
373/380
00
01
46
373
00
08
82
374
00
15
71
5.
5.
5.
5.
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा
बनीपारा जौहर
जौहर
जौहर
जौहर
74
00
10
73
75
00
00
10
62
00
28
76
63
00
14
52
45
00
11
64
43
00
20
66
42
00
04
72
12
00
12
11
9
00
10
29
10
00
07
24
6.
6.
6.
6.
जजमुइया
जजमुइया
जजमुइया
जजमुइया
739
00
09
28
737
00
15
08
751
00
11
73
752
00
17
38
756
00
13
43
892
00
11
83
894
00
44
62
887
00
07
82
888
00
00
10
885
00
00
53
878
00
02
74
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
जजमुइया
जजमुइया
जजमुइया
जजमुइया
877
00
00
10
881
00
32
37
880
00
36
17
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 16.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by 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 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 interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the
copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing
to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil
Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline
Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Derapur District:- Kanpur Dehat
State :- Uttar Pradesh
Sl.
No.
Name of the Village
Khasara No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
Bacheet Purwa
542
00
20
58
541
00
23
73
546
00
03
75
537
00
11
80
536
00
09
80
517
00
16
52
513
00
01
94
512
00
04
59
510
00
06
48
511
00
01
27
498
00
00
12
500
00
12
58
501
00
00
85
499
00
04
19
504
00
09
79
505
00
13
94
683
00
00
11
682
00
00
10
82
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bacheet Purwa
681
00
00
10
678
00
11
22
676
00
05
72
679
00
30
37
680
00
01
79
674
00
10
55
671
00
33
09
670
00
16
26
670/1351
00
01
58
667
00
00
60
668
00
11
92
666
00
16
36
664
00
08
84
663
00
05
25
1145
00
16
33
1146
00
08
30
1147
00
13
00
1168
00
01
17
1176
00
03
20
1215
00
03
39
1214
00
05
51
1177
00
01
26
1213
00
06
81
1212
00
14
99
1209
00
10
19
1208
00
22
81
1206
00
05
28
1205
00
07
45
1204
00
08
38
1203
00
03
63
1201
00
02
98
1202
00
02
38
1197
00
09
91
2.
Banipara Jinai
519
00
07
79
518
00
09
41
509
00
26
12
506
00
21
03
501
00
24
75
500
00
27
14
499
00
16
85
577
00
00
44
582
00
08
02
583
00
07
29
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
Banipara Jinai
584
00
07
20
586
00
34
05
457
00
00
10
587
00
00
14
456
00
03
40
455
00
21
12
610
00
06
77
618
00
00
41
617
00
05
43
619
00
21
66
425
00
02
45
424
00
08
17
423
00
03
51
422
00
06
20
421
00
08
99
420
00
00
69
428
00
01
16
417
00
00
63
415
00
00
95
414
00
03
57
411
00
15
08
410
00
27
20
406
00
00
38
407
00
11
98
3.
Banipara Maharaj
35
00
05
20
66
00
25
13
67
00
01
65
64
00
23
08
63
00
02
62
492
00
00
41
496
00
03
59
495
00
00
93
493
00
20
90
494
00
07
16
588
00
05
84
544
00
00
36
545
00
14
37
546
00
04
62
547
00
02
28
548
00
00
70
549
00
09
10
84
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Banipara Maharaj
551
00
25
53
566
00
00
54
569
00
07
63
570
00
06
42
577
00
09
90
576
00
00
15
580
00
16
86
910
00
05
20
909
00
06
00
908
00
33
31
906
00
12
46
902
00
20
02
897
00
11
34
4.
Devki Purva
313
00
06
31
312
00
01
68
318
00
00
38
317
00
05
58
316
00
00
21
320
00
05
41
321
00
07
21
322
00
00
93
369
00
09
84
373/380
00
01
46
373
00
08
82
374
00
15
71
5.
Banipara Jauhar
74
00
10
73
75
00
00
10
62
00
28
76
63
00
14
52
45
00
11
64
43
00
20
66
42
00
04
72
12
00
12
11
9
00
10
29
10
00
07
24
6.
Jajmuiya
739
00
09
28
737
00
15
08
751
00
11
73
752
00
17
38
756
00
13
43
892
00
11
83
894
00
44
62
887
00
07
82
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jajmuiya
888
00
00
10
885
00
00
53
878
00
02
74
877
00
00
10
881
00
32
37
880
00
36
17
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018-OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. . . . 17
17
17
17.—के'(ीय सरकार को लोकिहत मD यह आवCयक तीत होता है क उर देश राsय मD टू6डला टQमनल
से कानपुर टQमनल तक पेjोिलयम उIपाद के प+रवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई
जानी चािहए।
और के'(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये यह आवCयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम मD
जो इस से उपाब अनुसूची मे वQणत है, और िजसमD उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का Aताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज-न कया जाए ।
अतः अब, के'(ीय सरकार, पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न) अिधिनयम,
1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शियो का योग करते %ए उस भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार
का अज-न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ।
कोई cि, जो उ अनुसूची मD वQणत भूिम मD िहतब है , उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मD यु भारत के राजपH
क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलgध करा दी जाती ह, इ~स दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के
िलए उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार के संबंध मD स[म ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कापuरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइ'स भाग,
िनमा-ण काया-लय, उरी [ेH पाइपलाइ'स, टू6डला - गौ+रया पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना,ई-160, थम व ितीय तल, कमला
नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को िलिखत \प मD आ[ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तहसी
हसी
हसी
हसील – िबधुना
िबधुना
िबधुना
िबधुना
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला – औरैया
औरैया
औरैया
औरैया
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य – उर
उर
उर
उर &देश
&देश
&देश
&देश
<म
<म
<म
<म
संसंसंसं.
गांव
गांव
गांव
गांव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
ख़सरा
ख़सरा
ख़सरा
ख़सरा संसंसंसं.
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वग5
वग5
वग5
वग5 मीटर
मीटर
मीटर
मीटर
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
गढवाना
गढवाना
गढवाना
गढवाना
7
00
23
81
8
00
05
64
9
00
05
56
11
00
30
70
10
00
00
10
86
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
गढवाना
गढवाना
गढवाना
गढवाना
20
00
29
10
12
00
00
79
13
00
09
76
21
00
04
52
22
00
04
47
25
00
19
81
32
00
07
28
38
00
12
43
37
00
05
41
39
01
01
17
480
00
05
98
477
00
11
23
481
00
10
73
482
00
00
32
490
00
05
06
489
00
17
98
487
00
03
44
493
00
07
39
492
00
00
10
494
00
03
12
491
00
01
50
495
00
06
04
497
00
03
05
496
00
03
74
503
00
07
13
504
00
03
45
505
00
06
70
510
00
04
80
511
00
03
90
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
गढवाना
गढवाना
गढवाना
गढवाना
512
00
08
31
513
00
22
23
669
00
61
92
670
00
01
81
2.
इटैली
इटैली
इटैली
इटैली
12
00
00
17
13
00
00
10
11
00
04
23
15
00
14
43
14
00
01
30
18
00
04
00
19
00
00
20
20
00
00
78
21
00
08
84
25
00
03
98
23
00
04
85
293
00
06
08
292
00
08
95
290
00
05
95
354
00
02
48
355
00
13
18
356
00
06
43
287
00
00
10
357
00
03
26
281
00
02
33
360
00
05
59
369
00
15
78
377
00
01
20
375
00
01
16
376
00
01
93
88
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
इटैली
इटैली
इटैली
इटैली
379
00
11
21
382
00
03
70
374
00
02
02
387
00
16
23
383
00
00
89
418
00
15
63
417
00
05
07
416
00
00
13
448
00
15
48
449
00
14
89
399
00
13
75
452
00
06
73
453
00
08
21
454
00
00
13
457
00
00
58
456
00
08
37
928
00
03
75
930
00
19
06
933
00
01
13
926
00
18
53
983
00
19
90
917
00
01
15
984
00
38
58
992
00
03
48
989
00
02
84
991
00
03
55
990
00
02
07
1016
00
09
46
1017
00
00
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
इटैली
इटैली
इटैली
इटैली
1018
00
10
73
1019
00
00
10
1042
00
13
56
1049
00
00
12
1043
00
15
87
1044
00
10
58
1067
00
08
69
1068
00
00
53
1065
00
16
27
1064
00
02
19
1063
00
15
74
1074
00
06
21
1083
00
19
10
1081
00
02
98
1082
00
09
06
1089
00
01
47
3.
मसूदपुर
मसूदपुर
मसूदपुर
मसूदपुर
764
00
10
48
765
00
01
46
763
00
07
47
766
00
08
77
773
00
06
20
774
00
19
05
4.
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
697
00
02
36
694
00
00
10
702
00
00
41
703
00
13
49
704
00
00
10
707
00
10
02
706
00
23
76
90
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
710
00
19
03
718
00
27
56
780
00
02
80
678
00
01
18
670
00
09
61
719
00
00
98
720
00
04
37
669
00
03
60
732
00
02
45
733
00
10
83
734
00
10
07
735
00
10
21
736
00
11
46
737
00
04
21
738
00
02
89
755
00
00
37
761
00
17
90
762
00
10
50
765
00
15
97
766
00
00
32
767
00
10
42
768
00
11
38
772
00
15
13
793
00
00
17
804
00
36
35
818
00
32
34
831
00
00
92
826
00
26
29
827
00
01
91
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
न:दपुर
828
00
01
50
852
00
00
14
830
00
00
24
851
00
00
85
846
00
07
09
850
00
36
31
5.
कुंवरपुर
कुंवरपुर
कुंवरपुर
कुंवरपुर
238
00
29
76
6.
==ख़?द5
==ख़?द5
==ख़?द5
==ख़?द5
2719
00
00
29
2718
00
00
41
2717
00
17
52
2716
00
14
06
2715
00
01
50
2726
00
10
84
2727
00
16
04
2730
00
29
43
2732
00
11
67
2733
00
41
03
2735
00
53
75
2994
00
40
25
2995
00
11
78
3298
01
01
19
3304
00
14
88
3305
00
03
61
3294
00
01
28
3306
00
00
33
3307
00
07
42
3308
00
24
43
3309
00
13
71
3311
00
07
89
92
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
==ख़?द5
==ख़?द5
==ख़?द5
==ख़?द5
3352
00
00
10
3355
00
24
91
3463
00
03
34
3455
00
06
47
3452
00
04
82
3451
00
04
73
3447
00
11
30
3376
00
08
31
3377
00
15
28
3378
00
00
10
3425
00
58
08
3420
00
11
25
3418
00
00
40
7.
बराहार
बराहार
बराहार
बराहार
30
00
07
59
29
00
17
70
3
00
04
98
28
00
03
94
2
00
06
49
26
00
12
18
5
00
00
80
13
00
17
81
12
00
02
82
15
00
06
16
16
00
01
43
130
00
07
64
129
00
16
95
131
00
14
95
133
00
10
23
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
8.
ब=आ
ब=आ
ब=आ
ब=आ
62
00
00
31
67
00
12
65
68
00
09
49
69
00
08
80
176
00
08
64
177
00
21
29
178
00
24
73
180
00
00
10
179
00
02
00
305
00
03
05
303
00
01
14
309
00
05
73
308
00
02
20
310
00
14
66
311
00
01
73
317
00
02
41
319
00
06
20
327
00
04
35
328
00
05
70
329
00
10
65
340
00
12
67
343
00
12
54
364
00
00
10
366
00
06
81
365
00
03
20
367
00
07
05
9.
बलख@डपुर
बलख@डपुर
बलख@डपुर
बलख@डपुर
162
00
12
07
161
00
00
82
164
00
13
27
94
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
बलख@डपुर
बलख@डपुर
बलख@डपुर
बलख@डपुर
165
00
22
59
10.
सोहनी
सोहनी
सोहनी
सोहनी
57
00
00
53
56
00
00
63
55
00
06
93
58
00
17
70
61
00
15
73
62
00
05
87
121
00
05
17
122
00
01
06
123
00
06
23
126
00
12
03
125
00
07
59
131
00
00
37
140
00
00
10
141
00
14
30
142
00
03
53
143
00
00
10
144
00
05
60
146
00
06
90
147
00
04
53
148
00
05
17
145
00
04
40
149
00
00
49
150
00
09
14
151
00
10
55
153
00
09
05
154
00
02
94
157
00
00
10
155
00
00
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
सोहनी
सोहनी
सोहनी
सोहनी
169
00
00
61
180
00
21
95
178
00
19
07
11.
ऐली
ऐली
ऐली
ऐली
158
00
00
62
159
00
05
90
160
00
21
03
162
00
07
40
12.
ितलकपुर सरमेँडी
ितलकपुर सरमेँडी
ितलकपुर सरमेँडी
ितलकपुर सरमेँडी
24
00
05
79
21
00
06
36
30
00
06
10
29
00
01
14
28
00
06
34
32
00
10
04
56
00
25
42
63
00
23
54
68
00
00
32
73
00
15
31
97
00
08
62
98
00
00
10
99
00
07
17
101
00
00
38
102
00
08
69
105
00
07
96
106
00
03
62
13.
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
495
00
16
83
500
00
00
49
496
00
00
10
501
00
10
65
502
00
09
89
96
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
507
00
12
15
505
00
01
23
511
00
01
10
513
00
04
59
514
00
07
01
515
00
13
52
429
00
21
04
400
00
08
74
401
00
01
42
397
00
34
05
381
00
02
46
382
00
08
41
383
00
02
31
374
00
00
25
384
00
05
71
373
00
18
02
375
00
00
40
349
00
01
13
348
00
08
30
341
00
01
72
342
00
09
10
343
00
04
49
340
00
06
41
339
00
02
12
337
00
18
67
330
00
02
82
336
00
01
06
335
00
00
61
334
00
01
48
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
Bदवरांव
333
00
10
33
332
00
00
90
697
00
02
16
694
00
02
17
695
00
18
53
703
00
06
39
702
00
01
60
704
00
02
49
706
00
02
31
707
00
01
98
919
00
03
87
974
00
35
11
965
00
11
88
964
00
01
76
966
00
02
71
967
00
04
17
949
00
41
89
950
00
00
10
14.
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
294
00
09
28
299
00
07
65
298
00
17
19
303
00
01
52
304
00
05
51
315
00
16
00
341
00
16
71
317
00
03
59
319
00
04
49
333
00
08
99
332
00
00
45
98
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
331
00
09
84
329
00
04
76
330
00
00
10
328
00
00
79
327
00
12
00
449
00
34
14
450
00
00
16
465
00
21
85
466
00
10
39
467
00
10
45
468
00
07
49
469
00
16
10
514
00
23
50
515
00
05
00
513
00
09
18
516
00
12
32
523
00
02
38
521
00
07
94
654
00
17
26
655
00
11
77
591
00
10
82
593
00
05
32
645
00
02
35
627
00
07
38
626
00
07
60
624
00
10
09
629
00
00
83
630
00
05
84
623
00
08
24
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
619
00
02
59
621
00
15
73
620
00
06
44
606
00
06
30
605
00
05
81
607
00
03
04
604
00
00
10
557
00
03
52
2422
00
07
85
2420
00
03
25
2419
00
09
24
2418
00
09
57
2411/3756
00
01
51
2412
00
11
77
2413
00
00
10
2414
00
13
64
2363
00
00
60
2361
00
13
29
3459
00
08
59
2360
00
11
76
3460
00
01
70
2359
00
04
30
3461
00
10
79
3462
00
06
50
3471
00
01
66
3470
00
23
80
3490
00
23
51
3489
00
05
20
3522
00
00
47
100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
3521
00
00
10
3523
00
05
65
3571
00
02
82
3569
00
01
64
3568
00
03
59
3567
00
09
12
3566
00
07
86
3555
00
04
89
3533
00
02
52
3554
00
22
31
3553
00
15
36
3552
00
13
12
3298
00
17
27
3296
00
15
50
3293
00
12
06
3289
00
13
95
3288
00
00
15
3290
00
05
83
3284
00
06
92
3285
00
04
98
3282
00
24
84
3283
00
03
20
3231
00
15
98
3280
00
00
10
3227
00
09
97
3224
00
03
79
3225
00
08
17
3215
00
03
95
3238
00
00
43
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
हरचंदपुर
3214
00
02
80
3239
00
04
27
3213
00
00
38
3212
00
00
10
3204
00
02
88
3205
00
03
21
3206
00
12
40
3210
00
08
44
3208
00
03
73
3207
00
00
25
3209
00
01
74
3190
00
15
01
15.
ढरकन
ढरकन
ढरकन
ढरकन
165
00
14
12
16.
अगहरा
अगहरा
अगहरा
अगहरा
395
00
25
19
403
00
00
10
404
00
16
06
410
00
12
76
453
00
20
51
454
00
10
84
455
00
15
13
438
00
00
10
556
00
07
69
555
00
00
82
558
00
07
96
553
00
01
91
559
00
05
64
560
00
12
45
561
00
00
16
701
00
07
27
102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
अगहरा
अगहरा
अगहरा
अगहरा
700
00
11
11
699
00
02
43
681
00
01
38
682
00
01
89
683
00
22
56
680
00
16
33
648
00
17
80
646
00
09
06
645
00
31
46
644
00
00
35
734
00
01
07
767
00
11
14
766
00
11
95
765
00
13
53
772
00
18
68
771
00
11
11
779
00
01
85
774
00
13
53
775
00
02
68
17.
अ@डा
अ@डा
अ@डा
अ@डा
94
00
00
19
95
00
00
14
96
00
15
66
93
00
36
17
117
00
06
79
99
00
01
90
100
00
16
06
102
00
04
77
101
00
07
27
111
00
14
94
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
18.
बहलोलपुर
बहलोलपुर
बहलोलपुर
बहलोलपुर
25
00
08
65
21
00
38
75
24
00
04
24
23
00
01
23
22
00
07
07
83
00
00
10
20
00
16
13
86
00
29
67
87
00
19
02
88
00
06
09
324
00
08
99
322
00
21
28
323
00
03
84
311
00
15
02
312
00
00
80
309
00
22
49
308
00
08
06
307
00
10
66
398
00
19
86
418
00
06
86
434
00
03
86
436
00
07
11
437
00
00
78
435
00
06
98
465
00
04
32
466
00
00
23
462
00
00
10
467
00
00
82
464
00
04
82
104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
बहलोलपुर
बहलोलपुर
बहलोलपुर
बहलोलपुर
471
00
21
97
472
00
13
72
475
00
02
14
19.
पुवा5फक8रे
पुवा5फक8रे
पुवा5फक8रे
पुवा5फक8रे
85
00
15
17
86
00
01
58
90
00
30
84
89
00
01
28
88
00
07
62
98
00
05
39
99
00
06
55
101
00
00
25
102
00
06
21
108
00
19
83
110
00
04
92
109
00
00
14
287
00
06
58
20.
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
124
00
08
05
123
00
05
30
122
00
06
62
121
00
03
92
115
00
00
10
120
00
07
85
119
00
09
95
118
00
00
87
117
00
02
91
186
00
34
73
189
00
05
84
223
00
25
70
222
00
23
97
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
194
00
00
46
198
00
11
21
199
00
05
28
204
00
03
33
205
00
02
38
203
00
05
36
202
00
04
22
265
00
00
13
621
00
14
21
615
00
06
41
616
00
01
71
610
00
04
58
614
00
00
84
609
00
01
35
608
00
00
50
613
00
05
97
612
00
02
21
611
00
02
37
706
00
07
17
599
00
06
30
707
00
93
30
712
00
05
17
708
00
01
46
744
00
00
10
711
00
01
79
709
00
00
56
741
00
00
26
740
00
18
76
739
00
19
42
106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
ताजपुर छोँक
736
00
07
30
735
00
04
82
21.
सहायल
सहायल
सहायल
सहायल
114
00
15
91
120
00
25
49
119
00
00
10
117
00
10
93
118
00
00
67
166
00
17
06
222
00
16
70
221
00
15
39
220
00
10
45
187
00
03
43
186
00
08
42
185
00
26
62
184
00
00
60
183
00
07
29
410
00
04
16
409
00
10
62
406
00
22
21
414
00
09
27
402
00
23
37
400
00
07
76
424
00
00
90
425
00
03
29
426
00
02
27
427
00
17
40
428
00
10
94
429
00
04
56
430
00
04
12
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
सहायल
सहायल
सहायल
सहायल
437
00
09
35
436
00
06
47
435
00
05
64
1103
00
13
68
1102
00
00
10
1101
00
05
44
1112
00
04
30
1113
00
00
48
1114
00
18
35
1115
00
12
39
1116
00
10
95
1119
00
09
15
1120
00
01
81
2035
00
13
39
2033
00
21
34
2028
00
24
66
2030
00
01
01
2024
00
11
67
1125
00
00
16
2023
00
01
18
2022
00
20
63
2094
00
00
33
2093
00
16
71
2212
00
10
83
2214
00
20
32
2216
00
13
10
2081
00
18
12
2078
00
16
72
2079
00
00
44
108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
सहायल
सहायल
सहायल
सहायल
2076
00
18
03
2326
00
00
10
2327
00
12
46
2328
00
01
82
2329
00
28
31
2330
00
00
69
2427
00
13
24
2359
00
00
53
2425
00
19
09
2546
00
09
78
2545
00
00
10
2548
00
08
10
2553
00
11
24
2623
00
00
10
2555
00
13
95
2620
00
18
12
2624
00
09
87
2621
00
00
50
2636
00
00
81
2638
00
00
80
2641
00
05
52
2618
00
07
91
2642
00
11
08
2644
00
29
28
2646
00
00
27
2651
00
25
47
2648
00
04
22
2650
00
04
45
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
22.
मुग रहा
मुग रहा
मुग रहा
मुग रहा
494
00
01
77
645
00
27
60
694
00
03
98
642
00
06
42
641
00
00
89
503
00
13
57
637
00
00
46
636
00
14
00
663
00
00
10
635
00
03
27
664
00
00
14
633
00
10
53
632
00
00
10
631
00
08
27
667
00
08
30
668
00
01
79
669
00
10
93
701
00
08
99
671
00
05
70
672
00
12
20
673
00
10
56
674
00
00
20
699
00
00
36
697
00
11
22
698
00
11
62
692
00
04
04
690
00
04
37
689
00
01
39
684
00
07
13
110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
मुग रहा
मुग रहा
मुग रहा
मुग रहा
683
00
12
13
682
00
01
51
607
00
01
44
686
00
18
35
606
00
00
82
583
00
01
26
23.
बेDपुर
बेDपुर
बेDपुर
बेDपुर
159
00
46
73
158
00
21
20
155
00
34
33
128
00
08
79
127
00
12
97
122
00
03
16
126
00
04
03
124
00
05
98
125
00
01
23
24.
नवी मोहन
नवी मोहन
नवी मोहन
नवी मोहन
473
00
05
68
471
00
00
53
472
00
11
35
474
00
09
52
463
00
26
09
498
00
09
83
497
00
00
18
517
00
38
15
366
00
00
51
362
00
14
26
364
00
00
20
365
00
20
89
551
00
08
03
610
00
02
67
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
नवी मोहन
नवी मोहन
नवी मोहन
नवी मोहन
609
00
09
38
604
00
08
78
563
00
03
01
601
00
01
90
600
00
11
46
601
00
00
13
597
00
11
24
567
00
00
35
596
00
10
34
595
00
13
77
594
00
13
66
593
00
04
02
591
00
00
10
590
00
05
10
587
00
00
10
581
00
00
65
582
00
01
58
588
00
06
03
583
00
00
66
584
00
02
82
577
00
00
19
578
00
15
54
25.
िसखू
िसखू
िसखू
िसखू
187
00
00
26
190
00
07
34
192
00
24
39
192/271
00
00
10
228
00
05
51
226
00
01
03
225
00
19
22
112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
िसखू
िसखू
िसखू
िसखू
224
00
00
10
26.
Bदवरी
Bदवरी
Bदवरी
Bदवरी
488
00
13
88
487
00
11
53
486
00
00
10
519
00
10
56
521
00
09
41
520
00
00
42
474
00
10
67
473
00
08
82
470
00
02
22
469
00
04
25
468
00
04
37
467
00
10
14
466
00
06
33
465
00
01
96
444
00
00
41
437
00
04
11
438
00
16
49
428
00
09
13
426
00
09
01
420
00
11
88
412
00
10
90
411
00
04
41
410
00
01
52
409
00
06
01
408
00
00
10
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
113
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 17.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by 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 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 interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the
copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing
to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil
Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline
Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Bidhuna District:- Auraiya
State :- Uttar Pradesh
Sl.
No.
Name of the Village
Khasara No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
Gadhwana
7
00
23
81
8
00
05
64
9
00
05
56
11
00
30
70
10
00
00
10
20
00
29
10
12
00
00
79
13
00
09
76
21
00
04
52
22
00
04
47
25
00
19
81
32
00
07
28
38
00
12
43
37
00
05
41
39
01
01
17
480
00
05
98
477
00
11
23
481
00
10
73
482
00
00
32
490
00
05
06
489
00
17
98
487
00
03
44
493
00
07
39
492
00
00
10
494
00
03
12
491
00
01
50
495
00
06
04
497
00
03
05
114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Gadhwana
496
00
03
74
503
00
07
13
504
00
03
45
505
00
06
70
510
00
04
80
511
00
03
90
512
00
08
31
513
00
22
23
669
00
61
92
670
00
01
81
2.
Itaili
12
00
00
17
13
00
00
10
11
00
04
23
15
00
14
43
14
00
01
30
18
00
04
00
19
00
00
20
20
00
00
78
21
00
08
84
25
00
03
98
23
00
04
85
293
00
06
08
292
00
08
95
290
00
05
95
354
00
02
48
355
00
13
18
356
00
06
43
287
00
00
10
357
00
03
26
281
00
02
33
360
00
05
59
369
00
15
78
377
00
01
20
375
00
01
16
376
00
01
93
379
00
11
21
382
00
03
70
374
00
02
02
387
00
16
23
383
00
00
89
418
00
15
63
417
00
05
07
416
00
00
13
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
Itaili
448
00
15
48
449
00
14
89
399
00
13
75
452
00
06
73
453
00
08
21
454
00
00
13
457
00
00
58
456
00
08
37
928
00
03
75
930
00
19
06
933
00
01
13
926
00
18
53
983
00
19
90
917
00
01
15
984
00
38
58
992
00
03
48
989
00
02
84
991
00
03
55
990
00
02
07
1016
00
09
46
1017
00
00
10
1018
00
10
73
1019
00
00
10
1042
00
13
56
1049
00
00
12
1043
00
15
87
1044
00
10
58
1067
00
08
69
1068
00
00
53
1065
00
16
27
1064
00
02
19
1063
00
15
74
1074
00
06
21
1083
00
19
10
1081
00
02
98
1082
00
09
06
1089
00
01
47
3.
Masudpur
764
00
10
48
765
00
01
46
763
00
07
47
766
00
08
77
773
00
06
20
774
00
19
05
116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
4.
Nandpur
697
00
02
36
694
00
00
10
702
00
00
41
703
00
13
49
704
00
00
10
707
00
10
02
706
00
23
76
710
00
19
03
718
00
27
56
780
00
02
80
678
00
01
18
670
00
09
61
719
00
00
98
720
00
04
37
669
00
03
60
732
00
02
45
733
00
10
83
734
00
10
07
735
00
10
21
736
00
11
46
737
00
04
21
738
00
02
89
755
00
00
37
761
00
17
90
762
00
10
50
765
00
15
97
766
00
00
32
767
00
10
42
768
00
11
38
772
00
15
13
793
00
00
17
804
00
36
35
818
00
32
34
831
00
00
92
826
00
26
29
827
00
01
91
828
00
01
50
852
00
00
14
830
00
00
24
851
00
00
85
846
00
07
09
850
00
36
31
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
5.
Kunwarpur
238
00
29
76
6.
Ruru Khurd
2719
00
00
29
2718
00
00
41
2717
00
17
52
2716
00
14
06
2715
00
01
50
2726
00
10
84
2727
00
16
04
2730
00
29
43
2732
00
11
67
2733
00
41
03
2735
00
53
75
2994
00
40
25
2995
00
11
78
3298
01
01
19
3304
00
14
88
3305
00
03
61
3294
00
01
28
3306
00
00
33
3307
00
07
42
3308
00
24
43
3309
00
13
71
3311
00
07
89
3352
00
00
10
3355
00
24
91
3463
00
03
34
3455
00
06
47
3452
00
04
82
3451
00
04
73
3447
00
11
30
3376
00
08
31
3377
00
15
28
3378
00
00
10
3425
00
58
08
3420
00
11
25
3418
00
00
40
7.
Barahar
30
00
07
59
29
00
17
70
3
00
04
98
28
00
03
94
2
00
06
49
118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Barahar
26
00
12
18
5
00
00
80
13
00
17
81
12
00
02
82
15
00
06
16
16
00
01
43
130
00
07
64
129
00
16
95
131
00
14
95
133
00
10
23
8.
Baruaa
62
00
00
31
67
00
12
65
68
00
09
49
69
00
08
80
176
00
08
64
177
00
21
29
178
00
24
73
180
00
00
10
179
00
02
00
305
00
03
05
303
00
01
14
309
00
05
73
308
00
02
20
310
00
14
66
311
00
01
73
317
00
02
41
319
00
06
20
327
00
04
35
328
00
05
70
329
00
10
65
340
00
12
67
343
00
12
54
364
00
00
10
366
00
06
81
365
00
03
20
367
00
07
05
9.
Balkhandpur
162
00
12
07
161
00
00
82
164
00
13
27
165
00
22
59
10.
Sohni
57
00
00
53
56
00
00
63
55
00
06
93
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sohni
58
00
17
70
61
00
15
73
62
00
05
87
121
00
05
17
122
00
01
06
123
00
06
23
126
00
12
03
125
00
07
59
131
00
00
37
140
00
00
10
141
00
14
30
142
00
03
53
143
00
00
10
144
00
05
60
146
00
06
90
147
00
04
53
148
00
05
17
145
00
04
40
149
00
00
49
150
00
09
14
151
00
10
55
153
00
09
05
154
00
02
94
157
00
00
10
155
00
00
10
169
00
00
61
180
00
21
95
178
00
19
07
11.
Aili
158
00
00
62
159
00
05
90
160
00
21
03
162
00
07
40
12.
Tilakpur Sarmendi
24
00
05
79
21
00
06
36
30
00
06
10
29
00
01
14
28
00
06
34
32
00
10
04
56
00
25
42
63
00
23
54
68
00
00
32
73
00
15
31
97
00
08
62
120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tilakpur Sarmendi
98
00
00
10
99
00
07
17
101
00
00
38
102
00
08
69
105
00
07
96
106
00
03
62
13.
Divraon
495
00
16
83
500
00
00
49
496
00
00
10
501
00
10
65
502
00
09
89
507
00
12
15
505
00
01
23
511
00
01
10
513
00
04
59
514
00
07
01
515
00
13
52
429
00
21
04
400
00
08
74
401
00
01
42
397
00
34
05
381
00
02
46
382
00
08
41
383
00
02
31
374
00
00
25
384
00
05
71
373
00
18
02
375
00
00
40
349
00
01
13
348
00
08
30
341
00
01
72
342
00
09
10
343
00
04
49
340
00
06
41
339
00
02
12
337
00
18
67
330
00
02
82
336
00
01
06
335
00
00
61
334
00
01
48
333
00
10
33
332
00
00
90
697
00
02
16
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
Divraon
694
00
02
17
695
00
18
53
703
00
06
39
702
00
01
60
704
00
02
49
706
00
02
31
707
00
01
98
919
00
03
87
974
00
35
11
965
00
11
88
964
00
01
76
966
00
02
71
967
00
04
17
949
00
41
89
950
00
00
10
14.
Harchandpur
294
00
09
28
299
00
07
65
298
00
17
19
303
00
01
52
304
00
05
51
315
00
16
00
341
00
16
71
317
00
03
59
319
00
04
49
333
00
08
99
332
00
00
45
331
00
09
84
329
00
04
76
330
00
00
10
328
00
00
79
327
00
12
00
449
00
34
14
450
00
00
16
465
00
21
85
466
00
10
39
467
00
10
45
468
00
07
49
469
00
16
10
514
00
23
50
515
00
05
00
513
00
09
18
516
00
12
32
523
00
02
38
122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Harchandpur
521
00
07
94
654
00
17
26
655
00
11
77
591
00
10
82
593
00
05
32
645
00
02
35
627
00
07
38
626
00
07
60
624
00
10
09
629
00
00
83
630
00
05
84
623
00
08
24
619
00
02
59
621
00
15
73
620
00
06
44
606
00
06
30
605
00
05
81
607
00
03
04
604
00
00
10
557
00
03
52
2422
00
07
85
2420
00
03
25
2419
00
09
24
2418
00
09
57
2411/3756
00
01
51
2412
00
11
77
2413
00
00
10
2414
00
13
64
2363
00
00
60
2361
00
13
29
3459
00
08
59
2360
00
11
76
3460
00
01
70
2359
00
04
30
3461
00
10
79
3462
00
06
50
3471
00
01
66
3470
00
23
80
3490
00
23
51
3489
00
05
20
3522
00
00
47
3521
00
00
10
3523
00
05
65
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
Harchandpur
3571
00
02
82
3569
00
01
64
3568
00
03
59
3567
00
09
12
3566
00
07
86
3555
00
04
89
3533
00
02
52
3554
00
22
31
3553
00
15
36
3552
00
13
12
3298
00
17
27
3296
00
15
50
3293
00
12
06
3289
00
13
95
3288
00
00
15
3290
00
05
83
3284
00
06
92
3285
00
04
98
3282
00
24
84
3283
00
03
20
3231
00
15
98
3280
00
00
10
3227
00
09
97
3224
00
03
79
3225
00
08
17
3215
00
03
95
3238
00
00
43
3214
00
02
80
3239
00
04
27
3213
00
00
38
3212
00
00
10
3204
00
02
88
3205
00
03
21
3206
00
12
40
3210
00
08
44
3208
00
03
73
3207
00
00
25
3209
00
01
74
3190
00
15
01
15.
Dharkan
165
00
14
12
16.
Agahara
395
00
25
19
403
00
00
10
404
00
16
06
124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Agahara
410
00
12
76
453
00
20
51
454
00
10
84
455
00
15
13
438
00
00
10
556
00
07
69
555
00
00
82
558
00
07
96
553
00
01
91
559
00
05
64
560
00
12
45
561
00
00
16
701
00
07
27
700
00
11
11
699
00
02
43
681
00
01
38
682
00
01
89
683
00
22
56
680
00
16
33
648
00
17
80
646
00
09
06
645
00
31
46
644
00
00
35
734
00
01
07
767
00
11
14
766
00
11
95
765
00
13
53
772
00
18
68
771
00
11
11
779
00
01
85
774
00
13
53
774
00
11
02
775
00
02
68
17.
Anda
94
00
00
19
95
00
00
14
96
00
15
66
93
00
36
17
117
00
06
79
99
00
01
90
100
00
16
06
102
00
04
77
101
00
07
27
111
00
14
94
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
18.
Bahalolpur
25
00
08
65
21
00
38
75
24
00
04
24
23
00
01
23
22
00
07
07
83
00
00
10
20
00
16
13
86
00
29
67
87
00
19
02
88
00
06
09
324
00
08
99
322
00
21
28
323
00
03
84
311
00
15
02
312
00
00
80
309
00
22
49
308
00
08
06
307
00
10
66
398
00
19
86
418
00
06
86
434
00
03
86
436
00
07
11
437
00
00
78
435
00
06
98
465
00
04
32
466
00
00
23
462
00
00
10
467
00
00
82
464
00
04
82
471
00
21
97
472
00
13
72
475
00
02
14
19.
Purva Fakire
85
00
15
17
86
00
01
58
90
00
30
84
89
00
01
28
88
00
07
62
98
00
05
39
99
00
06
55
101
00
00
25
102
00
06
21
108
00
19
83
126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Purva Fakire
110
00
04
92
109
00
00
14
287
00
06
58
20.
Tajpur Chhonk
124
00
08
05
123
00
05
30
122
00
06
62
121
00
03
92
115
00
00
10
120
00
07
85
119
00
09
95
118
00
00
87
117
00
02
91
186
00
34
73
189
00
05
84
223
00
25
70
222
00
23
97
194
00
00
46
198
00
11
21
199
00
05
28
204
00
03
33
205
00
02
38
203
00
05
36
202
00
04
22
265
00
00
13
621
00
14
21
615
00
06
41
616
00
01
71
610
00
04
58
614
00
00
84
609
00
01
35
608
00
00
50
613
00
05
97
612
00
02
21
611
00
02
37
706
00
07
17
599
00
06
30
707
00
93
30
712
00
05
17
708
00
01
46
744
00
00
10
711
00
01
79
709
00
00
56
741
00
00
26
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tajpur Chhonk
740
00
18
76
739
00
19
42
736
00
07
30
735
00
04
82
21.
Sahayal
114
00
15
91
120
00
25
49
119
00
00
10
117
00
10
93
118
00
00
67
166
00
17
06
222
00
16
70
221
00
15
39
220
00
10
45
187
00
03
43
186
00
08
42
185
00
26
62
184
00
00
60
183
00
07
29
410
00
04
16
409
00
10
62
406
00
22
21
414
00
09
27
402
00
23
37
400
00
07
76
424
00
00
90
425
00
03
29
426
00
02
27
427
00
17
40
428
00
10
94
429
00
04
56
430
00
04
12
437
00
09
35
436
00
06
47
435
00
05
64
1103
00
13
68
1102
00
00
10
1101
00
05
44
1112
00
04
30
1113
00
00
48
1114
00
18
35
1115
00
12
39
1116
00
10
95
128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sahayal
1119
00
09
15
1120
00
01
81
2035
00
13
39
2033
00
21
34
2028
00
24
66
2030
00
01
01
2024
00
11
67
1125
00
00
16
2023
00
01
18
2022
00
20
63
2094
00
00
33
2093
00
16
71
2212
00
10
83
2214
00
20
32
2216
00
13
10
2081
00
18
12
2078
00
03
47
2079
00
00
44
2076
00
18
03
2326
00
00
10
2327
00
12
46
2328
00
01
82
2329
00
28
31
2330
00
00
69
2427
00
13
24
2359
00
00
53
2425
00
19
09
2546
00
09
78
2545
00
00
10
2548
00
08
10
2553
00
11
24
2623
00
00
10
2555
00
13
95
2620
00
18
12
2624
00
09
87
2621
00
00
50
2636
00
00
81
2638
00
00
80
2641
00
05
52
2618
00
07
91
2642
00
11
08
2644
00
29
28
2646
00
00
27
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sahayal
2651
00
25
47
2648
00
04
22
2650
00
04
45
22.
Mugriha
494
00
01
77
645
00
27
60
694
00
03
98
642
00
06
42
641
00
00
89
503
00
13
57
637
00
00
46
636
00
14
00
663
00
00
10
635
00
03
27
664
00
00
14
633
00
10
53
632
00
00
10
631
00
08
27
667
00
08
30
668
00
01
79
669
00
10
93
701
00
08
99
671
00
05
70
672
00
12
20
673
00
10
56
674
00
00
20
699
00
00
36
697
00
11
22
698
00
11
62
692
00
04
04
690
00
04
37
689
00
01
39
684
00
07
13
683
00
12
13
682
00
01
51
607
00
01
44
686
00
18
35
606
00
00
82
583
00
01
26
23.
Belhupur
159
00
46
73
158
00
21
20
155
00
34
33
128
00
08
79
130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
6
Belhupur
127
00
12
97
122
00
03
16
126
00
04
03
124
00
05
98
125
00
01
23
24.
Navi Mohan
473
00
05
68
471
00
00
53
472
00
11
35
474
00
09
52
463
00
26
09
498
00
09
83
497
00
00
18
517
00
38
15
366
00
00
51
362
00
14
26
364
00
00
20
365
00
20
89
551
00
08
03
610
00
02
67
609
00
09
38
604
00
08
78
563
00
03
01
601
00
01
90
600
00
11
46
601
00
00
13
597
00
11
24
567
00
00
35
596
00
10
34
595
00
13
77
594
00
13
66
593
00
04
02
591
00
00
10
590
00
05
10
587
00
00
10
581
00
00
65
582
00
01
58
588
00
06
03
583
00
00
66
584
00
02
82
577
00
00
19
578
00
15
54
25.
Sikhoo
187
00
00
26
190
00
07
34
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sikhoo
192
00
24
39
192/271
00
00
10
228
00
05
51
226
00
01
03
225
00
19
22
224
00
00
10
26.
Divari
488
00
13
88
487
00
11
53
486
00
00
10
519
00
10
56
521
00
09
41
520
00
00
42
474
00
10
67
473
00
08
82
470
00
02
22
469
00
04
25
468
00
04
37
467
00
10
14
466
00
06
33
465
00
01
96
444
00
00
41
437
00
04
11
438
00
16
49
428
00
09
13
426
00
09
01
420
00
11
88
412
00
10
90
411
00
04
41
410
00
01
52
409
00
06
01
408
00
00
10
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018-OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 18
18
18
18.—कD(ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत मD यह आवCयक है क आं} देश राsय मD
पेjोिलयम उIपाद के प+रवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना के Gया'वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
और कD(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवCयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूमी मD जो इस से
उपाब अनुसूची मD वQणत है, और िजसमD उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का Aताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न कया
जाए;
अतः अब, के'(ीय सरकार, पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ'स (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए उस भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज-न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी cि, जो उ अनुसूची मD वQणत भूिम मD िहतब है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मD यु भारत के
राजपH क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलgध करा दी जाती ह, इ~स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार के संब'ध मD ?ी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, स[म ािधकारी (आं} देश), इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ'स भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेWसी भवन, िथ~ना (डायमंड पाक-) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पलेWस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं} देश राsय को
िलिखत \प से आ[ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला : Gीकाकुलम
िजला : Gीकाकुलम
िजला : Gीकाकुलम
िजला : Gीकाकुलम
रा,य : आंH &देश
रा,य : आंH &देश
रा,य : आंH &देश
रा,य : आंH &देश
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
सव
सव
सव
सव
नJबर
नJबर
नJबर
नJबर
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
नंदगाम
नQसपुरम
92
00
00
96
89/3
00
04
91
89/9
00
00
56
76/1
00
03
24
76/4
00
00
48
78/6
00
01
12
78/7
00
00
65
110/6
00
00
10
110/7
00
04
70
110/14
00
01
74
111/7
00
00
72
111/10
00
02
20
111/11
00
00
08
112/15
00
01
92
112/16
00
00
27
114/3
00
00
30
110/12
00
02
13
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
133
नंदगाम
नQसपुरम
110/15
00
01
62
नंदगाम
कोमाटूz
139/2
00
03
86
139/4
00
00
78
164/8
00
00
03
164/9
00
00
11
टे~िल
रािववलासा
179/5
00
02
61
179/2
00
00
35
178/15
00
01
52
178/20
00
02
48
178/18
00
04
37
171/9
00
00
48
171/6
00
01
74
171/5
00
01
22
171/4
00
01
98
172/16
00
00
71
172/13
00
01
03
172/11
00
02
85
172/4
00
01
32
173/11
00
04
96
173/12
00
00
16
173/6
00
02
91
173/15
00
02
94
174/4
00
01
12
174/2
00
01
33
174/6
00
00
04
160/4
00
01
10
160/5
00
03
94
159/1
00
03
82
159/3
00
01
05
158/10
00
00
43
134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
टेW किल
रािववलासा
158/1
00
08
46
158/9
00
04
04
156/4
00
00
83
145/2
00
02
57
147/5
00
03
83
147/4
00
02
95
147/3
00
00
11
29/1
00
00
06
28/20
00
00
19
28/22
00
00
08
179/6
00
05
87
174/11
00
03
85
171/8
00
02
84
179/4
00
00
21
प दूz
बोेपिल
236
00
00
68
239/1
00
00
47
239/2
00
01
42
239/3
00
01
05
239/4
00
00
58
239/5
00
01
88
239/6
00
01
10
240/19
00
00
51
240/20
00
00
71
240/21
00
00
71
240/22
00
00
82
240/23
00
07
09
241/30
00
02
51
241/32
00
03
93
241/36
00
00
94
249/2
00
01
34
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
135
प दूz
बोेपिल
249/6
00
02
17
249/8
00
01
39
249/9
00
00
82
247/12
00
00
44
247/7
00
00
25
246/18
00
00
15
246/19
00
00
47
246/20
00
00
24
246/16
00
01
93
240/16
00
00
81
240/1
00
00
21
249/4
00
01
02
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 18.—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
Narsipuram
92
00
00
96
89/3
00
04
91
89/9
00
00
56
76/1
00
03
24
76/4
00
00
48
78/6
00
01
12
136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Nandigam
Narsipuram
78/7
00
00
65
110/6
00
00
10
110/7
00
04
70
110/14
00
01
74
111/7
00
00
72
111/10
00
02
20
111/11
00
00
08
112/15
00
01
92
112/16
00
00
27
114/3
00
00
30
110/12
00
02
13
110/15
00
01
62
Nandigam
Komaturu
139/2
00
03
86
139/4
00
00
78
164/8
00
00
03
164/9
00
00
11
Tekkali
Ravivalasa
179/5
00
02
61
179/2
00
00
35
178/15
00
01
52
178/20
00
02
48
178/18
00
04
37
171/9
00
00
48
171/6
00
01
74
171/5
00
01
22
171/4
00
01
98
172/16
00
00
71
172/13
00
01
03
172/11
00
02
85
172/4
00
01
32
173/11
00
04
96
173/12
00
00
16
173/6
00
02
91
173/15
00
02
94
174/4
00
01
12
174/2
00
01
33
174/6
00
00
04
160/4
00
01
10
160/5
00
03
94
159/1
00
03
82
159/3
00
01
05
158/10
00
00
43
158/1
00
08
46
158/9
00
04
04
156/4
00
00
83
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
137
Tekkali
Ravivalasa
145/2
00
02
57
147/5
00
03
83
147/4
00
02
95
147/3
00
00
11
29/1
00
00
06
28/20
00
00
19
28/22
00
00
08
179/6
00
05
87
174/11
00
03
85
171/8
00
02
84
179/4
00
00
21
Ponduru
Boddepalli
236
00
00
68
239/1
00
00
47
239/2
00
01
42
239/3
00
01
05
239/4
00
00
58
239/5
00
01
88
239/6
00
01
10
240/19
00
00
51
240/20
00
00
71
240/21
00
00
71
240/22
00
00
82
240/23
00
07
09
241/30
00
02
51
241/32
00
03
93
241/36
00
00
94
249/2
00
01
34
249/6
00
02
17
249/8
00
01
39
249/9
00
00
82
247/12
00
00
44
247/7
00
00
25
246/18
00
00
15
246/19
00
00
47
246/20
00
00
24
246/16
00
01
93
240/16
00
00
81
240/1
00
00
21
249/4
00
01
02
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 19
19
19
19.—के'(ीय सरकार ने पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न)
अिधिनय मD, 1962 ( 1962-50) ( िजसे इसमD इसके पnात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन
जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेjोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंHालय क अिधसूचना िजसका काशन भारत के राजपH
सं>या 15 दनाक 15-21 अैल 2018 का.आ. 607 दनाक 10.04.2018 भाग II खंड 3 उपखंड (II) मD कया गया है। इस
अिधसूचना से सलंq अनुसूची मD िविन`द_ महाराr राsय क तहसील- जामखेड, िजला अहमदनगर क भूिम मD महाराr राsय
मD कोयली (गुजरात) से अहमदनगर एवं सोलापुर तक पेjोिलयम प+रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा
Gयाि'वत कए जा रहे “कोयली-अहमदनगर-सोलापुर प+रयोजना” के स ब'ध मD पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए
उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न करने के िलए अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी :
और उ राजपH अिधसूचनाb क ितयाँ जनता को तारीख 13 िसत बर 2018 को उपलgध करा दी गई थ<।
और उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण मD स[म ािधकारी ने के'(ीय सरकार को अपनी +रपोट- दे
दी है।
और के'(ीय सरकार ने उ +रपोट- पर िवचार करने के पnात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ भूिम पाइपलाइन
िबछाने के िलए अपेिछत है, उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न करने का िविनnय कया है:
अत: अब, के'(ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) ारा पदत शिय का योग करते %ए! एतद
ारा घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से सलq अनुसूची मे िवन`दi ट भूिम मे पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार
अQजत कया जाए:
और क'(ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) ारा पद शिय का योग करते %ए, यह िनदyश देती
है क उ भूिम मD उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से के'(ीय सरकार मD िनिहत होने के बजाय सभी
िवलंगम से मु होकर इंिडयन ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड मD िनिहत होगा।
पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी [ितपूQत के िलए इंिडयन
ऑइल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड पूण-तया उरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सबिधत कसी भी मामले पर के'(ीय सरकार के
िव\ कोई वाद दावा या कानूनी काय-वाह< नही हो सकेगी।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
तालुका
तालुका
तालुका
तालुका : : : : जामखेड़
जामखेड़
जामखेड़
जामखेड़
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला : अहमदनगर
अहमदनगर
अहमदनगर
अहमदनगर
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य
रा,य : महारा-
महारा-
महारा-
महारा-
गांव का नाम
गांव का नाम
गांव का नाम
गांव का नाम
सव
सव
सव
सव नंनंनंनं.\/लॉक
/लॉक
/लॉक
/लॉक नंनंनंनं.
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हेहेहेहे3 टे
3 टे
3 टे
3 टेयर
यर
यर
यर
आर
आर
आर
आर
वग5 मीटर
वग5 मीटर
वग5 मीटर
वग5 मीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
जामखेड़
1033
00
18
76
1034
00
38
09
1037
00
08
35
1031
00
20
50
1030
00
11
12
1027
00
31
72
1026
00
17
80
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
139
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
जामखेड़
796
00
28
30
797
00
06
06
798
00
04
57
799
00
10
62
800
00
10
78
801
00
11
65
802
00
07
51
803
00
09
73
804
00
09
35
805
00
03
23
806
00
03
40
807
00
07
85
808
00
05
28
809
00
12
14
812
00
03
35
813
00
07
78
818
00
06
94
819
00
05
57
820
00
05
24
821
00
05
43
825
00
01
49
826
00
09
02
827
00
11
95
829
00
41
92
831
00
06
02
832
00
04
86
833
00
05
58
834
00
05
60
835
00
01
83
140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
जामखेड़
836
00
01
79
837
00
00
20
838
00
01
21
839
00
02
01
840
00
00
97
841
00
02
34
843
00
24
17
711
00
39
40
694
00
13
26
693
00
15
01
692
00
12
09
691
00
28
59
690
00
02
41
688
00
32
25
673
00
36
80
672
00
25
10
670
00
10
53
669
00
11
33
667
00
11
46
558
00
39
13
262
00
24
36
258
00
00
20
554
00
10
21
555
00
06
74
556
00
08
21
473
00
24
90
470
00
13
83
466
00
13
32
459
00
14
50
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
141
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
जामखेड़
467
00
00
92
458
00
06
63
457
00
16
48
456
00
10
18
419
00
06
44
420
00
05
84
421
00
05
08
422
00
08
87
423
00
02
43
424
00
03
74
425
00
08
23
426
00
05
93
428
00
04
17
430
00
02
79
432
00
01
64
431
00
01
90
433
00
02
31
440
00
14
82
441
00
12
07
442
00
14
04
443
00
20
09
322
00
31
63
323
00
61
11
320
00
04
19
318
00
45
76
319
00
10
75
228
00
20
24
224
00
02
18
142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
जमादारवाड़ी
179
00
34
80
180
00
05
58
181
00
03
76
182
00
26
95
09
00
14
59
10
00
17
98
11
00
29
77
12
00
35
38
13
00
27
14
15
00
43
30
18
00
05
41
19
00
27
19
23
00
13
45
25
00
11
80
26/1
00
15
62
33/1
00
09
33
34
00
09
09
35
00
11
42
36
00
13
71
37
00
21
04
47
00
00
13
38
00
04
05
46
00
93
93
42
00
15
68
43
00
00
08
56
00
07
28
काटेवाड़ी
182
00
30
82
183
00
13
04
184
00
13
30
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
143
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
काटेवाड़ी
195
00
57
02
196
00
22
09
137
00
20
23
215
00
12
11
216
00
14
67
217
00
13
75
219
00
07
56
218
00
11
68
235
00
47
58
233
00
17
48
232
00
47
78
259
00
24
53
260
00
28
88
264
00
22
25
261
00
06
88
263
00
03
08
सारोला
181
00
20
78
राजुरी
378
00
09
12
377
00
18
78
375
00
08
31
374
00
12
89
373
00
02
38
372
00
02
00
371
00
02
81
370
00
05
82
369
00
05
12
368
00
03
24
367
00
02
91
366
00
10
87
144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
राजुरी
363
00
07
52
362
00
04
60
361
00
11
15
360
00
24
31
359
00
18
28
358
00
16
04
357
00
07
07
356
00
02
84
352
00
05
87
351
00
07
08
347
00
05
67
344
00
14
66
310
00
10
05
309
00
00
02
307
00
16
57
312
00
00
08
313
00
10
27
314
00
02
22
343
00
07
87
316
00
42
88
296
00
11
96
317
00
90
90
274
00
17
67
206
00
15
43
206
00
55
58
217
00
01
75
195
01
24
97
194
00
14
59
193
00
31
04
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
145
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
राजुरी
191
00
10
63
190
00
27
14
186
00
14
09
188
00
41
92
187
00
21
03
Kपपलगांव आलवा
419
00
09
06
420
00
08
92
421
00
13
15
422
00
08
13
423
00
30
05
424
00
15
06
425
00
16
99
427
00
37
15
428
00
22
46
429
00
14
48
430
00
06
21
नायगांव
682
00
23
46
681
00
14
15
आनंदवाडी
118
00
00
81
119
00
07
84
121
00
15
58
122
00
14
43
131
00
09
44
132
00
11
06
135
00
02
79
143
00
02
27
141
00
02
96
144
00
06
64
145
00
05
46
146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
आनंदवाडी
142
00
02
96
147
00
18
76
148
00
00
48
166
00
07
57
161
00
12
80
81
00
06
82
80
00
07
50
79
00
05
16
78
00
05
04
61
00
10
70
62
00
07
05
67
00
14
33
34
00
07
05
35
00
06
39
36
00
17
94
64
00
24
95
68
00
07
05
60
00
03
49
46
00
09
65
45
00
31
09
47
00
03
32
09
00
25
39
02
00
30
06
03
00
00
06
08
00
37
69
05
00
25
18
बालगहाण
46
00
15
11
47
00
44
91
51
00
75
10
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
147
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
बालगहाण
52
00
15
65
53
00
21
25
54
00
17
74
56
00
00
08
55
00
36
43
68
00
18
65
67
00
12
87
72
00
07
29
73
00
01
95
66
00
28
84
65
00
20
06
64
00
27
16
96
00
41
10
95
00
09
27
101
00
67
52
खडा-
736
00
50
40
662
00
05
30
664
00
67
98
730
00
04
06
731
00
26
31
665
00
35
61
672
00
66
07
671
00
12
29
670
00
57
57
485
00
10
26
483
00
46
83
482
00
02
01
484
00
13
59
465
00
31
71
148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
खडा-
467
00
11
12
468
00
00
14
466
00
13
09
385
00
04
77
367
00
42
58
386
00
05
86
366
00
19
10
365
00
23
21
351
00
07
42
352
00
16
82
347
00
97
95
348
00
30
54
234
00
56
43
241
00
20
44
255
00
66
85
257
00
13
88
260
00
32
83
266
00
24
01
268
00
18
72
267
00
12
57
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 19.—Whereas by the notification of The Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, Published in the Gazette No. 15 date 15-21 April 2018 S.O No. 607 date 10.04.2018 Part-II,Section-3,Sub-Section
(ii) 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 Tehsil Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar in Maharashtra State, specified in
the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum from
Koyali in the State Gujrat to Solapur in the Maharashtra by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the
‘’Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline Project’’.
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 12 September
2018.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
149
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted
his report 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 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free
from all encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P
& MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Taluka : Jamkhed
District : Ahmednagar
State : Maharashtra
Name of Village
Survey No./ Block
No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Jamkhed
1033
00
18
76
1034
00
38
09
1037
00
08
35
1031
00
20
50
1030
00
11
12
1027
00
31
72
1026
00
17
80
796
00
28
30
797
00
06
06
798
00
04
57
799
00
10
62
800
00
10
78
801
00
11
65
802
00
07
51
803
00
09
73
804
00
09
35
805
00
03
23
806
00
03
40
807
00
07
85
808
00
05
28
809
00
12
14
812
00
03
35
813
00
07
78
818
00
06
94
819
00
05
57
150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Jamkhed
820
00
05
24
821
00
05
43
825
00
01
49
826
00
09
02
827
00
11
95
829
00
41
92
831
00
06
02
832
00
04
86
833
00
05
58
834
00
05
60
835
00
01
83
836
00
01
79
837
00
00
20
838
00
01
21
839
00
02
01
840
00
00
97
841
00
02
34
843
00
24
17
711
00
39
40
694
00
13
26
693
00
15
01
692
00
12
09
691
00
28
59
690
00
02
41
688
00
32
25
673
00
36
80
672
00
25
10
670
00
10
53
669
00
11
33
667
00
11
46
558
00
39
13
262
00
24
36
258
00
00
20
554
00
10
21
555
00
06
74
556
00
08
21
473
00
24
90
470
00
13
83
466
00
13
32
459
00
14
50
467
00
00
92
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
151
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Jamkhed
458
00
06
63
457
00
16
48
456
00
10
18
419
00
06
44
420
00
05
84
421
00
05
08
422
00
08
87
423
00
02
43
424
00
03
74
425
00
08
23
426
00
05
93
428
00
04
17
430
00
02
79
432
00
01
64
431
00
01
90
433
00
02
31
440
00
14
82
441
00
12
07
442
00
14
04
443
00
20
09
322
00
31
63
323
00
61
11
320
00
04
19
318
00
45
76
319
00
10
75
228
00
20
24
224
00
02
18
Jamadarwadi
179
00
34
80
180
00
05
58
181
00
03
76
182
00
26
95
09
00
14
59
10
00
17
98
11
00
29
77
12
00
35
38
13
00
27
14
15
00
43
30
18
00
05
41
19
00
27
19
23
00
13
45
25
00
11
80
152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Jamadarwadi
26/1
00
15
62
33/1
00
09
33
34
00
09
09
35
00
11
42
36
00
13
71
37
00
21
04
47
00
00
13
38
00
04
05
46
00
93
93
42
00
15
68
43
00
00
08
56
00
07
28
Katewadi
182
00
30
82
183
00
13
04
184
00
13
30
195
00
57
02
196
00
22
09
137
00
20
23
215
00
12
11
216
00
14
67
217
00
13
75
219
00
07
56
218
00
11
68
235
00
47
58
233
00
17
48
232
00
47
78
259
00
24
53
260
00
28
88
264
00
22
25
261
00
06
88
263
00
03
08
Sarola
181
00
20
78
Rajuri
378
00
09
12
377
00
18
78
375
00
08
31
374
00
12
89
373
00
02
38
372
00
02
00
371
00
02
81
370
00
05
82
369
00
05
12
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
153
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Rajuri
368
00
03
24
367
00
02
91
366
00
10
87
363
00
07
52
362
00
04
60
361
00
11
15
360
00
24
31
359
00
18
28
358
00
16
04
357
00
07
07
356
00
02
84
352
00
05
87
351
00
07
08
347
00
05
67
344
00
14
66
310
00
10
05
309
00
00
02
307
00
16
57
312
00
00
08
313
00
10
27
314
00
02
22
343
00
07
87
316
00
42
88
296
00
11
96
317
00
90
90
274
00
17
67
206
00
15
43
206
00
55
58
217
00
01
75
195
01
24
97
194
00
14
59
193
00
31
04
191
00
10
63
190
00
27
14
186
00
14
09
188
00
41
92
187
00
21
03
Pimpalgaon Alwa
419
00
09
06
420
00
08
92
421
00
13
15
422
00
08
13
154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Pimpalgaon Alwa
423
00
30
05
424
00
15
06
425
00
16
99
427
00
37
15
428
00
22
46
429
00
14
48
430
00
06
21
Naigaon
682
00
23
46
681
00
14
15
Anandwadi
118
00
00
81
119
00
07
84
121
00
15
58
122
00
14
43
131
00
09
44
132
00
11
06
135
00
02
79
143
00
02
27
141
00
02
96
144
00
06
64
145
00
05
46
142
00
02
96
147
00
18
76
148
00
00
48
166
00
07
57
161
00
12
80
81
00
06
82
80
00
07
50
79
00
05
16
78
00
05
04
61
00
10
70
62
00
07
05
67
00
14
33
34
00
07
05
35
00
06
39
36
00
17
94
64
00
24
95
68
00
07
05
60
00
03
49
46
00
09
65
45
00
31
09
47
00
03
32
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
155
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Anandwadi
09
00
25
39
02
00
30
06
03
00
00
06
08
00
37
69
05
00
25
18
Balgavhan
46
00
15
11
47
00
44
91
51
00
75
10
52
00
15
65
53
00
21
25
54
00
17
74
56
00
00
08
55
00
36
43
68
00
18
65
67
00
12
87
72
00
07
29
73
00
01
95
66
00
28
84
65
00
20
06
64
00
27
16
96
00
41
10
95
00
09
27
101
00
67
52
Kharda
736
00
50
40
662
00
05
30
664
00
67
98
730
00
04
06
731
00
26
31
665
00
35
61
672
00
66
07
671
00
12
29
670
00
57
57
485
00
10
26
483
00
46
83
482
00
02
01
484
00
13
59
465
00
31
71
467
00
11
12
468
00
00
14
466
00
13
09
385
00
04
77
156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Kharda
367
00
42
58
386
00
05
86
366
00
19
10
365
00
23
21
351
00
07
42
352
00
16
82
347
00
97
95
348
00
30
54
234
00
56
43
241
00
20
44
255
00
66
85
257
00
13
88
260
00
32
83
266
00
24
01
268
00
18
72
267
00
12
57
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2018
dk-vk- 20-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]
1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh
xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1095 rkjh[k 17 tqykÃ] 2018 tks
Hkkjr ds jkti= Øekad 29] rkjh[k 22 tqykà & 28 tqykà 2018 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu
vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª jkT; esa ftyk vkSjaxkckn esa rkYkqdk oStkiqj dks;yh & vgenuxj & lksykiqj isVªksfy;e
ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZj'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu
ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh (
vkSj mä jkti= vf/kfu;e dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 19 flrEcj] 2018 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUæh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ dh gS (
vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbiykbZu fcNkus
ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk
djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu
fd;k tk, (
vkSj ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mä
Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls
eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxh A
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku
fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUæh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k
dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
157
vuqlwPkh
rglhy%&oStkiqj
ftyk%& vkSjaxkckn
jkT;%& egkjk"Vª
ekSts @xzke
losZ @ Cykd @ la-
¼IyksV la-½
lc&Mho&la-
{ks=Qy
gsDVj
vkj
oxZ ehVj
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
lqjkYkk
137
00
25
70
136
00
36
22
146
00
12
79
147
00
11
75
148
00
13
30
149
00
11
90
161
00
11
87
162
00
23
30
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S. O. 20.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas vide S.O. No. 1095 dated the 17th July, 2018, 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), Published in the Gazette of India, No.29 dated 22 – 28 July, 2018 the Central Government declared its intention to
acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying
Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Aurangabad District in the State of
Maharashtra by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 19th September,
2018;
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of said act submitted report to the
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 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 right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the
P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to the pipeline.
158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Vaijapur
District:- Aurangabad
State :- Maharashtra
Mouja / Village
Survey/Block No.
Sub-Div-No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Surala
137
00
25
70
136
00
36
22
146
00
12
79
147
00
11
75
148
00
13
30
149
00
11
90
161
00
11
87
162
00
23
30
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2018
dk-vk- 21-&dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk
vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3
dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky; dh
vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 2219 rkjh[k 14 flrEcj] 2017 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] rkjh[k 17 flrEcj & 23
flrEcj 2017 esa izdkf’kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª
jkT; esa ftyk ukfld esa rkYkqdk ;soyk dks;yh & vgenuxj & lksykiqj isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy,
bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu
ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh (
vkSj mä jkti= vf/kfu;e dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 4 Qjojh 2018 rd miyC/k djk dh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUæh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ dh
gS (
vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe
ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu’p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds
fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vkSj ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ’k
nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk’ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa fufgr
gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dksiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxh A
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u
vkW;y dksiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUæh;
ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
159
vuqlwPkh
rglhy%&;soyk
ftyk%& ukfld
jkT;%& egkjk"Vª
ekStk @xzke
losZ @ Cykd @ la-
¼लॉट la-½
lc&Mho&la-
{ks=Qy
हेटर
vkj
oxZ ehVj
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
dqlqj
10
00
39
50
11@1
00
09
58
11@2
00
09
43
12
00
11
92
13
00
11
45
14@1
00
39
10
25@1
00
08
94
25@2
00
02
12
24
00
07
13
34
00
09
63
39
00
01
78
38
00
10
02
35
00
05
14
37
00
22
78
51@2
00
10
40
50
00
12
16
49
00
21
24
48
00
20
50
67
00
18
49
68
00
31
48
69
00
14
51
64
00
15
52
63
00
00
65
102@1
00
09
02
103
00
24
14
111
00
25
86
110
00
35
64
142@2
00
03
76
143
00
07
83
144
00
10
91
145
00
43
90
160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼5½
¼6½
146
00
14
38
147
00
06
67
148
00
03
44
149
00
07
36
151
00
02
97
152
00
02
10
153
00
02
58
154
00
00
80
155
00
00
51
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)6/2018-ओआर-I/ई-23678]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S. O. 21.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas vide S.O. No. 2219 dated the 14th September, 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), Published in the Gazette of India dated the 17th September-23rd September 2017, the Central Government declared
its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose
of laying Koyali-Ahmednagar-Solapur Pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Taluka Yeola in Nashik
District in the State of Maharashtra by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 4th February 2018;
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of said act submitted report to the
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 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 right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all
encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the
P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter
relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Yeola
District:- Nashik
State :- Maharashtra
Mouja / Village
Survey/Block No.
Sub-Div-No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sq.mtr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Kusur
10
00
39
50
11/1
00
09
58
11/2
00
09
43
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
00
11
92
13
00
11
45
14/1
00
39
10
25/1
00
08
94
25/2
00
02
12
24
00
07
13
34
00
09
63
39
00
01
78
38
00
10
02
35
00
05
14
37
00
22
78
51/2
00
10
40
50
00
12
16
49
00
21
24
48
00
20
50
67
00
18
49
68
00
31
48
69
00
14
51
64
00
15
52
63
00
00
65
102/1
00
09
02
103
00
24
14
111
00
25
86
110
00
35
64
142/2
00
03
76
143
00
07
83
144
00
10
91
145
00
43
90
146
00
14
38
147
00
06
67
148
00
03
44
149
00
07
36
151
00
02
97
152
00
02
10
153
00
02
58
154
00
00
80
155
00
00
51
[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ. 22
22
22
22.—कD(ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत मD यह आवCयक है क आं} देश राsय मD
पेjोिलयम उIपाद के प+रवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना के Gया'वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कD(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवCयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम मD जो इस से
ऊपाब अनुसूची मD वQणत है, और िजसमD उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का Aताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न कया
जाए;
अतः अब, के'(ीय सरकार, पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ'स (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए उस भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज-न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी cि, जो उ अनुसूची मD वQणत भूिम मD िहतब है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मD यु भारत के
राजपH क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलgध करा दी जाती ह, इ~स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार के संब'ध मD ?ी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, स[म ािधकारी (आं} देश), इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ'स भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेWसी भवन, िथ~ना (डायमंड पाक-) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पलेWस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं} देश राsय को
िलिखत \प से आ[ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला : Gीकाकुलम रा,य : आँH &देश
िजला : Gीकाकुलम रा,य : आँH &देश
िजला : Gीकाकुलम रा,य : आँH &देश
िजला : Gीकाकुलम रा,य : आँH &देश
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
सव
सव
सव
सव
नJबर
नJबर
नJबर
नJबर
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
ीकाकुलम
नैरा
234/3
00
01
00
234/2
00
00
71
234/4
00
00
09
233/18
00
01
93
233/20
00
02
31
233/19
00
00
55
233/4
00
01
30
233/3
00
00
15
आमुदालावलासा
दूिस
54/5
00
02
09
54/8
00
02
19
55/3
00
00
75
55/4
00
00
11
55/6
00
00
19
54/4
00
02
84
54/10
00
00
41
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
163
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 22.—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)
SRIKAKULAM
NAIRA
234/3
00
01
00
234/2
00
00
71
234/4
00
00
09
233/18
00
01
93
233/20
00
02
31
233/19
00
00
55
233/4
00
01
30
233/3
00
00
15
AMUDALAVALASA
DUSI
54/5
00
02
09
54/8
00
02
19
55/3
00
00
75
55/4
00
00
11
55/6
00
00
19
54/4
00
02
84
54/10
00
00
41
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 28 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ. 23
23
23
23.—कD(ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत मD यह आवCयक है क आं} देश राsय मD
पेjोिलयम उIपाद के प+रवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना के Gया'वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
और कD(ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवCयक तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम मD जो इस से
ऊपाब अनुसूची मD वQणत है, और िजसमD उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का Aताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न कया
जाए;
अतः अब, के'(ीय सरकार, पेjोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ'स (भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का अज-न) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) ारा द शिय का योग करते %ए उस भूिम मD उपयोग के अिधकार का
अज-न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी cि, जो उ अनुसूची मD वQणत भूिम मD िहतब है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना मD यु भारत के
राजपH क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलgध करा दी जाती ह, इ~स (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमD उपयोग के अिधकार के संब'ध मD ?ी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, स[म ािधकारी (आं} देश), इंिडयन
ऑयल कॉपuरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइ'स भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प+रयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेWसी भवन, िथ~ना (डायमंड पाक-) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पलेWस के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आं} देश राsय को
िलिखत \प से आ[ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला : Gीकाकुलम रा,य :
िजला : Gीकाकुलम रा,य :
िजला : Gीकाकुलम रा,य :
िजला : Gीकाकुलम रा,य : आं
आं
आं
आंH &देश
H &देश
H &देश
H &देश
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
मंडल का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
Iाम का नाम
सव
सव
सव
सव
नJबर
नJबर
नJबर
नJबर
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
ेफल
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
हे3टेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
वग5मीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
5)
5)
5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
संताबो मािल
अ+रकावलासा
83/3
00
01
51
81/2C
00
04
72
80/4
00
00
35
80/1
00
00
47
80/7
00
00
94
67/13
00
01
86
67/11
00
00
05
68/4
00
00
47
69/2
00
04
50
70/14
00
03
97
70/5
00
00
10
70/4
00
00
30
43/7A
00
00
11
43/4
00
01
27
43/1
00
01
25
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
165
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
5)
5)
5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
संताबो मािल
अ+रकावलासा
30/9D
00
01
58
30/7
00
01
00
30/5
00
01
88
29/3
00
00
39
16/8
00
00
72
16/7
00
00
86
16/9
00
00
73
16/5
00
01
80
5/6
00
00
48
5/4
00
00
68
5/3
00
00
11
16/13
00
09
21
17/7P
00
01
22
16/14
00
02
23
83/4
00
16
19
नरासdापेटा
लुकालाम
290/6
00
03
89
290/5
00
00
16
288/9
00
00
12
288/3
00
00
45
286/13
00
02
34
326/2
00
01
16
326/1
00
01
15
329/2
00
02
17
329/3
00
03
08
329/4
00
05
53
343/10
00
02
54
166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
5)
5)
5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
नरासdापेटा
लुकालाम
343/12
00
01
03
343/6
00
00
64
344/3
00
00
24
352/18
00
00
21
352/17
00
00
15
353/18
00
02
27
353/16
00
00
60
353/17
00
00
80
355/25
00
00
32
355/24
00
00
33
355/16
00
01
40
344/1
00
02
23
343/5
00
02
03
355/18
00
00
41
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस क' डो, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2018
S.O. 23.—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
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
167
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)
Santa Bommali
Arikavalasa
83/3
00
01
51
81/2C
00
04
72
80/4
00
00
35
80/1
00
00
47
80/7
00
00
94
67/13
00
01
86
67/11
00
00
05
68/4
00
00
47
69/2
00
04
50
70/14
00
03
97
70/5
00
00
10
70/4
00
00
30
43/7A
00
00
11
43/4
00
01
27
43/1
00
01
25
30/9D
00
01
58
30/7
00
01
00
30/5
00
01
88
29/3
00
00
39
16/8
00
00
72
16/7
00
00
86
16/9
00
00
73
16/5
00
01
80
5/6
00
00
48
5/4
00
00
68
5/3
00
00
11
168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Santa Bommali
Arikavalasa
16/13
00
09
21
17/7P
00
01
22
16/14
00
02
23
83/4
00
16
19
Narasannapeta
Lukalam
290/6
00
03
89
290/5
00
00
16
288/9
00
00
12
288/3
00
00
45
286/13
00
02
34
326/2
00
01
16
326/1
00
01
15
329/2
00
02
17
329/3
00
03
08
329/4
00
05
53
343/10
00
02
54
343/12
00
01
03
343/6
00
00
64
344/3
00
00
24
352/18
00
00
21
352/17
00
00
15
353/18
00
02
27
353/16
00
00
60
353/17
00
00
80
355/25
00
00
32
355/24
00
00
33
355/16
00
01
40
344/1
00
02
23
343/5
00
02
03
355/18
00
00
41
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
169
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
नई दली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 24
24
24
24.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस उप महा$बंधक, & टेट ब(क ऑफ इंिडया नई द ली और अ य एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2
और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म
यायालय, नई दली -1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 213/2018) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
29/11/2018 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-12011/05/2018-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 24.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 213/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court-1,
New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy General
Manager, State Bank of India New Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 29.11.2018.
[No. L-12011/05/2018-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR
COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No. 213/2018
Shri Kanchan Walia,
B-82, 1st Floor, Ganesh Nagar,
Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi – 110 092
…Workman
Versus
1. The Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
DAO -1, 1st Floor,
Delhi Administrative Office-1,
11 Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110001
2. The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
RBO-3, 3rd Floor,
Block A, Delhi Zonal Office,
11 Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001
…Management
170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-12011/05/2018-IR(B-I) dated 10.07.2018 under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for
adjudication of an industrial disputes, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of SBI, regarding punishment of ‘removal from service’ awarded on
Smt. Kanchan Walia, Special Assistant, State Bank of India, Ghonda Branch, Delhi is just, fair and proper? If
not, whether she is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service ? ’’
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Smt. Kanchan Walia, the workman, opted not to file her claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the workman as well as the management.
Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, the workman opted to abstain from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on her behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in her appearance nor has she led any evidence so as to prove her cause
against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award.
However, it will not debar the claimant from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on merits.
An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : November 28, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 25
25
25
25.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस महािनदेशक, सीपीड>यूडी काया लय नई दली, और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और
उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय,
नई दली -1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 122/2013) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.12.18 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42011/85/2013-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 25.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.122/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court -1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director General,
CPWD Office New Delhi , & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.12.18.
[No. L-42011/85/2013-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
171
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.122/2013
Smt. Tara Devi W/o Late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi, through
All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.),
House No.4823, Gali No.13,
Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara,
Delhi – 110 032
…Workman
Versus
The Director General (Works),
Central Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 001
The Executive Engineer,
CD – IV, CPWD, IARI, Pusa,
New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.L-42011/85/2013-IR(DU)
dated 04.09.2013/06.09.2013 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 demand of the union to regularize the services of the deceased workman late Shri Prem Nath
Manjhi from the same date from which his juniors have been granted regularization and release of consequential
benefits including, pension and other retirement benefits as per the rules applicable to regular workmen is legal
and unjustified? To what relief the widow/legal heir of the deceased workman are entitled to and what
directions are necessary in this respect?’
2.
Claim statement was filed by Ms. Tara Devi, W/o late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi (in short the claimant ) wherein it
is averred that late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi (in short the late workman) was initially appointed as beldar on 16.08.1988 on
muster roll. He expired on 27.04.2008 after have put in 19 years and 8 months of regular service on muster roll.
Management had granted temporary status to the late workman with effect from 01.09.1993. As per the temporary status
scheme 50% service on muster roll is to be counted for pensionary benefits after regularization. As per the provisions of
CPWD manual and scheme of temporary status, the late workman was entitled for regularization of service after
completion of 2 years continuous service from date of his initial date of appointment on hand receipt. In spite of having
sufficient sanctioned vacant posts of beldars during the service of the late claimant, the late workman was not regularized
against the said post though juniors to him were regularized with effect from 27.11.2001 and 05.08.2002. Services of the
claimant were regularized on 11.12.2006 under one time relaxation scheme framed by the Department and which was
available to those workmen who have completed more than 10 years of regular service in the Department on the
directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Though the management has made payment of gratuity to the wife of the
late workman on account of his death yet she has not been granted pensionary benefits. Denial of regularization to the
late workman from the date when junior to him were regularized, amounts to unfair labour practice and discrimination.
The late workman was a member of the Sangathan and the claimant, his widow, has consented for taking up the case of
her late husband. Finally, it has been prayed that the late workman may be regularized from the date when his juniors
were regularized and for grant of terminal and pensionary benefits to the claimant.
3.
Claim was demurred by the management by taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of the absence of
an industrial dispute, concealment of material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the juniors to the late
workman, i.e. Shri Randhir Singh, Shri Ram Prasad Tiwari and Shri Kalu Ram were regularized as per directions of
CAT, Principal bench, New Delhi. The management has denied the other material averments contained in the statement
of claim. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed.
4.
Against this factual background, my learned predecessor on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order
dated 16.01.2014, noted that no other issue than the one referred or adjudication by the appropriate Government is made
out. Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant. The claimant, in order to prove her case against the
management, examined herself as WW1 and tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.WW1/A. She also relied on
documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/5. However, during the course of her cross examination, settlement was tried
between the parties and finally it was stated by the management that a new order of DOPT regarding grant of pension has
been issued and the case of the claimant was stated to be duly covered under said order. Management also filed letter
dated 06.01.2018 Ex.P-1 wherein the services of the claimant have been regularized on the post of beldar in the scale of
Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1600 with effect from 11.12.2006 vide order No.10 (1)/SE-Circle (Electrical)/E-
4/2038 dated 11.09.2011.
172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
As a sequel to my above discussions, it is held that since late Shri Prem Nath Manjhi has been regularized with
effect from 11.12.2006, the same date from which his juniors have been granted regularization, management is directed
to release all consequential benefits including pension and other retirement benefits as per the rules applicable to regular
workmen. It is further held that widow/legal heirs is entitled to the retirral benefits of her late husband. An award is
accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 26
26
26
26.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस भारती एयरटेल स@वसेज िलिमटेड और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के
बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, 1 नई दली के पंचाट
(संदभ सं8या 63/2016) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 31.10.2018 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-40011/47/2015-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 26.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Bharti Airtal
Services Ltd. , and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 31.10.2018.
[No. L-40011/47/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.63/2016
Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav, through
Samast Delhi Karamchari Union (Regd.),
Affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,
52C, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3,
New Delhi - 110 020
…Workman
Versus
1. M/s. Bharti Airtel Services Ltd.,
234, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase 3,
New Delhi 110020
2. The Managing Director,
M/s. Johnsons Control (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Ground Floor, Plot No.A4 & A5,
Logix Soft Tel Pvt. Ltd. Building,
Sector 16, NOIDA,
Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh
3. The Managing Director,
M/s. ACE Facility Management Pvt. Ltd.,
HR/36/2, 60 Ft. Road, Pul Prahaladpur,
New Delhi – 110 044
…Managements
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
173
AWARD
A reference was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.L-40011/47/2015-IR(DU)
dated 07.01.2016/13.01.2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the claim of the workman Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Yadav for regularization
of his service with the managements of Bharti Airtel Limited alongwith the payment of all legal dues is legal
and justified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?’
2.
Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav filed his statement of claim stating that he was employed by M/s Bharti Airtel
Limited in their parking as Driver/Parking Boy on 01.12.2006 where he worked with dedication and sincerity. He was
working under the direct control and supervision of M/s Bharti Airtel Limited continuously till 2011. Later on, without
any notice to the claimant he was placed on pay rolls of various contractors. On objecting to this practice, the claimant
was threatened to be thrown out and also informed that only his salary would be paid through contractor. M/s ACE
Facility management Pvt. Ltd. took 12 hours of job at a monthly wage of Rs.10,081.00 deprived his of various leaves,
bonus etc. which clearly amounts to unfair labour practice. A complaint was also filed before this Tribunal for payment
of the dues etc. Initially, the principal employer, M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. was paying salary, overtime, yearly leaves, bonus
etc. In 2011, without the notice of the claimant, he was being paid his salary through the contractor. Demand notice was
also sent to the management in this regard on 16.04.2014 and 15.07.2014. However, no response was received from the
management. Finally, it has been prayed that the claimant may be regularized with all consequential benefits.
2.
Claim was resisted by M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. taking various preliminary objections, inter alia of approaching the
court with unclean hands, facts being distorted, non-espousal, concealment of facts etc. On merits, it is admitted that the
management had engaged the services of M/s CBRE South Asia Private Ltd. (earlier known as M/s Johnsons Controls
India Pvt. Ltd. ) for certain permissible services rendered by it and have no nexus with the workforce of CBRE South
Asia Pvt. Ltd. M/s Bharti Airtel has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim.
3.
No reply was filed by M/s Johnsons Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s ACE Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., who
were proceeded ex-parte on 05.01.2017.
4.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 04.07.2017 :
(i) Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited
management No.1?
(ii) Where is no espousal of the case, as alleged by the management?
(iii) In terms of reference
5.
Thereafter, the case was listed for evidence of the claimant and the case was listed on 24.10.2018. In the
meanwhile, parties stated that they have settled the matter amicably and there remains no occasion to adjudicate the
issues referred above.
7.
Claimant made a statement to the effect that he is willing to accept Rs.2,40,000.00 from M/s ACE Facility
Management Pvt. Ltd. towards full and final settlement of his claim for reinstatement in service, other benefits etc., if
any. Now, the claimant does not have any surviving dispute with any of the managements and the matter has been
disposed of amicably between the parties. Statement of the claimant has been separately recorded. The receipt of full
and final settlement, Ex.C-I, shall form integral part of the award. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the
appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : October 29, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 27
27
27
27.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस भारती एयरटेल स@वसेज िलिमटेड और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के
बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय 1, नई दली के पंचाट
(संदभ सं8या 268/2017) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 31.10.2018 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2018-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 27.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.268/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Bharti Airtal
Services Ltd., and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 31.10.2018.
[No. L-42025/03/2018-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No . 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.268/2017
Shri Nagendra Kumar, through
General Mazdoor Union,
B-89, Gulmohar Park,
New Delhi – 110049
…Workman
Versus
Bharti Airtel Services Ltd.,
Through,
The Director,
Plot No.234, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III,
New Delhi 110020
…Management
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Nagendra Prasad (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-
section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from
the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers
him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands
substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act
to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a
dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was
within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-
A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate
Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2.
Claim was filed by the claimant that he was working as Technician with M/s Bharti Airtel Services Limited
since 01.05.2008. His last drawn wages was Rs.24,535.00 per month. He was given a glorified designation of Officer S-
4 though he has not powers of officer, to sign cheques, to appoint or remove anyone. Prior to appointing the claimant,
management took trade test as well as interview. During the interview, it was specifically informed to the claimant that
he would be placed in Delhi. Management was adopting unfair labour practice such as changing service conditions like
changing permanent employees to contact employee status, forcing permanent employees to resign from job etc. In July
2016, management pressurized the claimant to resign. Since he refused to do so, management threatened to post him to a
faraway place, though his appointment letter does not contain any transfer clause. However, with intention to harass the
claimant, transfer order was sent to him through e-mail. On 09.08.2016 when the claimant reported for duties he was
given a transfer letter with instructions to report at Dimapur. Demand notice was sent to the management on 10.08.2016
to allow him to continue his duties at Delhi but the management did not heed to his request. On 16.08.2016, the claimant
performed his duties at Delhi. On 17.08.2016 when the claimant reported for duties, he was informed by the Security
Guard that there is an order from the management to not to allow him to enter the company premises. On contacting the
management personnel, the claimant was informed that his name has been struck off from the rolls of the company at
Delhi and that he should report at Dimapur. The above acts of the management is illegal, malafide and amounts to
victimization. Finally, it has been prayed that the transfer order be termed illegal and direct the management to take the
claimant back at Delhi.
3.
Written statement was filed by the management wherein various preliminary objections, inter alia that the relief
sought is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, transfer of an employee being inherent right of an employer, non
espousal etc. The management has denied the material averments contained in the statement of claim
4.
From the records, it emerged that in fact the case of the claimant it that of his transfer from Delhi to Dimapur.
The case has been wrongly registered under 2-A of the Act as it is not a case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment of
otherwise termination of the service of the claimant. Concededly, provisions of Section 2-A can be pressed into service
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
175
only when the service of a workman is terminated or he is discharged/dismissed or retrenched from service. Section 2-A
cannot be availed in case of transfer of a workman. Statement of Shri Mohan Nair, A/R for the claimant has been
recorded separately that he neither wants to prosecute his claim nor does he want to lead any evidence in support of his
claim. Hence, the claim petition is, hereby, dismissed. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let it be sent for publication
as required under section 17 of the Act.
Dated : October 29, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 28
28
28
28.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
$शासिनक अिधकारी, अिखल भारतीय आयु@वCान सं&थान एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके
कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, 1
नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 76/2016) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 29.11.2018 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/221/2015- आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 28.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.76/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Administrative
Officer, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 29.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/221/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.76/2016
Shri Vidya Nand Sharma S/o late Shri Uday Narain Sharma,
R/o F-48, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi 110 030
…Workman
Versus
(i)
The Administrative Officer,
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029
(ii)
M/s. Sulabh International Social Service Organization,
Sulabh Bhawan, Mahavir Enclave, RZ-83,
Palam – Dabri Road,
New Delhi – 110 045
…Managements
AWARD
A reference was received from Central Government under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42012/221/2015-
IR(DU) dated 04.01.2016, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
“Whether the claim of the workman Shri Vidya Nand Sharma S/o late Uday Narain Sharma to be reinstated in
service on the roll of AIIMS with effect from 20.09.2009 with consequential benefits i.e. DA, HRA, etc. as
176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
admissible to the regular employees of cafeteria in AIIMS is legal and justified and if so what relief the
workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?’’
2.
Shri Vidya Nand Sharma, the claimant, filed his statement of claim wherein it is averred that he was orally
appointed by the General Manager, Cafeteria All India Institute of Medical Sciences, alongwith various other employees.
No appointment letter was issued by the management. All of a sudden, without any notice or memorandum claimant was
removed from service. Nature of the duty of the claimant is on regular basis with effect from 25.01.2008 as an Assistant
Manager cum Storekeeper continuously without any technical break. Hence, the claimant is entitled for the regular pay
scale as the work carried/performed is regular nature, which is being performed by other cafeteria employees of All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, i.e. pay scale of Rs.5200 + 20,200 + 2400 with grade pay of Rs.2400. Claimant has
averred that he is also entitled for dearness allowance, house rent, CCA, patient care allowance, leave benefits etc. equal
to the similarly placed employees with effect from February’08. Finally it has been prayed that the claimant may be
extended the above benefits as holding the post of Assistant Manager.
3.
Reply was filed on behalf of M/s Sulabh International Social Service Organization averring that the complaint is
not maintainable nor fit to be taken cognizance of. Initially complaint was against All India Institute of Medical Sciences
but subsequently M/s Sulabh International Social Service Organization was added as one of the contesting management.
During the conciliation, it was specifically conceded by the claimant before the Ld. Assistant Labour
Commissioner(Central) that he has no grievance or dispute against M/s Sulabh International Social Service Organization.
Hence, the instant complaint is fit to be rejected.
3.
Initially despite affording of several opportunities, All India Institute of Medical Sciences failed to file their
written statement and hence were proceeded ex-parte, which was later on recalled on an application filed by them.
Written statement was filed on behalf of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, taking various preliminary objections of
the claim being illegal, invalid and unsustainable, the claimant never being appointed by AIIMS. Earlier the claimant had
approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the matter was compromised between the parties by payment of
Rs. 6 lakh. Thereafter the claimant filed an application under Section 20(i) of Minimum Wages Act in which a claim of
Rs.3,70,590.00 was made and the said application was disposed of by the Ld. Judge Evening Court No.2, Patiala House
Court vide order dated 21.08.2015. Hence the case is hit by principle of res-judicata, estoppel and laches. Finally, it is
prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.
4.
Thereafter, case was listed for filing of rejoinder. In the meanwhile, it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal
that the claimant has since expired. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant was fighting the case himself and no
legal heir has come forward to pursue the case. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no alternative but to pass
a ‘no dispute’ award. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : November 26, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 29
29
29
29.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
$बंधन, कीय बोड ऑफ Dसचाई और पावर का $बंधन एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके
कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय 1,
नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 101/2015) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 29.11.2018 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/07/2015-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 29.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.101/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Managrment of
Central Board Of Irrigation & Power, & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
29.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/07/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
177
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. 101/2015
Shri Mohan Lal,
S/o. Late Shri Prabhu Dayal,
through Shri Vinay Kumar
Chamber No.B-93, BGS Block,
Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi 110054
…Workman/Claiman
Versus
1. The Management of Central Board of Irrigation & Power,
Through its Secretary, Malcha Marg,
Chankyapuri, New Delhi.
2. Ministry of Water Resoures,
New Delhi -110001.
…….Management
AWARD
This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide
letter No. L-42012/07/2015-IR(DU) dated 05.03.2015 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 termination of Shri Mohan Lal s/o. Shri Prabhu Dayal, who was appointed by the management of
Central Board of Irrigation & Power as Mali (attendant) on 23.3.2006 after the death of his father considering
the request of appointment on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 1.5.2007 is illegal and unjustified and if so, what
relief is the claimant to and what directions are necessary in this respect ?’
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. The claimant Mohan Lal filed his statement of claim, with the
averments that his father Shri Prabhu Lal was appointed by the Management on the post of Mali vide appointment letter
dated 10/2/1982 and was a permanent employee. His father expired on 24/1/2005 due to heart-attack while on duty.
After the death of Shri Prabhu Dayal, his son Mohan Lal through his mother Smt. Ram Pyari moved an application dated
12/4/2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Management duly considered the said application & the
claimant Mohan Lal was appointed as Attendant/Maali vide office order dated 12/10/2006 on temporary basis, initially
for six months which period was extended time and again. It has been pleaded that the claimant had uninterrupted and
unblemished service record to his credit. In the month of March,2007 instead of confirming the workman/claimant or
giving him further extension, the Management started compelling him to work through contractor and when he refused to
mark his attendance through the contractor, he was not being allowed by the Management to enter into the premises and
even his salary for the month of April, 2007 was withheld. Ultimately services of the workman were terminated illegally
by the Management w.e.f. 1/5/2007 without following the principle of natural justice, though he was working on a job of
regular and permanent nature, which is continuing with the Management. A civil suit bearing CS No.786/13 was filed by
the workman wherein liberty was granted to the workman vide order dated 10/9/2013 to approach the Labour Court
against illegal termination. The workman is totally unemployed since his termination. As such action of the
management in terminating the services of the workman amounts to unfair labour practice inasmuch as no notice or
notice pay was given to him at the time of termination of his services. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the
workman into service with full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits.
3.
The claim petition has been resisted by the Management No.1 who filed its written statement and took
preliminary objections that the claim petition before this Tribunal is not maintainable as the Management No.1 is not an
instrumentality of State or Central Government. There never existed any employer-employee relationship between the
parties and that the claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year and as such the claimant has no locus standi
to file the present claim petition.. While denying the allegations of the claimant that his father Shri Prabhu Dayal was
permanent employee of the Management, it has been alleged that father of the claimant was appointed we..f. 10/2/1983
only for six months but date of his death is not in the knowledge of the Management. It has been denied that the father of
claimant namely Shri Prabhu Dayal was a permanent employee of the Management and that claimant could never be
appointed against the permanent post. There was no permanent post of Maali in the establishment of the Management
and accordingly, the claimant was engaged only on temporary basis for six months at a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/-
per month. It has been denied that the salary for the month of April, 2017 has not been given to the claimant. Since the
claimant was never a regular employee, as such question of termination of his services on any date did not arise. Prayer
has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.
The claimant/workman filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations made by the Management and
reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.
178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 10/3/2016 :-
i) Whether this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction/authority to decide the matter as alleged ?
ii) As in terms of reference ?
6. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/14.
7.
On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined one Shri P.P. Wahi,
Director (IT) as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1.
8.
I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced on record by both the parties and have give my thoughtful
consideration to rival contentions of the parties counsel.
Issue No.1 :—
9.
Learned A/R for the Management No.1 vehementally argued that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain
the claim petition since the Management No.1 -Board viz. Central Board of Irrigation & Power is not an instrumentality
of State or Central Government rather it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. She submitted that
Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 18/9/2013 in W.P.() No.334/1998 and others writ petitions filed by the workers of
the Management has held that the Board/Management No.1 is not an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, as the said Board is not performing public functions/public duties. As such, the reference is not
legally maintainable.
10.
Per-contra, learned A/R for the workman submitted that this Tribunal has all powers to adjudicate and decide
the Reference which has been made by the Appropriate Government under the provisions of the Act and moreso the
Management –Board being a registered Society is an “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act.
11.
The workman/claimant was admittedly engaged by the Management No.1 – may be on temporary basis, on the
job of Maali (Attendant) and this fact is also borne out from the documents Ex. Ex.WW1/6 (offer of appointment) and
Ex.WW1/7 (letter of appointment) issued by the Management No.1. As such, the claimant is a workman, within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. It is noteable that the definition of “workman 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 in not a workman. Reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council Sanaur, AIR 2011 (SC 2532).
12.
Just because the Management No.1-Board is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, it will
be improper to say that it is not an “industry”. I may mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore
Water Supply & Sewage Board Vs. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of
expression “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act and held as under :—
“(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, other not involves employees on the
total undertaking some of whom are not “workman” as in the University of Delhi case (supra) or some
departments are not productive of goods and services, if isolated, even then the predominant nature of the
services and integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur (supra) will be the
true test. The whole undertaking will be “industry” although those who are not “workmen” by definition may
not benefit by the statue.
(b)
Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood (alone) qualify for
exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the Government or Statutory
bodies.
( c)
Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are
substantially severable, they can be considered to come within Section 2(j).
(d)
Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the
Act, categories which otherwise may be covered thereby
(e)
We overrule Safdarjung (supra), Solicitors’ case(supra),Gymkhana (supra, Delhi University (supra)
Dhanrajgiri Hospital (supra) and other ruling whose ratio run counter to the principles enunciated above
and Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (supra) is hereby rehabilitated.’’
13.
In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, as discussed above, I am of the considered view that
Management No.1-Board is an “industry” within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act qua the claimant/workman who
was simply working as Maali (Attendant).
14.
I may mention that since Delhi is a Union Territory, the reference for adjudication of Industrial Dispute can be
made either by the Central Government or by the State Government in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. To this view I am fortified with the decision in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India,
2007 (113) FLR 770. Furthermore, the nomenclature of the Management No.1 viz. Central Board of Irrigation & Power
(CBIP) is such that even a prudent man may think it is an institution of the Government. A “workman” doing a mineal
job is not expected to exactly know the intracacies about the constitution of the Management Board or to exactly know as
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
179
to whether it is simply a Society under the Societies Registration Act or the department/establishment of the Government.
It is a matter of record that in the civil suit filed by the claimant herein, the Management had taken a preliminary
objection about the maintainability of the civil suit and the said suit was disposed by learned Civil Judge, granting liberty
to the claimant to approach the Labour Court. Thereafter the claimant had approached the Conciliation Officer and the
proceedings before the said forum culminated into the present reference. Law is well settled that when a reference has
been received by the Industrial Tribunal from the Appropriate Government, it has to decide such a reference on merits.
The Tribunal can not go into the validity of the reference. Furthermore, in the instant case, the Management No.2 viz.
Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India, New Delhi has also been impleaded as a party to the claim petition and the
said Ministry is functioning under Government of India.
15.
In view of the aforesaid discussion coupled with the fact that the claimant is “workman” & the Management is
an “industry” within the definitions as provided in the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the present
reference having been made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government is legally maintainable and that this Tribunal
has got jurisdiction to decide the matter in accordance with law. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the
claimant and against the Management No.1.
Issue No.2 :—
16.
From the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced on record, particularly the documents Ex.WW1/6 (offer
of appointment) and Ex.WW1/7 (letter of appointment) issued by the Management No.1, it is evident that the claimant
Miohan Lal was appointed by Management No.1 purely on temporary basis as Attendant (Mali) for a period of six
months w.e.f. 29/9/2006 to 28/3/2017 on a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per month, with reference to his application
dated 22/3/2006 for employment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father Shri Prabhu Dayal. It was
stipulated in the said Offer of appointment (Ex.WW1/6) that the appointment is on purely temporary basis for a period
of 6 months initially. Further extension may be considered subject to satisfactory performance and pursuant thereto,
appointment letter Ex. WW1/7 was issued. Ex.WW1/8 is the copy of the identity card of Shri Prabhu Dayal showing
that he was working as Head Mali with the Management No.1 prior to his death. The said identity card has been issued
on 1/4/2004 and was valid upto 31/8/2017. Ex.WW1/10 is the copy of pay slip of the said Shri Prabhu Dayal for the
month of November, 2004. In the light of documents Ex.WW1/8 & Ex.WW1/0, it does not lie in the mouth of the
Management No.1 to allege that Shri Prabhu Dayal – father of the claimant was not its permanent employee and that the
claimant could never be appointed on compassionate ground. Factum of death of Shri Prabhu Dayal on 24/1/2005 is
proved from the death certificate Ex.WW1/9. Undisputedly the claimant started working with the Management w.e.f.
29/9/2016 though appointment letter Ex.WW1/7 was issued on 12/10/2006 for a period of six months upto 28/3/2017.
MW1 PP Wahi – witness of the Management stated in his cross examination that the claimant worked with the
Management from 12/10/2006 to March, 2007. The claimant has specifically pleaded and deposed in his affidavit
Ex.WW1/ A that in the month of March, 2007 instead of confirming or giving him further extension, the Management
started compelling him to work through contractor and the Management also did not allow him to mark his attendance
and even his salary for the month of April, 2007 was withheld. Ultimately his services were terminated illegally by the
Management w.e.f. 1/5/2007 without following the principle of natural justice, though he was working on a job of regular
and permanent nature, which is continuing with the Management.
17.
Even if version of the claimant is accepted in toto, it can be summerised that the workman/claimant worked
with the Management only for a limited period i.e. from 29/9/2006 to 30/4/2007. Thus, it is very much evident that the
claimant had not at all rendered continuous service of 240 days in any calendar year or in preceding 12 months from the
date of his disengagement/ alleged illegal termination/retrenchment on 1/5/2007 As such, provisions of Section 25-F of
the Act are at all not attracted in this case.
18.
It is undisputed fact that the workman was working as Attendant/Maali with the Management. MW1 Shri PP
Wahi has admitted in his cross examination that at present they have engaged an attendant through Private Contractor
which shows that the job of the claimant to which was working was/is of a regular and perennial nature. The
Management has not adduced any evidence on record to show that his services were discontinued either as a punishment
inflicted upon him or due to unsatisfactory performance of the claimant. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold
that non-engagement of the claimant with effect from 1/5/2007 amounts to retrenchment.
19.
Although the workman was working on daily wage basis and had not completed 240 days in any calendar year
prior to his disengagement/ retrenchment on 1/5/2007, yet it was imperative upon the Management to comply with the
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act i.e. to say to apply the principle of “last in, first out/go” (LIFO method) while
retrenching/terminating the services of the workmen concerned. For the purpose of applying the aforesaid principle as
required under Section 25-G of the Act, the Management was required to maintain a list of all such workers whether
employed on a daily wage basis or otherwise for short periods of time, so as to ascertain as to who (workman) was/is
required to be retrenched first and so on if circumstances so warrant. It is evident from the testimony of MW1 PP Wahi
that at present the Management has engaged an attendant through Private Contractor. This shows that the Management
retrenched the services of the workman/claimant in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. As such, the
action of the Management in terminating/retrenching the services of workman w.e.f. 1/5/2007 can not held to be legal
and justified.
20.
Now the crucial question for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any incidental relief of payment
of back wages and/or reinstatement of service. The claimant in the pleading as well as in his testimony has stated that he
is unemployed since after his termination. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is
gainfully employed somewhere else or that he is in a position to make his both ends meet by doing any work. Even if it
180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is assumed that the claimant is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make his both ends meet, that would not itself
amount to gainful employment. But at the same time this Tribunal can not ignore the fact that the workman was
just working on casual/temporary basis as Attendant/Maali and has worked with the Management only for about
six months or so. Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is that when a person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that
situation full back wages are not to be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be
considered by the Tribunal while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages.
21.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter reported as Jaipur Development Authority Versus Ramasahai, (2006) 11
SCC 684 observed as under :-
“However, even assuming that there had been a violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, but the same by
itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an award of reinstatement with
entire back wages. This Court time and again has held that the jurisdiction under Section 11-A must be
exercised judiciously. The workman must be employed by State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit
employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. The respondent had not regularly
served the appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services
were terminated, any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services were
dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back wages We,
therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if instead and in place of reinstatement of
his services, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded to be respondent by way of compensation as has been done by
this Court in a number of its judgements..”……
22.
It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases
190 as under :-
“ Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given
fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.
Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment
passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman
has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages has not
been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme
Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The
reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination
is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily
required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the
management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.’’
23. Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of
Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) appears to be just and reasonable, and the same is payable to the claimant herein by the
Management. In case this compensation amount is not paid within two months from the date of publication of this
Award, then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award
till realization. Award is passed accordingly.
Dated :28.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 30
30
30
30.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
$बंधन, मैसस एडीईसीसीओ इंिडया $ाइवेट िलिमटेड और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके
कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, 1
नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 144/2015) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 29/11/2018 को $ा; <ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/118/2015-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
181
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 30.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.144/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Managrment,
M/s. ADECCO Indian Pvt. Ltd., and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
29.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/118/2015-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 144/2015
Shri Vishwa Mohan Das
S/o. Shri Vishwa Nandan Das,
A-92, Okha Phase II,
New Delhi 110020.
… Workman/Claimant
Versus
1. The Management
M/s. ADECCO Indian Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.11, G Block, Hauz Khas Market, 3rd Floor,
New Delhi 110016.
2. The Management,
M/s. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. (MTS),
A-194, Oklhla Phase-I,
New Delhi 110020.
…Management
AWARD
This award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-42012/118/2015-
IR(DU) dated 17.06.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under :—
‘Whether the services of the workman Shri Vishwa Mohan Das s/o. Shri Vishwa Nandan Das has been
terminated illegally and.or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is the workman entitled and
what directions are necessary in this respect ?’
2.
Parties to the dispute were put to notice and the claimant/workman, Vishwa Mohan Das filed his statement of
claim, with the averments that the workman was working as Marketing Boy with the Management w.e.f. 15/11/2013 and
his last drawn wages were Rs.10500/-. He was working with honesty and sincerity, He was appointed for one year as
per agreement but his services without any notice or charge-sheet were terminated illegally by the Management on
18/1/2014. Claimant is entitled for wages of 10 months as per agreement. A demand letter dated 20/3/2014 was sent by
him to the Management but to no response. Then he approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. It has been
alleged that the Management had got his signatures on blank papers in illegal manner. It has been stated that the
workman is unemployed and has no source of income since the date of his illegal termination, though he made efforts to
find out the job. Prayer has been made for reinstatement into service with full back wages and all facilities w.e.f.
18/1/2014.
3.
Management No.1 M/s Adecco India Pvt. Ltd. resisted the claim of the claimant and filed written statement
mainly on the grounds that workman was selected for the post of Enterprise-DST on fixed term contract and he was
deputed with the Management No.2 and after joining on 15/11/2013, the workman worked till16/1/2014, though contract
period was one year only. The Management No.1 issued a letter dated 22/1/2014 to the workman for not attending his
duties and abandonment of job. Services of the workman were never terminated and he had not worked for 240 days and
as such he had not attained the status of a regular employee nor had derived any status or lien to the said post. The
Management No.1 had paid amount of Rs.5027/- through ECS transfer is his bank account for the period of services
rendered by the claimant. This is a case of abandonment of services by the claimant himself and as such the claim
petition is not maintainable. Prayer has been made for dismissal of claim petition.
4.
Management No.2 also resisted the claim of the claimant and it has stated in the written statement that there was
no relationship of employer and employee between the Management No.2 and the claimant, as he was the employee of
Management No.1 with whom there was a contact by Management No.2 for deploying the employees at the
182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
establishment of Management No.2 The claim petition is wrong and false and liable to be dismissed being devoid of any
merits
5.
The claimant filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations as made in the written statements and
reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.
6.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30/5/2016 :-
1. Whether the claim petition /reference is not maintainable against Management No.2 and there is no
relationship of employer & employee between the Management and the workman ?
2. As in terms of reference ?
7.
The Claimant/workman in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit
Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/5. On the other hand, Management No.2 examined one Shri
P.L.Saini as M2W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.M2W1/A and relied on documents Ex.M2W1/1 to
Ex.M2W1/6. However, Management No.1 did not examine any witness and the case was proceeded ex parte against it
vide order dated 16/5/2018.
8.
I have heard authorised representatives of the claimant as well as of Management No.2 and have gone through
the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows
Issue No. 1.:
9
The testimony of the workman vide his affidavit Ex.WW1/A is in line and in conformity with the averments
made in the claim petition. Neither in his pleadings nor in the affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the claimant has clearly mentioned
as to who was his employer. He has vaguely stated that he was working as Marketing Boy with the Management w.e.f.
15/11/2013 and his services were illegally terminated by the Management on 18/1/2014. However, he admitted in his
cross examination that he was appointed by M/s Adecco Flexion Workforce Solutions Pvt.Ltd. and he never protested
against the terms & conditions of his letter of appointment Ex.WW1/1. He was paid an amount of Rs.9382/- per month
by M/s. Adecco Flexion Workforce Solutions Pvt.Ltd. as wages. Ex.WW1/M-2 and M-3 are the salary slips issued by
Adecco Flexion Workforce Solutions Pvt.Ltd.. He also admitted that there was no relationship of employer and
employee between Management No.2 and himself.
10.
It is worthwhile to mention here that there can not be two employers of a workman. Since the appointing
authority as well as paying authority of the workman/claimant was Management No.1 - M/s Adecco Flexion Workforce
Solutions Pvt. Ltd., it stands proved on record that there was no relationship of employer and employee between
Management No.2 and the workman./claimant. As such, the claim petition against Management No.2 is not
maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the claimant.
Issue No.2 :
11.
Now the crucial question arises for consideration is whether the services of the claimant were illegally
terminated by the Management No.1 as alleged by the claimant,, or whether the claimant had himself abandoned the
services, as alleged by the Management No.1. WW1/1 is the letter of appointment dated 15/11/20113 issued by
Management No.1 wherein it has been stipulated that the term of employment of the workman/claimant was for a period
of twelve months from the date of his joining and that the contract was terminable by either party giving 15 (fifteen)
days’ notice in writing or salary in lieu of notice to the other party. The claimant has specifically stated that his
services were illegally terminated by the Management on 18/01/2014 without any notice or charge-sheet. In cross
examination he denied the suggestion that he was issued a letter dated 22/1/2014 by Management No.1 that he was
absconding from duties.
12.
The Management No.1 has not led any evidence to show that it was the claimant who himself had absconded
from duties. Though it has been alleged in the pleadings that the Management NO.1 had duly issued a letter dated
22/1/2014 to the workman for not attending his duties and abandonment of job, however no such letter has been filed or
proved on record by the Management No.1. Even no witness has been examined by the Management No.1 to prove its
case. As such, the version of the claimant that his services were illegally terminated by the Management on 18/1/2014
without any notice or charge-sheet is accepted. There is nothing on record to suggest that Management No.1 had paid
retrenchment benefits to the claimant in terms of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
13.
There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management Bank to be illegal and void under the law.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
183
14.
Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the
time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the Management No.1
in terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.
RELIEF :
15. Now the residual question arises for consideration is as to what relief the claimant is entitled to. As discussed
above, It has been proved on record that claimant worked with the Management No.1 only for two months ie. from
15/11/2013 to 16/1/2014. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman by the Management
No.1 though it was also stipulated in the letter of appointment Ex.WW1/1 issued by Management No.1 and was binding
on it. There is nothing on record to suggest that job of the claimant was on permanent basis or that he was given any
regular post by the Management No.1. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal
while considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs.
Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-
“Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a
given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed
procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order
of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of
reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back
wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of
termination, particularly daily wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead
compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who
does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in
such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non
payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate
the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.’’
15. Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of Rs.1 lakh
(Rupees One Lakh) appear to be just and reasonable, and the same is payable to the claimant herein by the Management
No.1. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 28.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 31
31
31
31.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947(1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस आयुE, नगर िनगम दली और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच
अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, 1 नई दली के पंचाट
(संदभ सं8या 182/2012) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 19.11.2018 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/11/2012-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 31.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.182/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
19.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/11/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.182/2012
The General Secretary,
Municipal Employees Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi – 110 054
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi – 110 006
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received by this Tribunal under section 10(2)(a) read with clause 1(d) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-42012/11/2012-IR(DU) dated 09.12.2012 with
following terms of reference:
‘Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in not regularizing the services of
Shri Anil Kumar & 6 other workmen working for last 14-15 years is fair and justified ? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?’
2.
It is clear from the statement of claim that four workmen, as per details given hereunder, were appointed by
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (management ):
Sl.
No.
Name
and
Father’s
Name
(S/Shri)
Desig-nation
Date
of
Appointment
Present place of posting
1
Anil Kumar S/o Shri Jagi Ram
Safai Karamchari
12.02.1996
DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office
2
Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Jai
Kishan
Safai Karamchari
01.02.1996
DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office
3
Rajender
Kumar
S/o
Shri
Dharam Pal
Safai Karamchari
28.09.1995
DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office
4
Ashu S/o Shri Prem Chand
Safai Karamchari
15.04.1994
DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office
5.
Sanjeev S/o Shri Brahmu Ram
Safai Karamchari
23.09.1994
DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office
6.
Jagbir
Singh
S/o
Shri
Mahender Singh
Safai Karamchari
16.09.1994
DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office
7.
Joginder
Kumar
S/o
Shri
Kanwar Singh
Safai Karamchari
01.12.1997
DEMS, Rohini Zone, Zonal Office
3.
Averments, as contained in the statement of claim, are that the workmen were taken on the job as daily
rated/muster roll workers and their wages were also revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, while
their counterparts doing the identical work, were treated as regular employees. Workmen herein were discharging their
services with the management with unblemished and uninterrupted record of service. Workmen herein were supposed to
have been regularized in service from the date of initial date of joining but the management has only regularized them
since the dates mentioned in para 2 above.
4.
Non regularization of services of the workman from the date of joining on the basis of on the post of safai
karamchari in proper pay scale alongwith allowances and non payment of salary to which the workmen are entitled on
the principle of equal pay for equal work is totally unjust and malafide and amounts to unfair labour practice. The action
of the management is in violation of Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
5.
It is alleged that the management has not framed any rules or regulation nor got it passed by UPSC nor noticed
in the official gazette for governing conditions of muster roll workers/part time seasonal workmen. Model Standing
Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workmen herein. Workmen
herein have not acquired status of a permanent employee from the initial date of their respective joining into the
employment after completing 90 days of continuous days of employment as provided under Model Standing Orders.
Even otherwise, claimants have acquired status of permanent employee after completing 240 days of continuous
employment on regular basis as has been held by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Harish Kumar Vs. Registrar,
Delhi High Court.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
185
6.
The workman also served demand notice upon the management vide communication dated 18.11.2009, which
was duly received management and it is presumed that the same was rejected due to adamant and non-cooperative
attitude of the management. Finally, prayer has been made for regularization of services of the workmen on the post of
driver with retrospective effect from the date of their initial joining with the management .
7.
Case was contested by the management, who filed written statement thereto, taking various preliminary
objections, inter alia that the dispute has not been espoused, no demand notice has been served and reference has been
made in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. On merits, it has been denied that the workmen herein
are supposed to be regularized since their initial dates of joining. Management has its own policy of regularization , i.e.
subject to availability of post and funds. Management has regularized services of the workmen in a phased manner
policy of regularization adopted by the management. As such, the workmen herein are not entitled for regularization
from the date of their initial engagement.
8.
Against this factual background, this Tribunal vide order dated 19.07.2013 framed the following issues on the
basis of pleadings of the parties:
(i)
Whether the dispute has not acquired status of industrial dispute for want of espousal?
(ii)
Whether dispute is bad for want of service of demand notice on the management?
(iii)
Whether regularization of S/Shri Anil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Rajender Kumar, Ashu, Sanju and Jagbir
Singh from respective dates mentioned in para 6 of the written statement frustrates their claim?
(iv)
As in terms of reference
9.
Claimant, in support of its case, examined S/Shri Anil Kumar, whose affidavit is Ex.WW1/A and he also
tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8. The claimants also examined S/Shri Ashu, Jagbir Singh,
Joginder Singh, Sanjeev, Rajender Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Surender Bhardwaj as WW2 to WW8 and also tendered in
evidence Ex.ww2/1, Ex.WW3/1 to Ex.WW3/4, Ex.WW4/1 to Ex.WW4/4, Ex.WW5/1, Ex.WW6/1 to Ex.WW6/3 and
Ex.WW7/1 to Ex.WW7/3 respectively. WW2 to WW7 also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/8. WW8 relied on
document Ex.WW1/5. I shall be adverting to them in the subsequent paras while drawing my conclusion.
10.
Management, was given several opportunities to adduce evidence to rebut the case of the claimant. However,
management failed to adduce any evidence. Vide order dated 12.04.2018, evidence of the management was closed by
the orders of this Tribunal.
11.
I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Shri Madan Sagar, A/R for the management. I have
given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on
issues involved in the controversy are as follows
Issue No.1 & 2
12.
It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the
management has raised objection that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General
Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the
management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In
this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa
Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the
union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by
observing as under:
‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be
sponsored by a recognized union or that all the workmen of an industrial establishment should be
parties to it. A settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of
the Industrial Disputes Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of
workmen may have raised the dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation Officer
does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that
the person who is coming is the conciliation officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in
not submitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer ; it does
not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.’
13.
Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is not sponsored or espoused by
substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union would
not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view appears to
have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court Bombay
(1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute dies not
fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial section of
workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed as under:
‘We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union even
though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the majority rule on
which the appellant’s construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference under
186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an industrial
dispute which in a proper case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.’
14.
It is further clear that from the affidavit filed by Shri Surender Bhardwaj, Ex.WW8/A that workmen herein had
approached their union for redresssal of their grievance as is clear from para 2 of the affidavit. Consequently, a resolution
was passed in the meeting of the union held on 04.11.2009, copy of which is Ex.WW1/5, which clearly shows that the
case of the workman was espoused by the Municipal Employees Union. There is no cross examination of any of the
witness examined by the workmen herein on the point of espousal by the management nor the management has
whispered even a single word in their affidavit Ex.MW1/A regarding non-espousal of the case. It is, thus, clear from
recital contained in the affidavit as well as Ex.WW1/11 that the case of the workman herein was espoused by the union.
It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court in the cases of Management of M/s Hotel Samrat Vs. Government of NCT of
Delhi (2007 (136) DLT 290) that the workman are simply to allege and prove that they have raised their grievance
through their union and the expression espousal simply means that the dispute of the workman is adopted by the union as
its own dispute or a large number of workmen have given their support to the case of the individual workman so
involved in such dispute.
15.
In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by majority members
of the union is not sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Accordingly, it is
held that issue No.(i) and (ii) is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue No.(iii) and (iv)
16.
Now, the next question is whether the workmen herein are entitled for regularization with retrospective effect,
i.e. from the date of their initial appointment as per model standing orders. In this regard., it is appropriate to refer to the
statements of WW1 to WW7 and affidavits of the workmen herein are on the same lines as the averments contained in
the claim statement and it clearly shows that the workmen, WW1 to WW7 are continuously discharging their duties with
the management since the date of their respective dates of joining of services with the management. Management has
regularized services of the workmen, as stated in para 2 above, whereas regularization of services of the workman was to
be from the date of their initial engagement or joining. It was strongly urged on behalf of the workmen that they are
performing the same duties which their regular counterparts are performing and there is substantial difference in their
salary of such daily rated workers vis-à-vis regular safai karamcharis employed by the management.
17.
It is clear from perusal of Ex.WW1/1 that the workmen have approached the management against the non-
regularization of their services and non-payment of difference in their salary. There is specific reference in the above
letter to the case of Harish Kumar Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court which deals with disparity in the salary of workmen.
Further Ex.WW1/3 is acknowledgement of the said letter. Ex.WW1/M2, Ex.WW2/M2 and Ex.WW3/M2 are the letter of
regularization of Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Ashu and Shri Jagbir Singh.
18.
Now, question which arises for consideration is whether the workmen herein are entitled for regularization of
their services from the dates of their initial date of appointment or whether they are entitled for entitled for equal pay
which their regular counterparts are getting in the management . Reliance was placed upon the case titled ‘Umrala
Gram Panchayat Vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union (MANU/SC/0354/2015). In this case also, workmen
were appointed initially as casual/daily wage workers and later on their services were regularized from different dates in
an arbitrary manner without following any policy. Claim of the workman was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court by
observing as under:
‘It is an admitted fact that the work which was being done by the concerned workmen was the same as
that of the permanent workmen of the appellant- Panchayat. They have also been working for similar
number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the
non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice as
defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is
prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Act. Further, there is no documentary evidence produced on
record before the Labour Court which shows that the present workmen are working less
or for lesser number of hours than the permanent employees of the appellant-Panchayat. Thus, on the face
of it, the work being done by the concerned workmen has been permanent in nature and the Labour Court as
well
as
the
High
Court
have
come
to
the
right
conclusion
on
the
points
of
dispute and have rightly rejected the contention of the appellant-Panchayat as the same amounts
to unfair labour practice by the appellant-Panchayat which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Act and
it also amounts to statutory offence on the part of the appellant under Section 25(U) of the ID Act for which
it is liable to be prosecuted.
Further, Section 25(T) of the ID Act clearly states that unfair labour practice should not be encouraged and
the same should be discontinued. In the present case, the principle "equal work, equal pay" has been violated
by the appellant-Panchayat as they have been treating the concerned workmen unfairly and therefore, the
demand raised by the respondent-Union needs to be accepted. The High Court has thus, rightly not interfered
with the Award of the Labour Court as the same is legal and supported with cogent and valid reasons.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
187
In view of the reasons stated supra and in the light of the facts and circumstances of
the present case, we hold that the services of the concerned workmen are permanent in nature, since they
have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year from the date of their initial appointment.’
19.
Similarly, in Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K. (MANU/SC/0395/2008)where the question of equal pay for
equal work was considered and similar view was taken by holding that having due regard to the constitutional mandate
of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. AS such, workmen are entitled
for equal pay when they were performing similar kind of work.
20.
Yet again in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond (MANU/SC/0769/2013), MCD vs. Ram Milan
(MANU/DE/3969/2015) and MCD Vs. Smt. Krishna (MCD/DE/3966/2009) consistent view has been taken by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work which have been applied in a catena of
decisions, workmen were held to entitled to the same pay and allowances with their counterparts performing similar
duties 19. There is no merit in the contention of the management that the workmen herein are not entitled for
regularization with retrospective date on the grounds that as and when post falls vacant, workmen are regularized.
Regularization is not done till seniority list of such workmen is prepared. Learned A/R for the management could not cite
any policy of regularization so as to support his submission. Hon’ble High Court in the case of MCD Vs. Ram
Milan(Manu/DE/3979/2015) has dealt with the question of regularization wherein workman was working as chowkidar
since 1987. Plea of the management that the workman was only employed on casual basis when there was no regular
workman, as such, he was not entitled for salary of regular workman as well as regularization was turned down by the
Hon’ble High Court by placing reliance on a number of cases. It was also observed that the workman in that case was
performing same duties which permanent workmen were performing. He was also working for similar number of hours.
However, there was discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and non-permanent workmen,
which was quite alarming. Accordingly, it was held that the workmen have worked for 240 days in a calendar year from
the date of their initial appointment, which is clear from the evidence on record, as such the management was legally
required to make services of such workers permanent.
21.
In view of the ratio of the law discussed above in the various rulings relied upon by the workmen, it is held that
the workmen herein are entitled for regularization of their services like their other counterparts whose services have been
regularized by the management. Action of the management in not regularizing services of Shri Anil Kumar and 6 other
workmen is held to be neither legal nor justified. It is, further, held that the workmen herein, S/Shri S/Shri Anil Kumar,
Ashu, Jagbir Singh, Joginder Singh, Sanjeev, Rajender Kumar, Rajesh Kumar are entitled for entire difference of salary
on the principles of equal pay for equal pay, alongwith all consequential benefits from the date of their initial
appointment. An award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Date : 15.11.2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 32
32
32
32.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस आयुE, नगर िनगम दली एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म
िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, 1 नई दली के पंचाट
(संदभ सं8या 195/2012) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 22.10.2018 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/109/2012-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 32.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.195/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
22.10.2018.
[No. L-42012/109/2012-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No. 1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.195/2012
S/Shri Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena & 7 others, through
Delhi Udhiyan Karamchari Union,
B-5, Ram Gali, North Ghonda,
New Delhi - 110 053
…Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi – 110 006
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, an order was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter
No. L-42012/109/2012-IR(DU) dated 07.12.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
Whether the action of the management of MCD in regularizing the workmen S/Shri Ramesh Chand Meena
S/o Shri R.S. Meena and 7 others (list enclosed) on the post of ‘Nala Beldar’ instead of ‘Beldar’ is legal &
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?
2.
Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena, Shri Gulam Asgar
S/o Shri Haider Abbas, Shri Dharam Pal Singh S/o shri Manvir Singh, Shri Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Promod Kumar, Shri
Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Shri Pardeep Kumar S/o Shri Manvir singh, Shri Javed Ahmed S/o Shri Liak Ahmed
and Shri Sukh Lal S/o Ramji Lal (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), averring that they joined MCD (hereinafter
referred to as the management) as Beldar in the years 2001/2002/2003 and worked continuously on the said post till their
regularization in September 2008 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2006 with usual allowance as admissible under the
rules. The claimants had unblemished and uninterrupted record to their credit. The management submitted working
report for daily wagers report at the time of their regularization by terming as beldars whereas the letter of regularization
issued to them depicted them as beldar/nala beldar. This action of the management tantmounts to exploitation of labour,
illegal, bad, unjust, malafide and is in violation of Article 14, 16 and 30 of the Constitution of India. . Finally, it has
been prayed that the claimants are entitled to the post of beldars in place of nala Behdar from the date of regularization
alongwith all consequential benefits.
3.
No written statement was filed by the management despite affording of several opportunities. Vide order dated
11.10.2013, defence of the management was struck off by my learned predecessor and the case was listed for evidence of
the claimants.
4.
S/Shri Ramesh Chand Meena, Gulam Asgar, Dharam Pal Singh, Shiv Kumar, Praveen and Javed Ahmed, were
examined on behalf of the claimants whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW6/A and they relied on documents
Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/10, Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/3, Ex.WW3/1 to Ex.WW3/4, Ex.WW4/1 to Ex.WW4/2,
Ex.WW5/1 to Ex.WW5/3, Ex.WW6/1 to Ex.WW6/4, respectively. Witnesses WW2 to WW6 also relied on documents
Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/7. Since defence of the management was struck off and no written statement was filed, hence,
management was not granted any opportunity to adduce evidence.
5.
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Shri Madan Sagar, A/R for the management. My
findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
6.
The only issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is entitled to the
designation of Beldar (instead of Nala Beldar) from the date of their regularization. Perusal of letter Ex.WW1/4 issued
by the management, depicts the designation of the claimants as beldar. Ex.WW2/1, Ex.WW3/1, Ex.WW4/1,
Ex.WW5/1 and Ex.WW6/1 being the number of days worked in the years 2001 to 2006, depicts the designation of the
claimant as beldar and the said document is signed by the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer as well as the Executive
Engineer. Thus, it apparent that initially that the claimants were designated as beldars and at the time of regularization,
their designation was mentioned as ‘nala beldars/beldars’.
7.
As a sequel to above discussion, it is held that the claimants herein have been wrongly regularized as nala
beldars instead of beldars. Hence, the action of the management of MCD in denying the designation of ‘beldar’; (instead
of nala beldar) at the time of regularization of services of the workmen Shri Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena
and 07 others (total 08) as named in the ID by the management of MCD with effect from 01.04.2006 in the pay scale of
Rs.2500-3200 is totally unjust and unfair. Hence, the management is liable to redesignate the claimants Shri Ramesh
Chand Meena S/o Shri R.S. Meena, Shri Gulam Asgar S/o Shri Haider Abbas, Shri Dharam Pal Singh S/o Shri Manvir
Singh, Shri Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Promod Kumar, Shri Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Shri Pardeep Kumar
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
189
S/o Shri Manvir singh, Shri Javed Ahmed S/o Shri Liak Ahmed and Shri Sukh Lal S/o Ramji Lal as beldars instead of
Nala beldars with effect from 01.04.2006, i.e. the date of their regularization. An award is accordingly passed. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Dated : October 16, 2018
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 33
33
33
33.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
$बंधन, कीय बोड ऑफ Dसचाई और पावर का $बंधन और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और
उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय,
नई दली -1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 66/2015) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 29/11/2018 को $ा; <ए थे।
[सं. एल-42012/202/2014-आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 33.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.66/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, New
delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Managrment of Central
Board of Irrigation and Power Lt., and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
29.11.2018.
[No. L-42012/202/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 66/2015
Shri Ajeet Singh
S/o. late Shri Veer Singh,
through Shri Vinay Kumar
Chamber No.B-93, BGS Block,
Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi 110054
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
The Management of Central Board of Irrigation & Power,
Through its Secretary, Malcha Marg,
Chankyapuri, New Delhi.
…Management
AWARD
This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide
letter No. L-42012/202/2014-IR(DU) dated 14.08.2015 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 termination of Shri Ajeet Singh appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father Is
illegal and unjustified ? If so, what relief the claimant is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this
regard ?’
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. The claimant Ajeet Singh filed his statement of claim, with
the averments that his father Shri Veer Singh was appointed by the Management on the post of Helper-cum-Plumber
vide appointment letter dated 24/4/1986 and was a permanent employee. His father expired on 30/5/2005, leaving
behind his widow, two sons and two daughters. After the death of Shri Veer Singh, his son Ajeet Singh moved an
application dated 26/9/2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds, in place of his deceased father. The
190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management duly considered the said application & the claimant Ajeet Singh was appointed as Attendant on temporary
basis, vide office order dated 9/1/2006 initially for three months which period was extended time and again. It has been
pleaded that the claimant had uninterrupted and unblemished service record to his credit. In the month of March,2007
instead of confirming the workman/claimant or giving him further extension, the Management started compelling him to
work through contractor and the Management also did not allow him to mark his attendance and even his salary for the
month of April, 2007 was withheld. Ultimately services of the workman were terminated illegally by the Management
w.e.f. 1/5/2007 without following the principle of natural justice, though he was working on a job of regular and
permanent nature, which is continuing with the Management. A civil suit bearing CS No.787/13 was filed by the
workman wherein liberty was granted to the workman vide order dated 10/9/2013 to approach the Labour Court against
illegal termination. The workman is totally unemployed since his termination. As such action of the management in
terminating the services of the workman amounts to unfair labour practice inasmuch as no notice or notice pay was given
to him at the time of termination of his services and termination is in violation of Section 25-F, G & H of the Act. Prayer
has been made for reinstatement of the workman into service with full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits.
3.
The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement and took preliminary
objections that the claim petition before this Tribunal is not maintainable as the Management No.1 is not an
instrumentality of State or Central Government. There never existed any employer-employee relationship between the
parties and that the claimant has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year and as such the claimant has no locus standi
to file the present claim petition.. While denying the allegations of the claimant that father of the claimant was
permanent employee of the Management, it has been alleged that father of the claimant was appointed vide appointment
letter dated dated 24/4/1986 for three months and therefore question of any permanent appointment does not arise. only
for six months but date of his death is not in the knowledge of the Management It has been alleged that the claimant was
engaged only on temporary basis for three months at a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per month vide office order dated
9/1/2006. It has also been alleged that the salary of the claimant for the month of April, 2017 has not withheld Since the
claimant was never a regular employee, as such question of termination of his services on any date did not arise. It has
further been alleged that civil suit filed by the claimant was for regularization in service deeming that he is in
employment and now a new story has been cooked up that it is a case of termination to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.
The claimant/workman filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations made by the Management and
reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 3/10/2016 :-
i) Whether reference is not legally maintainable in view of the varius preliminary objections ?
ii) In terms of reference ?
iii) Relief.
6. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/12.
7.
On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined one Shri P.P. Wahi,
Director (IT) as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1.
8.
I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced on record by both the parties and have give my thoughtful
consideration to rival contentions of the parties counsel.
Issue No.1 :
9.
Learned A/R for the Management No.1 vehementally argued that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain
the claim petition since the Management No.1 -Board viz. Central Board of Irrigation & Power is not an instrumentality
of State or Central Government rather it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. She submitted that
Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 18/9/2013 in W.P.() No.334/1998 and others writ petitions filed by the workers of
the Management has held that the Board/Management No.1 is not an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, as the said Board is not performing public functions/public duties. As such, the reference is not
legally maintainable.
10.
Per-contra, learned A/R for the workman submitted that this Tribunal has all powers to adjudicate and decide
the Reference which has been made by the Appropriate Government under the provisions of the Act and moreso the
Management –Board being a registered Society is an “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act.
11.
Since the workman/claimant was admittedly engaged by the Management No.1 – may be on temporary basis, on
the job of Attendant, he is a workman, within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman 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 in not a workman. Reference may be
made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council Sanaur, AIR 2011
(SC 2532).
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
191
12.
Just because the Management No.1-Board is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, it will
be improper to say that it is not an “industry”. I may mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore
Water Supply & Sewage Board Vs. A. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of
expression “industry” as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act and held as under :-
“(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, other not involves employees on the
total undertaking some of whom are not “workman” as in the University of Delhi case (supra) or some
departments are not productive of goods and services, if isolated, even then the predominant nature of the
services and integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur (supra) will
be the true test. The whole undertaking will be “industry” although those who are not “workmen” by
definition may not benefit by the statue.
(b)
Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood (alone) qualify for
exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the Government or Statutory
bodies.
( c)
Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are
substantially severable, they can be considered to come within Section 2(j).
(d)
Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the
Act, categories which otherwise may be covered thereby
(e)
We overrule Safdarjung (supra), Solicitors’ case(supra),Gymkhana (supra, Delhi University (supra)
Dhanrajgiri Hospital (supra) and other ruling whose ratio run counter to the principles enunciated above
and Hospital Mazdor Sabha (supra) is hereby rehabilitated.
13.
In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, as discussed above, I am of the considered view that
Management No.1-Board is an “industry” within the definition of Section 2(j) of the Act
14.
Since Delhi is a Union Territory, the reference made to this Tribunal for adjudication of Industrial Dispute can
be made either by the Central Government or by the State Government in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. To this view I am fortified with the decision in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India,
2007 (113) FLR 770. Furthermore, the nomenclature of the Management No.1 viz. Central Board of Irrigation & Power
(CBIP) is such that even a prudent man may think it is an institution of the Government. A “workman” doing a mineal
job is not expected to exactly know the intracacies about the constitution of the Management Board or to exactly know as
to whether it is simply a Society under the Societies Registration Act or the department/establishment of the Government.
It is a matter of record that in the civil suit filed by the claimant herein, the Management had taken a preliminary
objection about the maintainability of the civil suit and the said suit was disposed by learned Civil Judge, granting liberty
to the claimant to approach the Labour Court. Thereafter the claimant had approached the Conciliation Officer and the
proceedings before the said forum culminated into the present reference. Law is well settled that when a reference has
been received by the Industrial Tribunal from the Appropriate Government, it has to decide such a reference on merits.
The Tribunal can not go into the validity of the reference.
15.
In view of the aforesaid discussion coupled with the fact that the claimant is “workman” & the Mangement is an
“industry” within the definitions as provided in the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the present
reference having been made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government is legally maintainable. This issue is
accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the Management No.1.
Issue No.2 :
16.
From the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced on record, particularly the documents Ex.WW1/2 (offer
of appointment) and Ex.WW1/3 to Ex.WW1/7 (letters of appointment/extension of service of the claimant ) issued by the
Management No.1, it is evident that the claimant Ajeet Singh was appointed by Management No.1 purely on temporary
basis as Attendant/Helper for the work relating to plumbering w.e.f. 2/1/2006 on a consolidated salary of Rs.4000/- per
month, with reference to his application dated 2/8/2005 for employment on compassionate grounds after the death of his
father . Vide order dated 24/4/1986 (Ex.WW1/8), Shri Veer Singh – father of the claimant herein was appointed by the
Management for the post of Helper on adhoc basis pursuant to his interview. Ex.WW1/9 is the copy of pay slip of the
said Shri Veer Singh for the month of October, 2004. Ex.WW1/10 is the copy of the identity card issued to Shri Veer
Singh, Helper by the Management which was issued on 1/4/2004 and was valid upto 31/10/2016. In the light of
documents Ex.WW1/8 to Ex.WW1/0, it does not lie in the mouth of the Management to allege that Shri Veer Singh –
father of the claimant was not a permanent employee. The plea of the Management that the claimant has not worked for
240 days in a calendar year also falsifies inasmuch as MW1 PP Wahi –witness of the Management admitted in his cross
examination that the claimant worked with the Management from 9/1/2006 to March, 2007. This witness also admitted
that the claimant was the only employee alongwith Shri Mohan Lal who were appointed on compassionate grounds. He
further admitted that the work of attendant is regular in nature.
17.
As discussed above, it is proved that the claimant/workman was in continuous service of the Management from
9/1/2006 till his termination. There is nothing on record to suggest that retrenchment benefits have been paid to the
claimant by the Management at the time of his termination from services. MW1 PP Wahi has clarified in his cross
examination that no show cause notice or memo was given to the claimant, but volunteered that same was not required.
Once the claimant had worked with the Management for 240 days in a calendar year, it was obligatory on the part of the
Management to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18.
There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.
19.
Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the
time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the Management in
terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void. There is also nothing on record to prove that
wages for the month of April, 2007 was paid to the workman. The Management should have produced documents in this
regard.
20.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the
employment of the Management w.e.f. 9/1/2006 to March, 2007. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the
claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the Attendant is of perennial and regular nature which fact
has been admitted by MW1 Shri PP Wahi, Director (IT) of the Management Board. The claimant WW1 has reiterated in
his cross examination that he is unemployed since 2007 though he tried for a job but could not get.
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 :
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the
normal rule. 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
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that
eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the
removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
24.
However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as
2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination
of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy
or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered
with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are
wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age
and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,
where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the
complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is
often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be
compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
193
25.
Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal
termination and reinstatement held as under :-
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018)
MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s
salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be
illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing
as under :-
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not
on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties
as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,
of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of
service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith. Inasmuch as the
respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his termination, however, the
back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages which he would have drawn
he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”
26.
Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a
post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the
claimant/workman is per-se illegal, particularly when the job is of regular and perennial nature and the
claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management. Award is passed
accordingly.
Date : 28.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 18 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 34
34
34
34.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
सेHशन ऑफसर, ओवरसीज इंिडयन अफेयस िमिन&Jी नई दली और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0
िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म
यायालय, नई दली-1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 1/2016) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 06.12.2018 को
$ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2018- आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2018
S.O. 34.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 1/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Section Officer,
Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs New Delhi, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 06.12.2018.
[No. L-42025/03/2018-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 01/2016
Sudhri Kumar S/o. Shri Rameshwar Dayal,
Delhi General Udyog Karamchari Sangh (Regd.),
Chamber No.75, Civil Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi 110054.
… Workman
Versus
1. Section Officer,
Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs,
Akbar Bhawan,
New Delhi 110021
2. M/s. Stander Trading Company,
428/A Kewal Industrial Estate,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel West,
Mumbai 400013.
3. M/s. Stander Trading Company,
Akbar Bhawan, 9th Floor, OCI Room No.912,
Chankayapuri
New Delhi 110021
…Management
AWARD
This is a claim directly filed by the Workman/claimant Shri Sudhir Kumar under Section 2(A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with the averments that workman had been working in the office of
the Management No.1 through the contractor –Management No.2 & 3 for the post of Printer Operator and was getting
wages of Rs.8500/- per month. He was doing his work sincerely and honestly. Supervision and control over his work
was that of principal employer viz Management No.1. The workman was not given any appointment letter, casual leave,
minimum wages, overtime etc. despite oral demands made. Though ESI and EPF contributions used to be deducted from
his wages/salary, however neither any ESI card nor PF receipt/statement was issued to him. It is alleged that the
Management had obtained his signatures and thumb impression on blank papers and used to threat him to terminate from
services Wages for the month of May, 2015 was not paid to him and he was terminated from services illegally on
29/5/2015 by the Management, without issuing any notice or charge sheet and without payment of compensation in lieu
of notice period. The workman sent a demand letter dated 8/6/2015 to the Management but to no response. It is also
alleged that the workman is unemployed since after his termination and he has no source of his livelihood. Prayer has
been made for his reinstatement into service with full back wages and with all consequential benefits.
2.
The claim petition has been resisted by the Managements No.2 & 3 who filed joint written statement and took
preliminary objections that before the Conciliation Officer on 14/12/2015, the Management had offered the workman to
join duty at his earlier working place and had already paid him advance salary for the month of June, 2015. It was the
workman who himself left his services on 29/5/2015 without giving any prior notice or information and the workman did
not join his duty despite repeated requests and phone calls of the Maagement. If the intention of the Management was to
terminate the services of the workman, there was no reason for the Management to pay him salary for the month of June,
2015. In nut-shell, case of the Management is that the workman himself abandon the job and failed to join duty despite
requests. The allegations of the workman regarding his illegal termination or about his unemployment have been denied.
Since the workman has been absenting himself from duty unauthorisedly and not reporting for duty despite repeated
requests, it is stated that the claimant is not entitled to any relief. Prayer has been made for rejection of the claim petition.
3.
Management No.1 did not participate in the proceedings and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 6/3/2017
when following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
195
1)
Whether termination of the claimant on 29/5/2015 is illegal and against provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged?
2)
Whether the claimant has abandoned his services as alleged ?
3)
Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service ?
4. The Claimant in support of his case examined herself as W.W.1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/3.
5.
On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Hemant
Chandrakant Trivedi, Project Manager as MW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/5.
6.
I have heard Shri Devender Sharma, A/R for the claimant and Shri M.L. Pandey, A/R for the Management No.2
and 3 and have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.
Issue No.1 and 2 :
7. Both these issues being inter related are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be
conveniently disposed of.
8.
From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that there existed relationship of
employee-employer between the workman/claimant herein and the Management No.2 and 3 as he was working under the
said Management April, 2011. This fact also finds corroboration from the pay slips Ex.WW1/1 (colly.) of the workman
and documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/5 filed on record by Management No.2 and 3 However, the workman has failed
to adduce any cogent evidence to show that over his work there was direct control & supervision of Management No.1 or
that the Management No.1 had engaged him for the job.
9.
Testimony of the workman by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A is in line with the averments made in the statement
of claim. It is the specific case of the workman that Wages for the month of May, 2015 was not paid to him and his
services were illegally terminated on 29/5/2015 by the Management, without issuing any notice or charge sheet and
without payment of compensation in lieu of notice period. Shri Hemant Chandrakant Trivedi MW1- sole witness
examined by the Management though claimed that the workman was on unauthorized absence from duty and that the
Management had made oral requests to the workman to join duty, however admitted that the Management did not issue
any charge sheet regarding unauthorized absence of the workman, nor conducted any enquiry against him. He also stated
that no appointment letter was issued to the workman. He also admitted that the workman worked in Delhi from the
date of his engagement. Even if the workman remained unauthorised absent from duty w.e.f. 31/5/2015, it was
incumbent upon the Management No.2 & 3 to issue letter/notice, asking the workman to report back for duty or to hold
enquiry against him regarding his unauthorized absence prior to termination of his services. Nothing of the sort has been
done by the Management. As such, it can not be concluded that the workman himself had abandoned the job of the
Management No.2 and 3 voluntarily or that he was not interested to work there.
10.
Order sheet dated 3/10/2016 shows that during pendency of the matter, the Management No.2 and 3 herein had
filed an application directing the claimant to report for duty and the claimant had shown his inclination to join duties,
without prejudice to his rights. However, on 28/11/2016 the claimant had informed the Tribunal that as per previous
order he had gone to the Office of Management for reporting duties but the Management had clearly told him that there
was no vacant post in Delhi and he might join duties at Mumbai. This was suggestive of the fact that the Management
did not have any regard for the verbal undertaking given by its A/R. Despite that another opportunity was granted to the
Management to consider the aspect of posting of the claimant in any of its two branches in Delhi –either at Akbar
Bhawan and Patiala House but the Management failed to do so. These facts lead this Tribunal to draw an inference that
the Management was not at all interested to allow the workman to join duty at Delhi and to harass the workman, they
wanted him to post at its office at Mumbai, despite the fact that the workman since very beginning was working at its
Delhi office. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely concluded that the
services of the workman were illegally terminated by the Management, inasmuch as neither any notice nor any
compensation in lieu of notice period has been paid by it to the workman. 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. Resultantly, it is held that the action of the
Management in terminating services of the workman w.e.f. 29/5/2015 is void, illegal and against the provisions of the
Act. These issues are, therefore, decided in favour of the workman and against the Management.
Issue No. 3 :
11.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. Though it was alleged by the claimant/workman that he was
not paid wages for the month of May, 2015 but he admitted in his cross examination that salary for the month of May,
2015 was credited in his account with HDFC Bank. As such, this claim of the workman/claimant is not tenable. This
Tribunal while rendering findings on Issue No.1 and 2 has held that the Management has failed to comply with the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act prior to termination of the workman from service. It is undisputed fact that the
workman was serving under the Management for a job of regular and perennial in nature, for the last about four years
prior to termination of his service. The workman has categorically pleaded and deposed on oath that he is unemployed
196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
since after his termination. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the workman/claimant is
gainfully employed.
12.
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.”
13.
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).
14.
A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken
away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that
eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the
removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
15.
However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh,
reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination
of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy
or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered
with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are
wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age
and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,
where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the
complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is
often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be
compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”
16.
Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal
termination and reinstatement held as under :-
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
197
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018)
MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s
salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be
illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing
as under :-
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not
on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties
as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,
of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of
service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his
termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages
which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”
17.
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 and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his
termination by the Management No.2 and 3. Award is passed accordingly against Management 2 & 3.
Date : 04.12.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 20 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 35
35
35
35.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947(1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस मु8य महा$बंधक, दूरसंचार िवभाग अहमदाबाद, और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और
उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय,
नई अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या. 1165/2004) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 24.08.18 को $ा; <ए
थे।
[सं. एल-40012/444/2000- आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 35.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.1165/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court
Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chife General
Manager, Telecom Department Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 24.08.18.
[No. L-40012/444/2000-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th August, 2018
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1165/2004
1. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Department,
Seva Sadan Building, 1st Floor, Bhadra,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2. The Telecom District Manager,
Telecom Department,Near Aiankar Talkies,
Surendranagar (Gujarat) – 363001
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Saurashtra Employees Union,
City Shops, 3rd Floor, Opposite Jagnath Police Chowky,
Dr. Yagnik Road,
Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H.R. Raval
For the Second Party
: Ms. Kajal Kalwani
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/444/2000–
IR(DU) dated 18.01.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to theIndustrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, Surendranagar/Ahmedabad in
terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Jasmuddin Ansari, Casual Labour w.e.f. 30.09.1997 is just, valid
and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference dates back to 18.01.2001 and received on 12.02.2001 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication.
2. In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging
that he was engaged as a Casual Labour by the first parties The Chief General Manager, Telecom Department,
Seva Sadan Building, 1st Floor, Bhadra, Ahmedabad and The Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department,
Near Aiankar Talkies, Surendranagar on 03.07.1979 where he worked till 29.02.1984. Thereafter, he was re-
engaged on 01.02.1989 till August, 1997 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Phone), Surendranagar and Sub-
Divisional Officer (Telephone), Ahmedabad. The copies of the working days are enclosed with the statement of
claim mark as 1. Thus he continuously worked for 15 years with the first party and also worked for more than
240 days in the last preceding 12 months prior to the termination of his service in the month of August, 1997
without following the procedure laid down in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further alleged
that while terminating his service, the persons/workmen junior to him were retained and many of them have also
been regularised violating the provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further
alleged that he was entitled for temporary status as per the scheme of the first party which was denied to him in
mala-fide manner by termination of his service by way of oral order. Thus he has prayed for declaring the
termination as illegal in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act and
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. The first parties The Chief General Manager, Telecom Department, Seva Sadan Building, 1st Floor, Bhadra,
Ahmedabad and The Telecom District Manager, Telecom Department, Near Aiankar Talkies, Surendranagar,
jointly submitted the written statement Ex. 6 denying the averments made in the statement of claim submitted
that the second party workman has no cause of action, the reference is barred by Limitation Act and
misconceived, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the judgement of Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 1075/HP of 1996 has held that daily wages employees cannot
claim any right to hold civil post and in State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Suresh A. Kumar Verma, 1996 (2) SC C
455, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that appointment to a post in the Government of India can only be
according to its rules and the Court cannot give any direction to re-engage such persons in any work or to
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
199
appoint him against the existing vacancies and if the Court does so, the judicial process would become another
mode of recruitment de-hors of rules. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Tulsi Ram Patel V/s Government of
India, AIR 1985 SC 1416, has held that the servants employed by the Government of India hold the post under
the pleasure of the President of India and such pleasure cannot be curtailed by a parliamentary enactment. It has
been further submitted that the workman worked from July, 1979 to 29.02.1984 under SDO, Telephones,
Ahmedabad and Surendranagar and remained absent from 01.03.1984 to 31.01.1989 at his own accord without
intimating the first party and such period of absence cannot be condoned as per rules. It is further submitted that
the workman re-engaged as Casual Labour from 01.02.1989 to 28.02.1991 under SDO, Telephones,
Dharangadhara and from 01.03.1991 to 30.03.1997 under SDO, Telephones, Halvad. It is wrong to say that he
was re-engaged by SDO, Telephones, Surendranagar and Ahmedabad. It is further submitted that his services
were terminated following the procedure laid down in Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act as there was no
work available to be given to the workman.
4. It is further submitted that the workman challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ahmedabad vide O.A. No. 583/1997 for regularising of service and consequential benefits which was
dismissed. No junior employee was retained while terminating his services. Thus the prayer sought by the
workman in his statement of claim has no force and liable to be rejected.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
I.
Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, Surendranagar/Ahmedabad in
terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Jasmuddin Ansari, Casual Labour w.e.f. 30.09.1997 is
just, valid and legal?
II.
To what relief, if any, the employee concerned is entitled?
6. Issue No. I and II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The burden of proof of
these issues was lying on the second party workman. He has submitted his affidavit Ex. 10 reiterating the
averments made in the statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was engaged as Casual
Labour in July 1979 and worked till the year 1984, thereafter; he did not go to the office for doing work as he
was not given work. He was re-engaged in the year 1987 as Casual Labour on vouchers and he was orally
terminated on 30.09.1987. He also remained ill for 2 years during the year 1984 to 1989 and he did not inform
the first party regarding his illness. He was also given notice while terminating his service with 2 cheques as
notice pay which he returned to the first party. He admitted that he worked at Halvad and Tikar. He has also
admitted that no one was re-engaged or re-employed after his termination. He also admitted that he did not work
for 240 days in any calendar year. He is still unemployed though he searches the job. He has 5 members in his
family and used to earn Rs.1000/- by doing labour work.
7. After cross-examination of the workman, he stopped coming to the Tribunal and on 13.07.2017, The Assistant
General Manager (Legal), Telephones, Surendranagar, informed the Tribunal that the workman has expired. Ms.
Kajal Kalwani, advocate for the second party workman on 14.07.2017 requested for time to verify the facts
regarding the death of the workman but till date Ms. Kajal Kalwani is unable to explain regarding the facts.
8. Firstly, as the workman has expired, therefore, the reference has become abate as no legal heirs have moved any
application for their substitution as party in the place of the deceased workman. Secondly, the deceased
workman while alive has admitted that he was a casual labour and was retrenched after giving notice and paying
the notice pay by way of cheques. There is no proof on the record that he did not en-cash such cheques. Thirdly,
he cannot be said to be a workman as he admitted that he never worked for 240 days in any calendar year.
9. Thus the reference has no force and the action taken by the management of Telecom Department,
Surendranagar/Ahmedabad in terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Jasmuddin Ansari, Casual Labour
w.e.f. 30.09.1997 cannot be said to be unjust and illegal.
10. The award is passed accordingly. No relief can be granted.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 20 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 36
36
36
36.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस मंडल सिचव, अिखल भारतीय डाक कम चारी संघ अहमदाबाद, और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0
िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म
यायालय, नई दली -1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 978/2004) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 24.08.18 को
$ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-40012/149/93- आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 36.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 978/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Circlr
Secretary, All India postal Employees Union Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 24.08.18.
[No. L-40012/149/93-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 06th August, 2018
Reference: (CGITA) No. 978/2004
1. The Supdt. Of Post Offices,
Kutch Division, Bhuj, Kutch (Gujarat)
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
3. The Sub-Divisional Inspector,
Bhachau Post Office, Bhachau,
Kutch (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The Circle Secretary,
All India Postal Employees Union,
Postman Class IV and EDAS,
BecharGnanchiChal, Opp. Behrampura,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380022
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri P.M. Rami
For the Second Party
: Shri R.C. Pathak
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/149/93–
IR(DU) dated 25.11.1994 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Kachchh Division, Bhuj in terminating/not taking on
duties/discontinuance/the services of Shri Popatlal Gokalbhai Prajapati, Extra Departmental Agent, Chitrod
Branch of Post Office w.e.f. 13.05.1991 is valid, justified and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is
entitled to and what directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference dates back to 25.11.1994 and received on 12.12.1994 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication.
2. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal to the parties, the second party workman Popatlal Gokalbhai
Prajapati submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that he was initially engaged as Postman by the first
party on 14.09.1988 against a clear vacant post of Postman and he worked on the said post till 13.05.1991 when
his services were suddenly terminated by the first party without following the due procedure of law. His work
was satisfactory during the said period. He has further alleged that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various
decisions has observed as under: “Where the workman has worked for a period of more than 2 years
continuously then obviously the work will be of permanent nature and the said workman shall be absorbed by
the Management.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically in a case of daily wages employee of Post and
Telegraph Department observed that there is no scheme of regularisation for Class IV employee in the Post and
Telegraph Department, therefore, all the employees of Post and Telegraph Department must be regularised who
have completed 360 days of service. He has further alleged that as per the circulars of the first party itself, such
workman was entitled for the grant of temporary status but the management neither granted him the temporary
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
201
status as per its circular nor regularise his service as per the decision of Supreme Court. Thus the termination
was unjust and illegal. He has further alleged that the management has not followed the principle of ‘last come
and first go’ as numbers of employees who were junior to him were retained in the service while terminating his
service. He was also not issued any notice or paid retrenchment compensation while terminating his services
violating the principles of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the conciliation proceedings
also, the management did not agree for reinstatement of service. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement of
service with back wages, continuity of service and all the consequential benefits.
3. The first parties The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Kutch Division, Bhuj, Kutch (Gujarat), The Chief Post Master
General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and The Sub-Divisional Inspector, Bhachau Post Office,
Bhachau, Kutch (Gujarat), partly admitting the averments made in the statement of claim, jointly submitted the
written statement Ex. 28 alleging that the workman has worked as Extra Departmental Agent from 14.09.1988
to 13.05.1991 and was not appointed or engaged as Postman as stated by him in his statement of clam. It is true
that the post on which he was engaged was of permanent nature but he was engaged purely on ad-hoc basis as a
stop-gap arrangement against the post of a regular employee named R.A. Sadhu who was placed under
suspension/put off duty. Thus the post was not vacant. The engagement of the workman was purely a stop-gap
arrangement to manage the work assigned to R.A. Sadhu till the disciplinary proceedings are finalised against
him. It is wrong to say that the services of the workman were terminated without following due process of law.
There was no violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act because he was not appointed on
permanent basis as said above. It is also submitted that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter
because the services of the Government servant under Union of India are not governed by the Industrial
Disputes Act. Their service disputes are always adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal as the Post
and Telegraph Department is not an Industry. Thus the reference has no force and the prayed sought by the
workman is liable to be rejected.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
I.
Whether the action of the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Kachchh Division, Bhuj in terminating/not taking on
duties/discontinuance/the services of Shri Popatlal Gokalbhai Prajapati, Extra Departmental Agent,
Chitrod Branch of Post Office w.e.f. 13.05.1991 is valid, justified and legal?
II.
To what relief, if any, the employee concerned is entitled?
5. Issue No. I and II: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are to be decided together. The burden of proof of
these issues was lying on the second party workman. The workman was examined vide Ex. 17 wherein he has
reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim and in his cross-examination, he has not said anything
contrary to his examination-in-chief but has not stated that he was recruited as per the procedure of the
recruitment rules of Post and Telegraph Department. He has admitted that he was engaged as a Extra
Departmental Agent as stop-gap arrangement for a fixed period from time to time. He submitted number of
documents vide list Ex. 7. Neither of the documents reveals that he was appointed on permanent basis but some
of the documents reveal that he was paying the premium of insurance in the Postal Department.
6. The first party examined one Valajibhai Maheshwari who has stated on oath that the second party workman was
not a permanent employee or Postman but he was engaged as Extra Departmental Agent in the leave vacancy of
a permanent employee who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
7. The workman in his oral and documentary evidences has not proved that any junior person has been appointed
after termination of his service.
8. The first party has submitted the departmental rules and regulations of recruitment (D.G., P.&T., Letter No. –
43-4/77-Pen., dated 18.05.1979 and Circular No. 19-34/99-ED & Trg., dated 30.12.1999) which provides as
under:
“(16) Provisional appointment of ED Agents – It has come to the notice of this office that provisional
appointments made to ED posts are being allowed to continue for indefinite periods and when regular
appointments are made, the provisionally appointed persons do not readily hand over the charge. The following
instructions are issued in this regard: -
i. As far as possible, provisional appointments should be avoided. Provisional appointments
should not be made to fill the vacancies caused by the retirement of ED Agents. In such cases,
the Appointment Authority should take action well in time before the retirement of the
incumbent ED Agent, to select 2 suitable successors.
ii. Where possible, provisional appointments should be made only for specific periods. The
appointed person should be given to understand that the appointment will be terminated on
expiry of the specified period and that he will have no claim for regular appointment. Where a
new post office is opened or where a new post is created or where an ED Agent dies while in
service or resigns from his post and it is not possible to make regular appointment
immediately, a provisional appointment should be made for a specific period. The offer for
appointment should be in the form annexed (Annexure A).
202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
iii. Where an ED Agent is put off duty pending departmental or judicial proceedings against him
and it is not possible to ascertain the period by which the departmental/judicial proceedings
are likely to be finalized, a provisional appointment may be made, in the form annexed
(Annexure B). It should be made clear to the provisionally appointed person that if ever it is
decided to reinstate the previous incumbent, the provisional appointment will be terminated
and that he shall have no claim to any appointment.
Even in cases where an appointment is made to fill the vacancy caused by the dismissal/removal of an ED Agent
and the dismissed/removed employee has not exhausted all channels of appeal, the appointment should only be
provisional. The offer for appointment should be in the form annexed (Annexure B).
Efforts should be made to give alternative employment to ED Agents who are appointed provisionally and
subsequently discharged from service due to administrative reasons, if at the time of discharge they had put in
not less than three years’ continuous approved service. In such cases, their names should be included in the
waiting list of ED Agents discharged from service, prescribed in D.G., P. & T., Letter No. 43-4/77-Pen., dated
23.02.1979.”
9. I considered the oral and written arguments of the parties. From the evidence of record, it is established that the
workman was appointed as an Extra Departmental Agent on a fixed term as a stop-gap arrangement against the
vacancy of permanent employee named R.A. Sadhu who has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
10. It is a settled law that no appointment can be made in the Government of India against the recruitment rules.
This workman was engaged on a fixed term basis against the non-vacant post of one R.A. Sadhu who was put
under suspension for undergoing disciplinary proceedings. Thus the retrenchment cannot be said to be illegal
but as the documentary evidences reveal that he worked for more than 391 days but in less than 3 years,
therefore, it would be equitable to grant a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as
compensation. No further relief is granted except as said above.
11. The award is passed accordingly. The first parties are directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the second party workman Popatlal Gokalbhai Prajapati within 60 days from the
publication of the award.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 20 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 37
37
37
37.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस सहायक भिवLय िनिध आयुE, कम चारी भिवLय िनिध संगठन अहमदाबाद, और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के
संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं
6म यायालय, नई दली-1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 10/2009) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.10.18 को
$ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/52/2009- आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 37.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.10/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court
Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation Ahmedabad, & Others, and their workmen
which were received by the Central Government on 17.10.18.
[No. L-42012/52/2009-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
203
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 09th October, 2018
Reference (CGITA) No. 10/2009
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
SRO,
Vapi (Gujarat)
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Head Office, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi
3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan,
Nr. RBI, Income Tax Circle, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Parties
V/s
Shri Harish Kumar M. Gulrajani,
52, Hathram Ka Darwaja, Near Mohan Talkies,
Ratlam (MP) – 457001
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: None
For the Second Party
: Shri R.C. Pathak
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/52/2009–
IR(DU) dated 07.12.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad in imposing
the penalty of dismissal from service on their workman Shri Harish M. Gulrajani vide order dated 23.12.2004 is
legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 07.12.2009 and received on 21.12.2009 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7
alleging that he joined as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vapi
on 19.04.1995. His services were found satisfactory, therefore, he was promoted on 31.12.1998 as Upper
Division Clerk and posted at SRO, Vapi but he was dismissed from service on 04.08.2004 with a mala-fide
intention and illegally on the ground that he was trapped to take bribe by the Anti Corruption Bureau. He was
subjected to criminal trial under Prevention of Corruption Act wherein he was acquitted by the court of law for
want of evidence. But as the first party was adamant to victimize him, therefore, he was subjected to
departmental enquiry wherein he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. He preferred an appeal
against the order of dismissal before the appropriate authority but same was also rejected. Therefore, he raised
this dispute before the Conciliation Officer; hence, this reference was referred for adjudication before the
Tribunal.
3. The first party did not prefer to submit the written statement, therefore, the reference was ordered to proceed ex-
parte against the first party on 10.03.2016.
4. The second party workman in support of his statement of claim Ex. 7 submitted the affidavit Ex. 12 reiterating
the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 7 and has also filed the documents regarding the order of
acquittal by the Criminal Court and other relevant documents regarding the departmental proceedings.
5. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the second party.
204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. The Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as under:
“9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred: The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained)
have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred.”
7. The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides as under:
“SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT:
(1)
This Act may be called the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(2)
It extends, – (a) in so far as it relates to the Central Administrative Tribunal, to the whole of India;
(b)
In so far as it relates to the Administrative Tribunals for States, to the whole of India, except the State of
Jammu and Kashmir.
(3)
The provisions of this Act, in so far as they relate to the Central Administrative Tribunal, shall come into
force on such date 1 as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint.
(4)
The provisions of the Act, in so far as they relate to Administrative Tribunal, for a State shall come into
force in State on such date 2 as the Central Government may, by notification appoint.
Comments:
The Act applies to all categories of Central Government servants and others posted to work in the State of Jammu
and Kashmir as well; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Subhas Sharma, (2002) 4 SCC 145.
1. The provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to the Central Administrative Tribunal, came into force on 1-7-
1985, vide G.S.R. 527(E), dated 1st July, 1985.
2. The provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to the State Administrative Tribunal, for Andhra Pradesh came
into force on I-11-1989, vide G.S.R. 921(E), dated 25th October, 1989 and for Arunachal Pradesh came into
force on 3-8-1989, vide G.S.R. 638(E), dated 3rd August, 1989 and for Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Orissa came into force on 1-1-1985; vide G.S.R. 956(E), dated 31st
December, 1985, and for the State of Bihar came into force on 22-10-1991, vide S.O. 715(E), dated 22nd
October, 1991.
2. ACT NOT TO APPLY TO CERTAIN PERSONS:
The provisions of this Act shall not apply to –
(a) Any member of the naval, military or air force or of any other armed forces of the Union; 1[***]
(b) Omitted
(c) Any officer or servant of the Supreme Court or any High Court 2 [or Courts subordinate thereto;]
(d) Any person appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament or to the secretarial staff of any
State Legislature or a House thereof or, in the case of a Union territory having a Legislature, of that
Legislature.
1.
Clause (b) omitted by Act 19 of 1986, sec. 3 (w.r.e.f. 1-11-1985).
2.
Ins. by Act 51 of 1987, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 22-12-1987).
8. The Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides as under:
“The Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines workman as under: ’’
“Section 2 (s): “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the
terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this act in relation to
an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,
but does not include any such person –
(i)
Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person; or
(iii)
Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administration capacity; or
(iv)
Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding (ten thousand rupees) per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
205
9. The principles of legal jurisprudence provide that Civil Court has jurisdiction over all the matters of civil nature
unless it is expressly or impliedly barred as given under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The service
disputes regarding employees of State and Central Government are barred by the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985 and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Second principle is that if there is a dispute of jurisdiction between the
two statutes, then the later statutes in date will be applicable. In the present case, the workman has himself
alleged in his statement of claim that he was a Upper Division Clerk in the office of Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner under the Government of India, therefore, is a central government employee and the later in date
the statute namely Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides that any service dispute with respect to a person
regarding all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of
any state or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of Government of
India regarding (i) Remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) Tenure
including confirmation, seniority, promotion, revision, pre-mature retirement and superannuation; (iii) Leave of
any kind; (iv) Disciplinary matters; (v) any other matters whatsoever shall be adjudicate by the Central
Administrative Tribunal or State Administrative Tribunal as the case may be.
10. In the present case, the so called workman has himself admitted that he was dismissed from service while
serving as Upper Division Clerk in the service of Union of India, thus the question of his dismissal or
termination as per the provisions of the Central Administrative Act can only be adjudicated by the Central
Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 being later in date to the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and this is a basis principle that if there is a dispute between the two statutes regarding
jurisdiction then the statute later in date shall prevail.
11. Thus this Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and the
reference is disposed of with a direction to the so called workman Harish M. Gulrajani to approach the proper
forum.
12. The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 20 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 38
38
38
38.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस उप-मंडल (टेली), भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड देसा, अहमदाबाद , और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0
िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म
यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 551/2004) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 22.10.18 को $ा;
<ए थे ।
[सं. एल-40012/257/2002- आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi,the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 38.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.551/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Sub –
Divisional (Tele) , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Deesa, Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were
received by the Central Government on 22.10.18.
[No. L-40012/257/2002-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 22nd October, 2018
Reference (CGITA) No. 551/2004
1. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Tele.),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Deesa Telephone Exchange,
Deesa (B.K.) – 385536
206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The Chief General Manager,
Telecom Department,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
3. The General Manager Telecom,
Telecom Department,
Palanpur Telecom District, Joravar Palace,
Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001
…First Parties
V/s
The Org. Secretary,
The Association of Railway and Post Employees,
15, Shashi Apartment,
Nr. Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H.R. Raval
For the Second Party
: Shri Chintan Gohel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/257/2002–
IR(DU) dated 17.04.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Deesa, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited (Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Md. Umatali Md. Alim is legal, proper
and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and since when?”
1. The reference dates back to 17.04.2003 and received on 21.05.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. In response to the notice, the second party submitted the statement of claim along with vakalatpatra of Shri R.C.
Pathak on 05.04.2005. The first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 6 of Shri H.R. Raval on 31.01.2010 and
written statement Ex. 7 on 06.08.2010.
3. The second party workman submitted an application Ex. 8 for production of documents and the first party
submitted the reply Ex. 9 in response to the application Ex. 8.
4. Today on 22.10.2018, Shri Chintan Gohel, the advocate for the second party stated in the Tribunal that the
workman has not been in his contact and he has no instructions from the client.
5. Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case.
6. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Palanpur/SDOT, Deesa,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Md. Umatali Md.
Alim is legal, proper and justified.”
7. The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 20 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 39
39
39
39.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस मु8य महा$बंधक
)
दूरसंचार
(
, गुजरात स3कल, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, खानपुर अहमदाबाद, और अय एवं उनके
कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार
औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या. 536/2004) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय
सरकार को 17.10.18 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-40012/163/2004- आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
207
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 39.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.536/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court
Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chife General
Manager (Telecom), Gujarat Circle ,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur Ahmedabad, and others, and their
workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.10.18.
[No. L-40012/163/2002-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 24th September, 2018
Reference (CGITA) No. 536/2004
1. The Chief General Manager (Telecom),
Gujarat Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2. The Telecom District Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ganj Market,
Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001
…First Parties
V/s
The Org. Secretary,
The Association of Railway and Post Employees,
15, Shashi Apartment,
Nr. Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) –380007
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H.R. Raval
For the Second Party
: Shri Chinten Gohel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/163/2002–
IR(DU) dated 10.02.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom Department) in terminating
the services of Shri Baijnath Sing Yadav is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concern
workman is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference dates back to 10.02.2003 and received on 06.03.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim on 05.04.2005 and the first
party submitted the written statement on 22.04.2010.
3. On 24.09.2018, Shri Chintan Gohel, advocate for the second party workman has given in writing that the
workman Baijnath Sing Yadav has not been in his contact.
4. Therefore, it appears that the second party union or its workman is not willing to prosecute the case.
5. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party union or its workman with
the observation as under: “the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Telecom
Department) in terminating the services of Shri Baijnath Sing Yadav is legal, proper and justified.”
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 20 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 40
40
40
40.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस दूरसंचार िजला अिभयंता, दूरसंचार िवभाग अहमदाबाद, और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2
और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय,
अहमदाबाद पंचाट के (संदभ सं8या 1215/2004) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.10.18 को $ा; <ए थे ।
[सं. एल-40012/171/2002- आईआर
)
डीयू
(
]
राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2018
S.O. 40.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.1215/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Telecom
District Engineer, Telecom Department Ahmedabad, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 17.10.18.
[No. L-40012/171/2002-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 05th October, 2018
Reference (CGITA) No. 1215/2004
The Telecom District Engineer,
Telecom Department,
Surendranagar (Gujarat) – 363001
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Saurashtra Employees Union,
City Shops, 3rd Floor,
Opp. Jagnath Policy Chowky, Dr. Yagnik Road,
Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri H.R. Raval
For the Second Party
: Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/171/2002–
IR(DU) dated 08.01.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal , Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Surendranagar not to give
employment to Shri Hejam Kishorkumar Tulsidas is justified or legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
for and since when?”
1. The reference dates back to 08.01.2003 and received on 16.02.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on
19.08.2003/04.11.2003 along with number of documents. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7
on 06.01.2005.
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
209
3. Today on 05.10.2018, the second party workman moved an application Ex. 32 stating that he does not want to
proceed the case and requested the Tribunal to withdraw the case. The application Ex. 32 is allowed.
4. Thus the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 41-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/kzk cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 04@2013&14½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2018 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@82@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2018
S.O. 41.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2013-14) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andhra Bank, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-12012/82/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER,CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/04/2013-14
Date: 01.11.2018
Party No.1(a)
:
The General Manager,
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,
Mahakali Caves Road,
Mahal Industrial Estate, Andheri (East),
Mumbai 400093.
Party No.1(b)
:
The Branch Nanager,
Andhra Bank, Butibori Branch,
Tehsil & Distt. Nagpur,
Nagpur – 441108.
Party No.1(c)
:
Shri C. Ramchandran,
C.M.D., Andhra Bank, Pattabhi Bhawan,
Khairtabad, Hyderabad,
Hyderabad (A.P.).
Versus
Party No.2
:
Smt. Sangita Satish Patil,
R/o C/o Sonu Devaji Shivankar,
At & PO. New Basti, Shrusti Layout,
Ward No. 3, Behind Jijamata School,
Butibori, Tehsil & Distt. Nagpur,
Nagpur (M.S.).
(Dated: 01st November, 2018)
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workman, Smt. Sangita Satish
Patil for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/82/2012-IR (B-II) dated 01.03.2013, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of the Andhra Bank, Buttibori, Tah & Distt. Nagpur through its
Branch Manager for termination from services of Smt. Sangita Satish Patil, R/o Buttibori, Distt. Nagpur is legal
and justified? What relief to the workman is entitled to?”
210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, Shri B.B Sharma and Y.B. Sharma, advocates field joint
vakalatnama on behalf of the Party No. 1 i.e. management on 20.06.2013 and Mrs. Rajshree Waikar, advocate filed
vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner on 07.08.2013. Petitioner filed statement of claim on 20.09.2013 and Party No. 1
filed their reply on affidavit on 01.03.2018. Petitioner also examined herself after filing evidence on affidavit on
13.02.2015, but petitioner was absent from 02.11.2017, even this Tribunal issued fresh notice to both parties.
3.
Party No. 1/management filed an application, I.A. No. 1 for setting aside the exparte order, which was allowed
by this Tribunal on 18.10.2018, after the service of the application I.A. No. 1(According to the track report). Party No. 1
also filed an application for dismissal of the reference on 18.10.2018, which was marked as I.A. No. 2. In these
circumstances, without going on merit of the case, I.A. No. 2 is allowed. It shows that, petitioner is not interested to
continue with this reference. Hence it is ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
S.S. GARG,Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 42-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ
egkjk"Vª ds izca/kra= 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@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 86@2006½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-
2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@73@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2018
S.O. 42.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-12012/73/2006 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/86/2006
Date: 09.10.2018
Party No.1
:
The Regional Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Regional Office, Near Siddharth Hotel,
Chandrapur (M.S.) - 442402.
Versus
Party No.2
:
Shri Bhalchandra Parshuram Lengure,
R/O Madnapur Ward, Post Sindewahi,
Chandrapur (M.S.).
(Dated: 09th October, 2018)
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employer, in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman,
Shri Bhalchandra Parshuram Lengure for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/73/2006- (IR(B-II) dated 30.10.2006,
with the following schedule:-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
211
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in respect of their Sindewahi Branch,
Distt. Chandrapur in terminating the services of Shri Bhalchandra Parshuram Lengure, Ex-Sub Staff w.e.f.
30.10.2004 is proper & justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In this case, petitioner/claimant filed statement of claim and
management filed written statement. Management also filed evidence on affidavit, but nobody has appeared on behalf of
the workman from 29.12.2010 to 22.03.2011. Management also filed written notes of argument and petitioner filed an
application for setting aside the order dated 29.12.2010. This application was allowed on 03.01.2014 by my predecessor.
On 16.12.2014, my predecessor rejected the application of the petitioner, in which, he prayed to set aside the order dated
19.03.2014. After that, petitioner and his advocate have been absent.
3.
This Tribunal issued a notice to the petitioner for appearance on 12.03.2018, but nobody was present on behalf
of the petitioner. It shows that, petitioner did not want to proceed with the reference, so it was closed. Hence, it is
ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 43-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad
vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 154@2013½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
26-12- 2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&39025@01@2017&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2018
S.O. 43.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, New Delhi as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-39025/01/2017 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, 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. 154/2013
Shri Chedda Lal Sharma,
S/o. late Shri Puran Chand,
R/o. H.No.B014/1, Manbhari Kunj,
Sindhu Farm Road, Meetapur Extn.
New Delhi 110044.
…Workman
Versus
(1)
The Regional Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market,
Gole Market, New Delhi.
(2) The Branch Manager,
Union Bank of India,
SSI Branch Okhla, 173-174 DSIDC,
Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I,
New Delhi 110020.
… Management
212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
This Award shall decide a claim petition directly filed by the workman/claimant Chedda Lal Sharma under
Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)., with the averments that he was
engaged as a casual worker by Management No.2 in the year 1998, where he worked till 21/6/2011 without any break.
The Management was taking the work of dafty from the workman for stitching of vouchers etc. continuously and paid
him wages/salary in his bank account as there was no daftry posted in the said Branch of the Management Bank. The
Management did not regularize the workman though gave assurances and as such, the workman raised an Industrial
dispute in the year 2011 for his regularization before the Conciliation Officer but after that the Management in
frustration terminated the services of the workman during the conciliation proceedings. The petitioner had rendered
service for more than 13 years with the Management Bank on regular basis without any break. Though the prayer clause
of the statement of claim is not happily worded, yet it can be inferred from the averments made in para (viii) thereof that
the workman is seeking relief of reinstatement into service on regular basis, inasmuch as he has already crossed the age
bar to get some other service and has spent most part of his life to serve the Bank.
2.
The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary
objections that the claimant was neither an employee of the Management Bank nor was appointed by the Management
rather he was only engaged for casual work by the Management Bank at its SSI Branch, Okhla, New Delhi and as such
there never existed any employer-employee relationship between the parties. On merits, it is stated that the claimant was
engaged for doing the job work of book binding at its Okhla Branch as and when required and he was paid according to
the job work performed by him and as per bills submitted by him. It has been denied that the claimant worked from 1998
to 21/1/2011 as alleged by him. Since the claimant was not an employee of the Management Bank, question of
termination of his service did not arise. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor on 26/2/2014 :-
(1)
Whether the claimant rendered continuous service of one year as contemplated by provisions of
Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged
termination of service ?
(2)
Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service ?
4. 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 WW1/4.
5.
On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Roop Lal Meena,
Assistant General Manager as MW1 who also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith
documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2.
6.
I have heard Shri Devender Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Rajat Arora, A/R for the Management and
have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.
Issue No. 1 :
7.
There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of
Management is always on the workman/claimant and he worked with the Management for 240 days in a calendar year.
it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his employment with the Management Bank. Such evidence
may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to
show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a Calendar year. In this regard, reference may
be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director
Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.
8.
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 Ex.WW1/A of the claimant which is in line with the averments made in the claim
petition. According to the testimony of the claimant that the Management was taking the work of daftry from him and
he worked as such for the last 13 years at different branches of the Bank and his work was totally supervisd by the Bank
officials. His salary was paid by the Bank and used to be credited in his account by the bank and in support, he has filed
on record copies of the bank statement and cheque deposit slips as Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2 (colly.) He also deposed
that he had been working at the instructions of the Management and dealt in maintaining vouchers, current deposit and
day book which work was of perennial in nature. He has filed on record copies of cover note of cash book/day book etc.
maintained by him as Ex.WW1/3 alongwith photographs Ex.WW1/4 to show that he was working inside the bank
premises. In cross examination he clarified that no appointment letter was issued to him by the Management and that
entry dated 4/11/1999 & 6-11-1999 and other entries in Ex.WW1/1 pertain to the wages having been paid by the Bank.
9.
It has been admitted by the Management in its written statement that the claimant was engaged for casual work
by the Management Bank at its SSI Branch, Okhla, New Delhi. MW1 Shri Roop Lal Meena clarified in his cross
examination that the claimant was engaged only for book binding work casually during the period from 1998 to 2011 and
that no record of such casual employee is maintained by the Bank. According to him, payment used to be made to the
claimant under book binding expenses/misc. expenses head by way of cheque or through ECS. He admitted that the
workman had worked at various branches of the Management bank but he could not say for how many hours in a day, the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
213
claimant worked. He also admitted that the claimant ued to prepare/bind books like documents Ex.WW1/3. He could
not admit or deny if the claimant did the work of daftry with the Management Bank. He also stated that the Bank does
not have any documentary evidence to show that the workman worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year. He
admitted that the payments having been made to the workman/claimant from time to time through vouchers must have
been reflected./entered in the General Register and/or Cash Book maintained by the branch.
10.
From the pleadings and evidence on record as discussed above it stands proved that the claimant was duly
engaged by the Management Bank for casual work and he did the work of daftry/book binder from 1998 to 2011 at
different branches of the Management Bank. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between
the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.
Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the
provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as 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. Consequently, it is held that
there existed relationship of employee –employer between the workman/claimant and the Management.
11.
Equally settled is the position of law that when relationship of employer-employee stands proved between the
parties, then onus will shift upon the employer/management to show that the claimant has not worked for 240 days or
more in a calendar year or that the services of the claimant was terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act
or in accordance with Standing Order applicable to the establishment concerned, As discussed above, in the case in hand,
engagement of the claimant for casual work of book binding has been duly proved on record. The Management has not
filed any document in the form of abstract of attendance of claimant or other such casual workers so as to show that
claimant has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. Even MW1 Roop Lal Meena admitted that the Management
Bank does not have any documentary proof to show that the workman worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year.
In such circumstances, statement of the claimant who appeared as WW1 can not be brushed aside, more so for the reason
that work of daftry is of regular and perennial in nature. The Management bank has not adduced any evidence to show as
to who was/were the person/s engaged or doing such like work in the said Branch.
12.
Net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the claimant had completed 240 days in a calendar year as
contemplated under Section 25-B of the Act. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant and against the
Management.
Issue No.2 :
13.
Now the vital question for consideration is as to whether the action of the management in terminating the
services of the workman w.e.f. 21/6/22011 is legal and justified.
14.
The case of the workman is that since the Management did not regularize the workman despite assurances, the
workman raised an Industrial dispute in the year 2011 for his regularization before the Conciliation Officer but after that
the Management in frustration terminated his services during the conciliation proceedings by an oral order. The claimant
has deposed in his testimony that no memo or charge sheet was issued to him prior to his illegal termination and even no
compensation was paid or offered by the Management. This Tribunal has already held that the claimant was the
“Workman” for the purposes of the Act and had worked for over 240 days in a calendar year.
15.
Management has not adduced any evidence to show that before ordering termination of workmen herein w.e.f.
21/6/2011, the workmen has been issued any notice or has been paid one month’s wages in lieu of such notice as
required under Section 25-F of the Act. 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. In the circumstances, it is held that action of the Management in terminating the
service of the workmen is totally illegal, wrong and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
16.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. In his affidavit, the workman has specifically stated that he
is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination and he could not get any job despite best efforts. The
Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is gainfully employed somewhere else on full
time/regular basis. Even if it is assumed that the workmen is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make his both
ends meet on daily wage basis, that would not itself amount to gainful employment.
17.
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 :
214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“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.”
18.
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).
19.
A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken
away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that
eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the
removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
20.
However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh,
reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination
of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy
or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered
with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are
wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age
and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,
where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the
complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is
often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be
compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”
21.
Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal
termination and reinstatement held as under :-
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018)
MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
215
salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be
illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing
as under :-
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not
on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties
as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,
of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of
service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his
termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages
which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”
22.
Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a
post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the
claimant/workman is per-se illegal, particularly when the job is of regular and perennial nature and the
claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management. Award is passed
accordingly.
Date :4.12.18
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 26 fnlEcj] 2018
dk- vk- 44-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ
bafM;k ds izca/kra= 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 36@2011½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-12-2018 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@52@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2018
S.O. 44.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Mumbai as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 26.12.2018.
[No. L-12012/52/2011 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI
Present :JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/ 36 OF 2011
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Bank of India
and
Their workman (Harish G Chintalwad)
Appearances:
For the first party no.1/ Management
:
Mr.Lancy D’ Souza, Adv.
For the second party / Workman
:
Mr.R.M.Nijampurkar, Adv.
State
:
Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 22nd day of November, 2018
216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-12012/52/2011 – IR (B-
II)dated04.11.2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Pune in imposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement on Shri Harish G. Chintalwad vide order dated 11.7.2007 is legal and justified?
What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
Brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the workman Shri Harish G.Chintalwad was working as Sub-
staff – Cash Peon in the Bank of India, Khadki Branch. It I alleged that while working as sub-staff at the above Bank,
the workman prepared bogus salary certificate of himself on 23.9.2001 on the Banks letter head. The workman on the
above bogus salary certificate falsely showed his total emoluments as 7593.94 when his take home salary in the month of
September 2001 was Rs.2,962.00. He also impressed the rubber stamp of the above Bank on the said bogus salary
certificate. Thus, the workman committed an act of misconduct to qualify himself as a guarantor in respect of a loan
application made by one of his acquaintance Shri Ajay Manohar Torne. This fraud came to light of the Bank when an
order of attachment dated 1.3.2006 issued by Recovery Officer was received by the Branch. Owing to above gross
misconduct a charge sheet was issued to the workman. During enquiry the workman himself gave his admission in
writing on the copy of Marathi version of the charge sheet . He also unconditionally accepted the charges and the
documents filed by the Presenting Officer. After the conclusion of enquiry, the disciplinary authority awarded him the
punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect with superannuation benefits. The workman challenged the
punishment order and thereby raised an industrial dispute which has been referred by the Government of Indi for decision
by this Tribunal.
3.
The workman has pleaded that the punishment imposed on him is unjust, unreasonable and improper being
shockingly disproportionate and harsh one besides being discriminatory vis-à-vis the punishment imposed upon other
workman with similar act of misconduct. He has also pleaded that the action against him was vitiated on account of bias
and partial attitude of the Enquiry Officer. The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse and vitiates the enquiry. He
blindly accepted the admission of the workman without going into the contents of the said admission. Thus, the workman
challenged the punishment order and has claimed is reinstatement with full back wages with other consequential benefits.
4.
The management of the Bank has filed its written statement depicting the factual position as above. However, it
pleaded inter alia that the act of misconduct committed by the workman comes within gross misconduct of “doing any
act prejudicial of the interest of the Bank” within the meaning of clause 5 sub-clause (j) of the Memorandum of
Settlement dated 10.4.2002. Therefore, a charge sheet was submitted and enquiry was conducted against the workman
concerned in which he admitted all the charges and the documents filed during enquiry. Consequently, the Enquiry
Officer found charges proved against him and submitted his report whereupon a show cause notice of punishment was
issued to the workman and after hearing him a punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits was
passed against the workman concerned.
5.
On behalf of the workman WW-1 Shri Harish Chintanwad has been examined to substantiate the illegality of
enquiry, however, on behalf of the management MW-1 Rajesh G.Iyer was examined by the management. No other
witness was produced on behalf of the management.
6.
Burden lies on the workman to prove that the enquiry conducted against him is illegal and not in consonance of
principles of natural justice. But as it is evident from the application moved by the workman concerned on 1.8.2018, the
workman concerned is not interested to pursue the proceedings of this case and he has requested for closure of the
proceedings, the illegality of enquiry is not required to be adjudicated upon.
7.
From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the punishment order was passed on the ground of admission
made by the workman concerned during enquiry proceedings. The workman concerned participated in the enquiry. He
does not want to say anything against the validity and illegality of the enquiry proceedings. He has requested for closure
of the proceedings. Therefore, in view of this application dated 1.8.2018, no further adjudication in the matter is required
as there exist no dispute and in view of above, let award be passed accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 45
45
45
45.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस नेशनल इंNयोरस क पनी िलिमटेड के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 60/2014) को
$कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 26.12.2018 को $ा; <आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/140/2014-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
217
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 45.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s.
National Insurance Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
26.12.2018.
[No. L-17012/140/2014-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/60/2014-15
Date: 03.10.2018
Party No. 1(a)
:
The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office, No.2, Paul Commercial Complex,
5th Floor, Ajni Chowk, Nagpur,
Nagpur – 440015.
Party No.1(b) :
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Buttibori, Nagpur.
Versus
Party No.2
:
Shri Satish Mahadeorao Patil,
C/o Sonu Devaji Shivankar,
Srushti Layout, Navin Vasti,
Ward No. 3, Buttibori, Nagpur,
Nagpur.
(Dated: 03rd October, 2018)
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employer, in relation to the management of National Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, Shri
Satish Mahadeorao Patil for adjudication, as per letter No.L-17012/140/2014- (IR(M) dated 22.01.2015, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Nagpur/Buttibori, Nagpur in
terminating the services of Sh. Satish Mahadeorao Patil, Ex Office Boy/Peon w.e.f. 10.04.2012 is just, fair
and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but nobody was appearing from either side from the beginning. On
07.11.2017, order was passed to issue fresh notice to the parties, fixing the date on 08.12.2017. On 08.12.2017,
Advocate C.A. Anthony filed Memo of Appearance on behalf of the management, but nobody appeared on behalf of the
petitioner, though notice was served on him.
3.
On 20.02.2018, Advocate C.A. Anthony filed vakalatnama on behalf of the management, but nobody appeared
on behalf of the petitioner. After perusal of the record, it reveals that, after serving of notice on the workman, eight
dates have been given to him to file statement of claim, but no statement of claim has been filed. On 25.09.2018,
advocate for the management filed a pursis mentioning therein for closure of this case and on that also, the workman was
absent and no claim was filed. So, I think that, the workman is not interested to continue with this reference. Hence, it is
ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer
218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 46
46
46
46.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस िहदु&तान Dजक िलिमटेड के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक
िववाद म औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 03/2000) को $कािशत करती है जो
केीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को $ा; <आ था।
[सं. एल-43012/12/2000-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 46.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2000) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited
and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. L-43012/12/2000-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh & Jh v:.k dqekj nqcs
izdj.k la[;k 03@2000 I.T.R.(C)
Jh vf[ky Hkkjrh; tLrk mRiknd Jfed la?k
tujy lsdsVªh] pEikyky /keZ'kkyk] mn;iqj
---izkFkhZ
fo:)
Jh fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM]
tujy eSustj] jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl]
iksLV njhck] jktleUn
---foi{kh
mifLFkr %&
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls % Jh izHkqyky lq[koky] izfrfuf/k
foi{kh dh vkSj ls % Jh Hkjr l:ifj;k] vf/koDrk
iapkV
fnukad 23 vxLr] 2018
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk Øekad L-43012/ 12/2000(IR{M})New Delhi fnukad 30-06-2000 ds
}kjk fuEukafdr fookn bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k &
”Whether the action of the management of
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Rajpura Dariba Mines,
Dariba Distt. Rajsamand in not giving Pay
protection and step up to Sh. Mithulal
Vaishnav and giving more salary to his
Junior Workman is legal and justified ?
If not,to what relief the workmen concerned
is entitled to ?”
mDr vk’k; dk izlax izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj lEcfU/kr i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh
fd;s x;sA ftl ij izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls fnukad 08-01-2001 dks Dyse fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk foi{kh dh vkSj ls fnukad 28-08-2001
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
219
dks tckc is'k fd;k x;k rFkk vU; dk;Zokgh gksus ds ckn cgl lquh tkdj U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 13-04-2005 dks vfUre
iapkV fuEu izdkj ikfjr fd;k x;k &
^^Dyse jsQjsUl esa izkFkhZ i{kdkj vf[ky Hkkjrh; tLrk mRiknd Jfed la?k }kjk izLrqr o iSjoh ugha fd;s tkus ds
dkj.k pyus ;ksX; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS A **
mDr iapkV ds fo:) feBwyky oS".ko dh vkSj ls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj esa ;kfpdk S.B.Civil
Writ Petition No. 4844/2005 Mithu Lal Vaishnav Vs. The Judge Ind. Tribunal and Gen. Manager Hindustan Zin Ltd. is'k
dh A ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius vkns'k fnuakd 06-04-2011 }kjk bl izdj.k dks bl U;k;ky; dks fjek.M djrs
gq, nksuksas i{kks dks lquokbZ dk volj nsdj xq.k&nks"k ij iapkV ikfjr djus dk vkns'k fn;k A
ftl ij fnuakd 13-12-2011 dks izdj.k iqu% ntZ fd;k tkdj nksuksa i{kksa dks lk{; o nLrkost is'k djus dk volj
fn;k x;k A
izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd& Jfed feBwyky dks fu;kstd i{k us fnukad 30-08-75 ds
vius vkns'k }kjk 'kk[kk tkoj ekbZUl esa lsEiy ckW; ds in ij Js.kh&f}rh; esa osru J`a[kyk 160&6&250 esa fu;qDr fd;kA
mlds ckn fu;kstd }kjk Jfed dks fnuakd 01-01-79 dks Js.kh&r`rh; ds in ij inksUur fd;kA Jfed }kjk foi{kh ds v/khu
09-09-75 ls 31-03-84 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k A fu;kstd us fnukad 01-05-86 dks Js.kh&prqFkZ ij inksUur fd;k o mlds ckn
Js.kh iape ij Lor% inksUur fd;k x;k A tgka fnukad 01-01-96 ls ewy osru 3586 :i;s gksdj fnukad 01-07-96 ls ewy osru
3662 ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS] tcfd Jfed i{k ds i'pkr~ fu;kstd i{k ds ;gka dk;Zjr deZpkjh xksihyky]
papy dqekj] rstflag dks Js.kh& iape esa ewy osru 3738 :i;s ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS A Jfed i{k ds i'pkr~
fu;qDr mDr deZpkfj;ksa dks 2 o"kZ 4 ekg ckn iape&Js.kh nh xbZ gS A blh izdkj tkoj ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr 'ke'kwy gd dks
fnukad 01-08-96 ls Js.kh iakp esa ewy osru 3814 :i;s ds fglkc ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gS A bl lEcU/k esa Jfed us dbZ
ckj fyf[kr ,oa ekSf[kd :i ls osru vlaxfr dks nwj djus dk fuosnu fd;k] ysfdu fu;kstd us dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;k A
Jfed ds fu;kstu dky easa foi{kh dsk dHkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha jgh A bl izdkj fu;kstd }kjk Jfed dks vU; dfu"B leku
in ,oa Js.kh ij dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls osru vlaxfr gksus ls de osru dk Hkqxrku djuk vuqfpr Je O;ogkj gS A blfy;s
osru folaxfr dks nwj dj mls lHkh ykHk fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k A
foi{kh us vius tckc esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk osru fu/kkZj.k fof/kor foi{kh laLFkku esa ekU;rk izkIr la?k
ls fnukad 29-09-95 dks gq, nh?kZ vof/k le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS ,oa mlh vuqlkj mldks Hkqxrku fd;k tk jgk gSA
izkFkhZ us fnuakd 30-08-75 dks tkoj ekbZUl esa Js.kh&nks esa viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k Fkk rFkk 31-03-84 rd yxkrkj dk;Z
fd;k ,oa izkFkhZ us izcU/ku dks tkoj [knku ls jktiqjk njhck [knku esa On request transfer dh izkFkZuk dh ftl ij vkns'k
fnukad 16-03-84 ls izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k ftl vkns'k esa gh ;g Li"V :i ls lwfpr fd;k Fkk fd ^^vUr% ofj"Brk
esa dfu"Bre jgsxsa A** izkFkhZ us mDr vkns'k esa of.kZr 'krksZ dks Lohdkj djrs gq, jktiqjk njhck [knku bZdkbZ esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k
fd;k Fkk A feBwyky }kjk fnuakd 01-05-86 ls ofj"B lsEiyesu&A] Js.kh&pkj esa 8 o"kZ dk dk;Zdky iw.kZ djus ij i= dzekad
568 fnukad 22-06-94 }kjk fu;ekuqlkj inksUufr nh xbZ A foHkkx esa dk;Zjr vU; deZpkjh xksihyky] papy dqekj] rstflag
fnukad 04-04z-84 dks izkFkhZ feBwyky ds tkoj [knku ls jktiqjk njhck [knku esa On request transfer ds le; ofj"B
lsEiyesu&aAA] Js.kh&rhu esa dk;Zjr Fks ,oa feBwyky }kjk bl bdkbZ esa LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k esa n'kkZ;h 'krksZ ds vuqlkj feBwyky
foHkkx esa dk;Zjr vU; deZpkfj;ksa ls dfu"Bre ekus x;s Fks A blfy;s feBwyky tkoj ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls osru
vlaxfr ds lEcU/k esa rqyuk djus dk gdnkj ugha gS A feBwyky }kjk osru vlaxfr ds lEcU/k esa izkFkZuk djus ij mls bl
ckcr lwfpr dj fn;k Fkk fd mldk osru vlaxfr dk ekeyk ugh curk gS A feBwyky dfu"B deZpkjh gksus ds dkj.k os
ofj"B deZpkjh ls de osru izkIr dj jgs gS A blfy;s izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh A
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa fnukad 04-12-15 dks 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k ftl ij fnukad 27-01-16 dks
ftjg gqbZ o foi{kh dh vkSj ls ujsUnz iqjksfgr dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk ftlls fnukad 05-02-18 dks ftjg iwjh gqbZ o mlh fnu
lk{; foi{kh lekIr dh rFkk i=koyh cgl vafre esa fu;r dh xbZ ftl ij nksuksa i{kksa dh vkSj ls fyf[kr cgl is'k dh xbZA
cgl lquh xbZ A i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A
izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh dh vkSj ls bl ekeys esa iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds le{k fnuakd 16-03-2018 dks fyf[kr cgl
izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh] ftldh vkSj Hkh /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k A
cgl ds nkSjku izkFkhZ ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k us vius rdZ esa ;g izdV fd;k gS fd bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls osru
laj{k.k ,oa LVsi&vi foi{kh }kjk ugha djus ds QyLo:i izLrqr gqvk gS A ftlesa foi{kh dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedksa
dks vf/kd osru fn;k x;k A lkFk gh bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa
o"kZ 1984 esa gqvk Fkk A LFkkukUrj.k gksus ds i'pkr~ foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks njhck ekbZUl esa lcls dfu"B Jfed ekuk x;k] bl
dkj.k ;g fookn mRiUu gqvk] tcfd mlds i'pkr~ fu;qDr Jfedksa ls izkFkhZ dk osru de ugha gksrk gS u gh muls dfu"B
ekuk tk;sxk A viuh fyf[kr cgl esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls ;g rdZ Hkh fn;k x;k gS] fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius firk ds chekj
gksus ds dkj.k ?kj ds utnhd njhck ekbZUl esa viuk LFkkukUrj.k djkus ckcr izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu ml
le; mldk LFkkukUrj.k u dj dkQh le; i'pkr~ mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k A vr% mDr LFkkukUrj.k ds vk/kkj ij
izkFkhZ dks ofj"Brk esa dfu"B ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS A vkxs vius rdksZ esa ;g Hkh izdV fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us LoSfPNd
LFkkukUrj.k dks Hkh pqukSfr nsrs gqos ;g izdV fd;k fd mldk LFkkukUrj.k LoSfPNd ugha Fkk] fodYi esa mldk ;g Hkh rdZ gS
fd ;fn LFkkukUrj.k LoSfPNd Hkh ekuk tk;s rks Hkh mls vius ls dfu"B Jfedksa ls dfu"B ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS A blds
vykok izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls viuh fyf[kr cgl esa bl U;k;ky; esas izsf"kr fookn ls vfrfjDr vU; rdZ Hkh izLrqr fd;s gSa]
ftudk mYys[k o foospu fd;k tkuk vko';d ugha gS A
220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mijksDr rdksZ dk [k.Mu djrs gqos fo}ku vf/koDrk foi{kh dk rdZ gS fd bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ o foi{kh dh vksj ls
izLrqr lk{; ls ;g iw.kZ:is.k lkfcr gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa gqbZ Fkh] rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ us foi{kh laLFkku esa
viuk LFkkukUrj.k njhck ekbZUl esa djkus dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k] ftl ij foi{kh laLFkku ds fu;eksa ds rgr LoSfPNd
LFkkukUrj.k Jfed dk ml LFkku ij fu;qDr leku oxZ ds Jfedksa ls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk] bu 'krksZa ds lkFk foi{kh laLFkku us
izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa fd;k Fkk] ftl ij izkFkhZ us viuh lgefr nh Fkh A njhck ekbZUl esa
tksbZu djus ds i'pkr~ og iwoZ in LFkkiu ij leku oxZ ds Jfedksa ls dfu"B ekuk ml vk/kkj ij mldk o iwoZ fu;qDr
Jfedksa ls vius osru dh rqyuk djus dk fookn ugha mBk ldrk A vr% izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk
dh A
izkFkhZ feBwyky us viuh lk{; esa vius }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i=ksa dh iqujkofrZ djrs gqos ;g izdV fd;k gS fd foi{kh
laLFkku ds tkoj ekbZUl esa lSEiy ckW; ds in ij fnuakd 09-09-1975 dks mldh fu;qfDr gqbZ Fkh rFkk fnuakd 01-01-1979 dks
mls lSEiy eSu r`rh; Js.kh cuk fn;k Fkk A vkxs viuh lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd esjs vuqjks/k ij esjk LFkkukUrj.k tkoj
ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa dj fn;k Fkk A ;g LFkkukUrj.k mn;yky ikyhoky ofj"B lSEiy eSu r`rh; dk in fjDr gksus ds
dkj.k fd;k x;k Fkk A LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ij dEiuh ds fu;ekuqlkj eq>s LFkkukUrj.k ds ykHk ugha fn;s x;s rFkk ofj;rk
dk ykHk ugha fn;s tkus ds izko/kku ugha gksrs gq, Hkh foi{kh }kjk mls njhck ekbZUl esa dfu"B cuk fn;k x;k rFkk is&izksVsDV
ugha dh xbZ A njhck ekbZUl esa fnukad 04-04-1984 dks tksbZu fd;k rc r`rh; Js.kh esa ofj"B lsEiy esu ds in ij dk;Zjr
jgrs gq, mldk osru 716@&:Ik;s Fkk] tcfd mlls dfu"B Jfed jruyky] Hkxokuyky] vk'kwjke] ca'khyky] 'kadjyky
lsEiy esu r`rh; Js.kh esa dk;Zjr jgrs gq, mudk osru 680@&:i;s Fkk A vkxs viuh lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh prqFkZ
Js.kh esa inksUufr 01-01-1985 dks gksuh pkfg;s Fkh] tcfd mDr Jfedksa dh 1986 esa gksuh pkfg;s Fkh] ysfdu eq>ls dfu"B
Jfed jruyky] Hkxokuyky] vk'kwjke] ca'khyky] 'kadjyky dh inksUufr eq>ls iwoZ esa dh xbZ A blh izdkj viuh lk{; esa
vius ls dfu"B Jfed xksihyky] papy dqekj] rstflag dh inksUufr dj mudk osru vius ls vf/kd gksuk izdV fd;k gS
rFkk viuh lk{; esa bu Jfedksa dks dfu"B crkrs gqos viuk osru Hkh buds osru ds cjkcj fd;k tkuk izdV fd;k gS A vkxs
viuh lk{; esa bl xokg dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; esa izsf"kr fookn ds i'pkr~ ds rF;ksa dk o.kZu djrs gqos vU; rF; vafdr
fd;s gSa] ftlds foospu dh dksbZ vko';drk bl izdj.k ugha gS A
foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg ujsUnz iqjksfgr us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g izdV fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ feBwyky dh lSEiy
ckW; Js.kh f}rh; ds :i esa fnuakd 30-08-1975 dks tkoj ekbZUl esa fu;qfDr gqbZ Fkh rFkk mls vkns'k fnuakd 01-01-1979 }kjk
ofj"B lSEiy eSu Js.kh r`rh; esa inksUufr dh x;h Fkh A feBwyky us fgUnqLrku ftad fyehVsM dh tkoj ekbZUl bZdkbZ esa
dk;Zjr jgrs gqos izcU/ku dks izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd mls tkoj ekbZUl ls jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl esa LoSfPNd
LFkkukUrj.k dj fn;k tkos A ftlds vk/kkj ij mldh izkFkZuk ij LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k fnuakd 16-03-1984 tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk]
ftlesa dEiuh ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ij ofj"Brk esa dfu"B jgus rFkk fdlh izdkj ds LFkkukUrj.k ds
ykHk ds gdnkj ugha gksus dh 'krsZ FkhA bu 'krksZa ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k tkoj ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa fd;k
x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ us bu 'krksZa dks Lohdkj dj njhck ekbZUl esa fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k Fkk rFkk
izkFkhZ dk osru fu/kkZj.k Hkh ekU;rk izkIr la?k rFkk foi{kh izcU/ku ds e/; fnuakd 29-09-1995 dks gqos le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij
fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k esa n'kkZ;h x;h 'krksZa ds vuqlkj foi{kh laLFkku dh mDr bZdkbZ esa dk;Zjr vU;
deZpkfj;ksa ls dfu"B ekuk x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ njhck ekbZUl esa vius ls iwoZ dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls osru folaxfr dh rqyuk
djus dk gdnkj ugha gS] blds vykok izkFkhZ vU; ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ls osru dh vlaxfr ds vk/kkj ij viuk osru
iqu% fu/kkZj.k djus dk Hkh vf/kdkjh ugha gS A feBwyky dks fu;ekuqlkj inksUufr nh x;h gS rFkk o"kZ 1981 esa mldk osru
vlaxfr dk ekeyk cuk Fkk tks foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mldk osru 403@&:i;s ls 413@&:i;s dj fn;k x;k Fkk A bl
vkns'k dh izfr izn'kZ R-13 dks Hkh bl ckcr~ lk{; esa iznf'kZr djk;k gS rFkk viuh lk{; esa ;g crk;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk On
request transfer dk izkFkZuk i= Fkk] ftlds vk/kkj ij mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k Fkk A bl izdkj ml LFkku ij fu;qDr
deZpkfj;ksa ls og dfu"B ekuk x;k rFkk vius ls ofj"B deZpkjh ls osru vlaxfr dh rqyuk djus dk og vf/kdkjh ugha gS]
u gh izkFkhZ ds osru vlaxfr dk dksbZ ekeyk gS A
izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh dh lk{; ls ;g Lohd`r rF; lkeus vk;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa lsEiy ckW;
f}rh; ds in ij fnuakd 09-09-1975 dks dh xbZ Fkh rFkk fnuakd 01-01-1979 dks izkFkhZ dh ofj"B lsEiy esu Js.kh r`rh; ds
in ij inksUufr dh xbZ Fkh A rRi'pkr~ bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k fnuakd 29-03-1984 ls tkoj ekbZUl ls
jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl esa dh xbZ Fkh ftl ij izkFkhZ us fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k rFkk mlds dk;ZHkkj
xzg.k djrs le; foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls izkFkhZ dks ml oxZ esa dk;Zjr vU; deZpkfj;ksa ls lcls dfu"B ekuk x;k A
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dks pqukSfr nsrs gq, ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ls vius
i'pkr~ foi{kh laLFkku esa fu;qDr deZpkfj;ska ls dfu"B ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS vkSj lkjk fookn blh fcUnw ij gS fd D;k
LFkkukUrj.k ds i'pkr~ vius oxZ esa dk;Zjr vU; Jfedksa ls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk rFkk D;k izkFkhZ viuh fu;qfDr fnukad ls
ofj"Brk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
bl lEcU/k esa tks ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr gqbZ gS] mlesa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius rdksZ esa LoSfPNd
LFkkukUrj.k dks pqukSfr nh xbZ gS rFkk cgl ds nkSjku Hkh izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k }kjk izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k mlds LoSfPNd vkosnu
ij ugha fd;k tkuk izdV fd;k gS A bl lEcU/k esa tks nLrkosth lk{; foi{kh dh vkSj ls izLrqr gqbZ gS] mlesa izkFkhZ dk
LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks o"kZ 1984 dk gS] mlesa mYysf[kr 'krZ ;g Fkh fd izkFkhZ }kjk LoSfPNd
LFkkukUrj.k dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k] bl vk/kkj ij mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ lsEiy esu Js.kh r`rh; esa
mDr ;wfuV esa LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tkrk gS rFkk og mDr ;wfuV esa mDr oxZ esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk rFkk
mls fdlh izdkj dk LFkkukUrj.k HkRrk fu;eksa ds rgr iznku ugha fd;k tk;sxk] u gh og tksbZfuax VkbZe izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh gksxk A
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
221
mDr vkns'k ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izn'kZ R-4A izkFkZuk i= foi{kh laLFkku dh njhck ekbZUl esa izLrqr fd;k
x;k A ftlesa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd fjyho vkns'k dh ikyuk esa fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks viuh mifLFkfr ns jgk gwa rFkk
izn'kZ R-4A ij izkFkhZ feBwyky ds gLrk{kj gS o ftls viuh lk{; esa Lo;a ds gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl izdkj
foi{kh dh vkSj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh laLFkku esa tkoj ekbZUl ls
njhck ekbZUl esa viuk LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftlds vk/kkj ij mldk LosfPNd LFkkukurj.k
vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 esa mYysf[kr 'krksZ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ofj"Brk iznku u djrs gq, mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k Fkk
ftls Lohdkj djrs gq, izkFkhZ us fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks njhck ekbZUl esa viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh A bu rF;ksa ls iw.kZr;k ;g
izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us LFkkukUrj.k 'krksZ dks Lohdkj djrs gq, njhck ekbZUl esa viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh A
bl lEcU/k easa izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds voyksdu ls LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k ds ckcr~ tks rF; vk;s gSa] mlesa izkFkhZ us tkoj
ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa vius LFkkukUrj.k ckcr~ LoSPNk vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk A bldk mYys[k izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
izLrqr tckcqy tokc ds isjk la[;k 2 esa gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd vkns'k fnuakd 16-03-1984 ds vk/kkj ij
fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks jktiqjk njhck esa M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh A bl vkns'k ls ;g Li"V gS fd LFkkukUrj.k dk ykHk ;fn On
request eku Hkh fy;k tkos rks mls ;k=k o vU; HkRrs ds :i esa ugha fn;k x;k] fdUrq ,slh dksbZ fof/k ;k le>kSrk ugha gS]
ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ&Jfed dks dfu"Bre jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl esa cuk;k tk lds A ;g lekurk ds fl}kUr ds fo:} gS A
bl izdkj izkFkhZ us vius tokcqy tokc esa Hkh On request LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k ;g rF; ekuk gS A lkFk gh bl lEcU/k
esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr vius 'kiFk i= ds isjk uEcj 2 esa ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd esjs vuqjks/k ij esjk LFkkukUrj.k orZeku
in ofj"B lSEiy eSu Js.kh r`rh; ij fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk bl 'krZ ij fd;k x;k Fkk fd mls LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k dk ykHk
fu;eksa ds rgr~ ugha fn;k tk;sxkA bl ckcr~ tks ftjg gqbZ gS] mlesa izkFkhZ us viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ
R-3 dk;kZy; vkns'k esa A ls B bZckjr lgh gS rFkk izn'kZ R-4A esa tks eSaus vius LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dh ikyuk esa izLrqr
fd;k Fkk] og i= esjs }kjk fy[kk x;k Fkk A blls Hkh ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vius LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dk iw.kZ Kku
Fkk rFkk mlus izn'kZ R-3 ds vuqlkj njhck ekbZUl esa mifLFkfr ckcr~ izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k Fkk] mls Lohdkj fd;k gS A lkFk
gh bl xokg us viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd eSaus LFkkukUrj.k esa vafdr mDr 'krksZa dh ikyuk dh Fkh A ;g Hkh
lgh gS fd dSVsxjh 3 esa igys ls yksx dk;Zjr Fks A ;g Hkh lgh gS fd eq>s LFkkukUrj.k ls osru dh gkfu ugha gqbZ gS A
bl rjg ls nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ls ;g iw.kZ:is.k lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh laLFkku }kjk tkoj ekbZUl ls
njhck ekbZUl esa mlds LoSPNk ls LFkkukUrj.k dk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij foi{kh us mldk LFkkukUrj.k fd;k Fkk rFkk
mDr LFkkukUrj.k dh 'krksZa dks ekurs gqos izkFkhZ us fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks njhck ekbZUl esa viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh A
LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls tkjh fd;k Fkk] tks izkFkhZ ds LoSPN;k LFkkukUrj.k ds vkosnu ij tkjh
fd;k x;k Fkk A bl lEcU/k esa foi{kh dh vksj ls viuh laLFkku esa Jfedksa ds inksUufr o fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa vDVqcj 1981
esa fu;e cuk;s Fks tks izn'kZ R-13 gS A mDr fu;eksa ds fu;e 4 ds rgr ftlesa ;g mYys[k gS fd ;fn dksbZ Jfed ,d
;qfuV ls nwljs ;qfuV esa LFkkukUrj.k pkgrk gS rks mlds LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k okys ;wfuV esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls lcls dfu"B
ekuk tk;sxk rFkk dfu"B ds in ij LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tk;sxk A
foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls vius laLFkku ds fu;eksa ds rgr~ izn'kZ R-13 esa of.kZr 'krksZ ds v/khu izkFkhZ dk LoSPNk
LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 ds }kjk fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls Hkh ;g rF; lkfcr gS fd mlus bl vkns'k dh ikyuk esa
fnuakd 04-04-1984 dks njhck ekbZUl esa viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh Fkh rFkk LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k ls mldh Js.kh esa vU; Jfed tks
dk;Zjr Fks] mDr Jfedksa dh fu;qfDr viuh fu;qfDr ds i'pkr~ gksuk crkrs gqos izkFkhZ us muls ofj"B gksuk crkrs gqos viuh
ofj"Brk dh eakx rFkk ml vk/kkj ij viuk osru fu/kkZj.k djus o LVsi&vi djkus dh izkFkZuk dh A tcfd lk{; ls ;g
lkfcr gS fd foi{kh laLFkku esa viuh laLFkku ds fu;eksa ds rgr~ LoSPNk LFkkukUrj.k dk vkosnu Lohdkj djrs gqos mls tkoj
ekbZUl ls njhck ekbZUl esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;k] tgak ij izkFkhZ us viuh M~;qVh tksbZu dh A vr% izkFkhZ mDr LFkkukUrj.k ls vius
oxZ esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ls lcls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk A
bl rF; dh iqf"V foi{kh dh vksj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr Civil Appeal
No. 2766/2009 Surendra Singh Beniwal Vs. Hukum Singh on 23 April 2009 ls gksrh gS A ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;
}kjk mRrj izns'k f'k{kk foHkkx ds bUVj ehMh;sV dkWyst ds v/;kid dks mldk LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k vU; fo|ky; esa fd;s
tkus ij LFkkukUrfjr fo|ky; esa lcls dfu"B v/;kid ekus tkus ds dkj.k U.P.Intermediate Education Act ds rgr lgh
Bgjk;k Fkk rFkk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd ;s fu;e LFkkukUrfjr dkWyst esa igys ls in LFkkfir v/;kidksa ds fgrksa dks
lqjf{kr djus ds fy, fu.kZ; fd;k gS rFkk v/;kid dks ofj"Brk esa lcls dfu"B ekuk tk;sxk A
gLrxr ekeys esa foi{kh laLFkku ds fu;e izn'kZ R-13 tks vDrwcj] 1981 esa fufeZr fd;s x;s Fks] ls LoSfPNd
LFkkukUrj.k ds fu;eksa ds rgr LoSfPNd LFkkukUrj.k ij vk;k deZpkjh mDr LFkku ij leku oxZ ds iwoZ ls dk;Zjr vU;
deZpkfj;sa ls ofj;rk dze esa lcls uhps ekuk tk;sxk A ;s fu;e fof/k lEer gS rFkk ogka ij dk;Zjr vU; Jfedksa ds fgrksa dks
lqjf{kr j[kus ckcr gS A mlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k izn'kZ R-3 ds }kjk fd;k x;k LFkkukUrj.k vkSj mlesa
mYysf[kr 'krsZ ftuds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ jktiqjk njhck [knku esa vius oxZ esa lcls dfu"B Jfed ekuk tkosxk A vr% izkFkhZ dk
;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; ugh gS fd LFkkukUrj.k ds i'pkr~ og LFkkukUrj.k LFky ij vius i'pkr~ fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa ls ofj"B
ekuk tkos A
vr% bl ekeys esa foi{kh laLFkku esa fnukad 04-04-1984 dks izkFkhZ dks jktiqjk njhck [knku esa fu;qfDr ds i'pkr~
mldks ofj;rk esa dfu"B ekurs gq, mldk osru fu/kkZj.k o LVsi&vi fd;k x;k gS og vius ls ofj"B deZpkjh ls osru dk
LVsi&vi o osru dh rqyuk ugha dj ldrk gS rFkk lk{; ls ;g iw.kZ :is.k lkfcr gS fd foi{kh laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ dk osru
222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
laj{k.k o LVsi&vi fd;k gS og fu;eksa ds vuqlkj fd;k gS rFkk jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl eas izkFkhZ ls dksbZ dfu"B deZpkfj;ksa gks
vkSj mls vf/kd osru iznku fd;k x;k gks] ;g lk{; ls lkfcr ugha gS A
bl ekeys esa cgl ds nkSjku fo}ku vf/koDrk foi{kh dh vkSj ls ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk bl
U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ tks izlax izsf"kr fd;k gS mlesa izkFkhZ dh ;wfu;u i{kdkj gS rFkk ;g fookn osru folaxfr ,oa
LVsi&vi ls lacaf/kr gS] tks izkFkhZ dh ;wfu;u }kjk gh izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gS] tcfd ;g izdj.k izkFkhZ Lo;a }kjk izLrqr
fd;k x;k gS] vr% mldh vkSj ls igys mlds vf/koDrk }kjk rRi'pkr~ mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k }kjk iSjoh dh tk jgh gS]
tcfd /kkjk 36 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds rgr mlds vf/koDrk }kjk iSjoh djus ds fy;s btktr ugha yh xbZ gS rFkk
Jfed la?k }kjk iSjoh ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k ;g izdj.k blh vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
mijksDr rdksZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vkSj ls ;g rdZ fn;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gS
fd ;g ekeyk Jfed la?k }kjk mBk;k x;k Fkk rFkk Jfed la?k dh vkSj ls Je vk;qDr ds ;gak fookn izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk]
tgka ls ekeyk l{ke ljdkj dks Hksts tkus ij bl U;k;ky; esa ;g izlax izsf"kr gqvk gS A ml izlax esa i{kdkj Jfed la?k gh
gS] rRi'pkr~ bl U;k;ky; esa Jfed la?k }kjk iSjoh ugha dh xbZ gS] bl dkj.k izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izkjEHk esa igys vf/koDrk dh
vkSj ls rRi'pkr~ fof/kd izfrfuf/k }kjk iSjoh dh tk jgh gS A foi{kh dh vkSj ls Hkh vius vf/koDrk ds }kjk iSjoh dh tk jgh
gS A brus o"kksZ ls ;g izdj.k U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk foi{kh dh vkSj ls blesa iSjoh djus ls dHkh euk ugha fd;k x;k gSA
QyLo:i ;g rF; ekus tkus ;ksX; ugh gS fd U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds fcuk izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls mlds vf/koDrk ;k izfrfuf/k
dh vkSj ls iSjoh dh tk jgh gS rFkk /kkjk 36 vkS- fo- vf/kfu;e ds rgr ;g izdj.k [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; ugha gS A vius rdksZ
ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;k gS &
Superme Court Appeal (Civil) 1089/2003
J.H.Jadhav Vs. M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd.
Date of Judgment 11/02/2005
mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa deZdkj dh inksUufr dk ekeyk Fkk] ysfdu mDr izdj.k esa iSjoh Jfed la?k }kjk dh xbZ
Fkh] ftls lgh Bgjk;k x;k Fkk A
(1) AIR 1966 (S.C.) 182 (V 53 C 41)
Workman of M/s.Dharam Pal Vs. M/s Dharma Pal Premchand
(2) AIR 1970 (S.C.) 1205 (V 57 G 252)
M/s. Westran India Watch Vs.
bu nksuska izdj.kksa esa deZdkj dh c[kkZLrxh ds lEcU/k esa fookn Fkk] tcfd gLrxr ekeys esa osru fu/kkZj.k ls lacaf/kr
fookn gS A vr% bu nksuksa U;kf;d n`"VkUr ls izkFkhZ dks dksbZ enn ugha feyrh gs A
gLrxr ekeys ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd bl U;k;ky; esa dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk ;g izlax vf[ky Hkkjrh;
tLrk mRiknd Jfed la?k dh vkSj ls izkFkhZ Jfed feBwyky ds fookn ds lEcU/k esa foi{kh laLFkku ds fo:) izsf"kr fd;k x;k
gS A izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr lk{; rFkk mldh vkSj ls izLrqr nLrkost izn'kZ&26 yxk;r izn'kZ&33 ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV
gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ ds osru lEcU/kh fookn dks izkFkhZ ds Jfed la?k }kjk loZizFke Je vk;qDr ds le{k mBk;k Fkk] tgka foi{kh
laLFkku dh vkSj ls Hkh mifLFkfr nh Fkh A le>kSrk okrkZ vlQy gksus ds i'pkr~ ;g ekeyk l{ke ljdkj dks izsf"kr fd;k
x;k] tgka ls ;g izlax fu/kkZj.k gsrq bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gqvk A bl U;k;ky; esa ;g izdj.k fnuakd 09-10-2000 dks ntZ
gqvk rFkk ;gka ij izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls Lo;a us vkosnu izLrqr fd;k Fkk rFkk mldh vkSj ls igys mlds vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls
rRi'pkr~ mlds izfrfuf/k }kjk iSjoh dh tk jgh gS rFkk foi{kh dh vkSj ls bl izdj.k easa iSjoh muds vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls
dh tk jgh gSA vkS- fo- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 ds rgr nksuksa i{kdkjks us U;k;ky; ls vius vf/koDrk ;k izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e
ls iSjoh gsrq fyf[kr btktr ugha yh gS] ysfdu 10 o"kZ ls i{kdkjks ds vf/koDrk ;k izfrfuf/k }kjk bl izdj.k esa iSjoh dh tk
jgh gS] ftls bl U;k;ky; }kjk dHkh jksdk ugha x;k gS A vr% ;g ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd U;k;ky; dh Lohd`fr ls nksuksa i{kksa
ds vf/koDrk o izfrfuf/k }kjk muds izdj.k esa iSjoh dh tk jgh gS A lkFk gh lk{; ls ;g rF; lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dk
fookn Je vk;qDr ds ;gka Jfed la?k }kjk mBk;k x;k Fkk ysfdu bl U;k;ky; esa izlax izkIr gksus ds i'pkr~ Jfed la?k
mifLFkr ugha vk jgk gS A la?k ds inkf/kdkjh o izkFkhZ ds e/; fookn gksus ds dkj.k la?k us mldh iSjoh NksM nh gS rFkk
foxr 18 o"kksZ ls izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk o fof/kd izfrfuf/k }kjk izdj.k esa iSjoh dh xbZ gS A vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds rgr
izkFkhZ dk fookn Jfed la?k }kjk mBk;k tkuk ekurs gq, izkFkhZ ds }kjk vc iSjoh fd;k tkuk fof/k lEer gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA
vr% izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, bl fookn esa iSjoh izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a fd;k tkuk iw.kZr% fof/k lEer gS A
vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ dk osru laj{k.k o LVsi&vi fd;k gS og fu;eksa ds
vuqlkj fd;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ ls dfu"B deZpkfj;ksa dks izkFkhZ ls vf/kd osru iznku ugha fd;k x;k gS A
vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr izlax fnukad 30 vxLr] 2000 dks mRrfjr djrs gq, iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k
tkrk gS fd&
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
223
izcU/kd] fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM] jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl] njhck] ftyk jktleUn }kjk izkFkhZ feBwyky dks osru
laj{k.k o LVsi&vi ugha nsuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS rFkk jktiqjk njhck ekbZUl eas izkFkhZ ls dksbZ dfu"B deZpkfj;ksa gks vkSj mls
vf/kd osru iznku fd;k x;k gks] ;g lkfcr ugha gS A
vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A
iapkV izdk’kukFkZ leqfpr ljdkj dks Hkstk tkosa A
iapkV vkt fnukad 23-08-2018 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh’k
नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 47
47
47
47.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस अशोका िमनरस के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म
औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 03/2009) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय
सरकार को 24.12.2018 को $ा; <आ था।
[सं. एल-29012/90/2008-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 47.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2009) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Ashoka Minerals and
their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. L-29012/90/2008-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh && Jh v:.k dqekj nqcs
izdj.k la[;k 03@2009 I.T.R.(C)
Jh jktdqekj firk eksxkjke eh.kk ¼e`rd½
fuoklh xkao o iksLV <sykuk] rg- [kSjokMk] ftyk mn;iqj ds ctk;
¼1½
Jherh lfjrk iRuh Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk
¼2½
lqJh eksfudk iq=h Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk vk;q 11 o"kZ
¼3½
lqJh jatuk iq=h Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk vk;q 8 o"kZ
¼4½
Jh furhu firk Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk vk;q 5 o"kZ
¼5½
lqJh [kq'kcw iq=h Lo- jktdqekj eh.kk vk;q 4 o"kZ
pkjks ukckfyx tfj;s laj{kd ekrk Jherh ljhrk
fuoklh;ku xkao elkjks dh vksojh] rg- [kSjokMk
---izkFkhZx.k
fo:)
Jh eSustj] v'kksdk feujYl]
224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ekq- iks- <syk.kk] rglhy [kSjokMk] ftyk mn;iqj
---foi{kh
mifLFkr %
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls % Jh jkts'k fla?koh] vf/koDrk
foi{kh dh vkSj ls % Jh g"kZo/kZu tSu] vf/koDrk
iapkV
fnukad 27 uoEcj] 2018
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk Øekad L-29012/ 90/2008-IR{M} New Delhi fnukad 18-11-2008 ds
}kjk fuEukafdr fookn bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k &
‘‘Whether the action of the management of
M/s Ashoka Minerals, Village & Post Dhelana
Tehsil Kherwara Distt.Udaipur in terminating
the Service of Shri Rajkumar Meena S/o Shri
Mogaram Meena w.e.f. 03/08/2017 is just and
legal ? To what relief the workmen is entitled
and from which date ?”
mDr vk’k; dk izlax izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj lEcfU/kr i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh
fd;s x;sA
fnukad 25-02-2010 dks Jherh lfjrk eh.kk us ,d izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd mlds ifr jktdqekj eh.kk
dk fnukad 14-09-2009 dks fu/ku gks x;k gS rFkk jktdqekj eh.kk dh og Lo;a rFkk pkj cPps eksfudk] jatuk] fufru] [kq'kcw
fof/kd okfjlku gS A blfy;s jktdqekj eh.kk ds LFkku ij mUgS i{kdkj cuk;s tkus dk vkns'k iznku fd;k tkos A ftl ij
U;k;ky; }kjk fnuakd 23-08-10 dks Jherh lfjrk o vU; dks jsdkMZ ij fy;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k A
izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls fnukad 23-08-10 dks Dyse fd;k x;k] ftlds la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gS fd jktdqekj eh.kk
dks fnukad 01-03-2005 dks foi{kh laLFkku esa ^^Msfjd dzsu vkWijsVj** ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k A tgka jktdqekj eh.kk ls fnuakd
02-08-2007 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fy;k x;k o tc fnukad 03-08-2007 dks jktdqekj eh.kk foi{kh ds le{k M~;qVh ds fy;s
mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh us mls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s M~;qVh ij ysus ls bUdkj dj ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A
lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ dksbZ vkjksi i=] psrkouh i= ugha fn;k] u gh lsok i`Fkd djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl&is dk
Hkqxrku fd;k] u eqvkotk jkf'k vnk dh A foi{kh ds v/khu fu;kstu ds nkSjku jktdqekj eh.kk dh dHkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha
jgh vkSj jktdqekj eh.kk us iwjh fu"Bk ds lkFk foi{kh ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k A bl izdkj foi{kh }kjk jktdqekj eh.kk dks voS/k o
vuqfpr :i ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A blfy;s lsok eqfDr dks voS/k o vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos rFkk lsok i`Fkd fnuakd ls
mudh e`R;q fnukad 14-09-2009 rd dh vof/k dk lEiw.kZ osru o vU; ykHk fnyk;s tkos A
foi{kh us viuk tckc is'k dj izkFkZuk i= esa vafdr rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g vafdr fd;k fd jktdqekj
eh.kk dh foi{kh laLFkku esa dHkh Hkh LFkk;h fu;qfDr ugha dh xbZ] cfYd jktdqekj eh.kk nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z djrs
Fks rFkk jktdqekj }kjk fnukad 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd fu;fer rkSj ij dk;Z ugha fd;k A jktdqekj eh.kk dbZ ckj
'kjkc ihdj vkus yxs] ftl ij mls dbZ ckj 'kjkc ihdj vkus ls euk fd;k A foi{kh }kjk dHkh Hkh jktdqekj eh.kk dks lsok
i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd jktdqekj eh.kk dks vR;f/kd 'kjkc dh yr iM tkus ds dkj.k og ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ughas gksrk
Fkk A foi{kh }kjk mls lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k blfy;s mls vkjksi i=] psrkouh i=] uksfVl ;k {kfriwfrZ jkf'k nsus dh
vko';drk ugha Fkh A jktdqekj eh.kk dks dHkh lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd vR;f/kd 'kjkc dh yr iM tkus ds dkj.k
og ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A blfy;s izkFkhZx.k dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh A
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa Jherh lfjrk dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk ftlls foi{kh vf/koDrk us ftjg
dhA foi{kh dh vkSj ls Jh uklhj gqlSu o gjh'k dqekj vjksjk dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk ftuls izkFkhZ vf/koDrk us ftjg dh A
i{kdkjks ds vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh xbZ A i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A
izkFkhZ vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us foi{kh laLFkku esa fnukad 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd yxkrkj dzsu vkWijsVj
ds in ij dk;Z fd;k Fkk rFkk mlds dk;Z ls foi{kh laLFkku dks dHkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha jgh] cfYd izkFkhZ ,d vPNk deZdkj
Fkk] bl ckcr foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mls ,d izek.k i= izn'kZ&2 tkjh fd;k Fkk rFkk foi{kh }kjk vius tckc o lk{; esa ;g
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
225
izdV fd;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk 'kjkc ihdj vkus yxk Fkk blfy;s mls dk;Z ij ugha fy;k tkrk Fkk] ysfdu bl ckcr foi{kh
}kjk dHkh Hkh dksbZ uksfVl oxSjk mls ugha fn;k A izkFkhZ }kjk vius fu;kstu ds nkSjku izR;sd okf"kZd dky esa 240 fnu ls
vf/kd dh lsok,a nh rFkk mls fcuk fdlh dkj.k ls fnuakd 03-08-2007 dks foi{kh ds le{k M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks
mls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s M~;qVh ij ysus ls bUdkj dj ekSf[kd vkns'k ls voS/k :i ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k rFkk lsok i`Fkd
djus ds ckn fnukad 14-09-2009 dks mldh e`R;q gks xbZ A blfy;s lsok eqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos rFkk jktdqekj dks
lsok i`Fkd djus dh fnuakd ls mldh e`R;q fnukad rd dh vof/k dk lEiw.kZ ykHk fnyk;k tkos A
foi{kh us mDr rdksZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;g izdV fd;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk foi{kh laLFkku esa fu;fer rkSj ij
dk;Zjr ugha Fkk cfYd mls nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk mls nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij gh Hkqxrku
fd;k tkrk Fkk A jktdqekj eh.kk vf/kdka'kr% 'kjkc ihdj vkus yxk bl ij mls dbZ ckj 'kjkc ihdj u vkus dks dgk x;k
rFkk og 'kjkc ihdj Msfjd dzsu vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djrk rks lEiw.kZ LVkQ dks Mj yxrk Fkk fd dgha dksbZ nq?kZVuk ?kfVr u
gks tkos bl ckjs esa mls psrkouh Hkh nh xbZ Fkh rFkk Lo;a jktdqekj dks 'kjkc dh yr yxus ls og gh ukSdjh ij ugha vkrk
Fkk A jktdqekj us fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k A jktdqekj }kjk 'kjkc ihdj vkus o dzsu vkWijsVj dk dk;Z
djus ls fdlh Hkh le; cMk gknlk gksus dh laHkkouk cuh jgrh Fkh vkSj og Lo;a gh ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk foi{kh
}kjk mls lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k A blfy;s izkFkhZx.k dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS A
Dyse izkFkZuk i= ds leFkZu esa jktdqekj dh iRuh Jherh lfjrk us vius 'kiFk i= esa Dyse izkFkZuk ds rF;ksa dh
iqujkofrZ dh gS rFkk ;g izdV fd;k fd mlds ifr foi{kh laLFkku esa 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd yxkrkj dk;Zjr Fks rFkk
fnuakd 03-08-2007 dks tc os M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks mls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk, M~;qVh ij ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;k
rFkk ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk fd ukSdjh ij fudkyus dk eqdnek mlds ifr us gh
yxk;k Fkk A
foi{kh dh vkSj ls uklhj gqlSu o gjh'k dqekj dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr gqvk ftlesa mUgskaus foi{kh }kjk izLrqr tckc ds
rF;ksa dh iqujkofrZ dh dh gS rFkk ;g izdV fd;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk us dHkh Hkh foi{kh laLFkku esa fnuakd 01-03-05 ls 02-08-
07 rd fu;fer rkSj ij dk;Z ugha fd;k] cfYd mlds }kjk nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z fd;k x;k A jktdqekj 'kjkc dk
lsou djds vkus yxk ftl gsrq dbZ ckj mls ekbZUl eSustj o ekbZUl lqijokbZtj }kjk 'kjkc ihdj vkus ls euk fd;k rFkk
mls dbZ ckj psrkouh Hkh nh xbZ Fkh ,oa jktdqekj 'kjkc dh yr ds dkj.k gh dbZ ckj viuh M~;qVh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk
Fkk A
bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls ;g crk;k x;k gS fd jktdqekj us foi{kh laLFkku esa fnuakd 01-03-2005 ls
02-08-2007 rd yxkrkj MSfjd dzsu vkijsVj ds in ij dk;Z fd;k Fkk A foi{kh dh vkSj ls izLrqr tckc o lk{; esa ;g
crk;k x;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk us dHkh Hkh foi{kh laLFkku esa fnukad 01-03-2005 ls 02-08-2007 rd fu;fer rkSj ij dk;Z ugha
fd;k] cfYd mlds }kjk nSfud osru ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z fd;k A bl izdkj Hkys gh jktdqekj us foi{kh laLFkku esa nSfud osru
ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z fd;k gks] cfYd mlds }kjk mDr vof/k esa foi{kh ds ;gka MSfjd dzsu vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Z fd;k ;g
rF; rks lkfcr gks tkrk gSA blds vykok foi{kh laLFkku dh vkSj ls izn'kZ&2 izek.k i= tkjh fd;k mlesa Hkh ;g vafdr gS
fd jktdqekj eh.kk us fnukad 01-03-2005 ls 31-07-2007 rd MSfjd dzsu vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Z fd;k Fkk A
tgka rd izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 03-08-2007 dks lsok i`Fkd djus dk iz'u gS] izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls vius Dyse o 'kiFk
i= esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 03-08-2007 dks tc jktdqekj eh.kk foi{kh ds ;gka M~;qVh ij mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh us fcuk
dksbZ dkj.k crk, mls M~;qVh ij ysus ls bUdkj dj ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A tcfd foi{kh dh vkSj ls ;g
lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS fd foi{kh laLFkku }kjk dHkh Hkh jktdqekj dks voS/k :i ls lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd
jktdqekj Lo;a gh vR;f/kd 'kjkc dk lsou fd;s tkus dh yr iM tkus dh otg ls og ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugh gksrk Fkk A
bl izdkj foi{kh }kjk ;g izdV fd;k x;k fd jktdqekj dks muds }kjk lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd og Lo;a
gh 'kjkc dh yr iM tkus ds dkj.k ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A bl lEcU/k esa uklhj gqlSu us viuh ftjg esa ;g
dgk fd izkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkfr ckcr dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k A izkFkhZ dks 'kjkc ihdj vkus vuq'kklu esa ugh jgus dk dksbZ
uksfVl ugha fn;k A gjh'k dqekj vjksjk us Hkh viuh ftjg esa bl rF; dsk Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds M~;qVh ij ugha vkus
ckcr mls uksfVl ugha fn;k Fkk A
tgka rd jktdqekj eh.kk ds }kjk 'kjkc ihdj M~;qVh ij vkus dk iz'u gS] foi{kh dh vkSj ls ;g Hkh crk;k x;k fd
jktdqekj eh.kk 'kjkc ihdj vkus yxk bl ckjs esa mls euk Hkh fd;k Fkk rFkk 'kjkc ihdj og dzsu vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djus ds
fy;s cSBrk rks LVkQ esa Mj yxus yx x;k Fkk rFkk dHkh Hkh dksbZ gknlk gksus dh laHkkouk cuh jgrh Fkh A
bl lEcU/k esa uklhj gqlSu us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ ds 'kjkc ihdj vkus ds ckjs esa fdlh us Hkh fy[khr
f'kdk;r dh gks rks mls irk ugha A ftl eSustj us izkFkhZ dks 'kjkc ihdj vkus dh ckr dgha mldk uke vkt ;kn ugh gS A
gjh'k vjksjk us Hkh viuh ftjg esa dgk fd og Li"V ugha crk ldrk fd izkFkhZ ,d efgus esa fdruh ckj 'kjkc ihdj vkrk Fkk
bl izdkj foi{kh dh vkSj ls tks lk{; is'k gqbZ gS mlesa uklhj gqlSu dks ;g Hkh irk ugha fd fdlh us izkFkhZ ds
'kjkc ihdj vkus dh f'kdk;r dh gks A gjh'k vjksjk ;g ugha crk ldrk fd izkFkhZ ,d efgus esa fdruh ckj 'kjkc ihdj
vkrk Fkk A blds vykok foi{kh dh vkSj ls ,slh dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; Hkh is'k ugha dh xbZ fd jktdqekj eh.kk 'kjkc ihdj
vkrk gks vkSj mls dksbZ psrkouh nh xbZ gks A
izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls izn'kZ&2 izek.k i= iznf'kZr djk;k gS A ftlesa jktdqekj eh.kk dk muds ;gka fnukad 01-03-
2005 ls 31-07-2007 rd MSfjd dzsu vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Zjr gksuk rFkk mDr vof/k esa gkMZ odZj fu"diV gksuk crk;k gSA
226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
;fn jktdqekj eh.kk dks 'kjkc ihus dh yr gksrh vkSj oks vk;s fnu 'kjkc ihdj muds ;gka mifLFkr gksrk rks foi{kh laLFkku
bl izdkj dk izek.k i= tkjh ugha djrk A blds vykok gjh'k vjksjk us viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds
dk;Z esa dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha Fkh A
foi{kh dh vkSj ls ;g Hkh izdV fd;k x;k fd jktdqekj eh.kk dks dHkh ukSdjh ls ugha fudkyk vkSj og 'kjkc ihus
dh yr ds dkj.k ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A bl ckcr foi{kh dh vkSj ls tks gktjh jftLVj is'k fd;k x;k mlls
;g izrhr ugha gskrk fd og jktdqekj ds vR;f/kd 'kjkc ihus dh yr ds dkj.k og Lo;a ukSdjh ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk Fkk A
tgka rd foi{kh laLFkku esa jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk vius fu;kstu dky esa izR;sd okf"kZd dky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd
dk;Z fnol ij mifLFkr gksdj viuh lsok,a nsus dk iz'u gS A bl lEcU/k esa lfjrk eh.kk us viuh lk{; esa ;g dFku fd;k
fd mlds ifr vius lEiw.kZ fu;kstu dky ds nkSjku izR;sd okf"kZd dky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fnol ij mifLFkr gskdj
viuh lsok,a vfiZr dh gS A uklhj vgen ls bl lEcU/k esa ftjg dh xbZ rks mlus viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ ds
mifLFkfr iaftdk ds vuqlkj ,d lky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd fnu gks jgs gks rks og ugha crk ldrk] tcfd ;g xokg
i<k&fy[kk gS rFkk foi{kh laLFkku esa ,dkmUVl eSustj ds in ij dk;Zjr gS] ;fn jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk vius fu;kstu ds
nkSjku fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gksrk] rks og bl rF; dks xyr crkrk fd jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk fdlh
Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gks A xokg gjh'k vjksjk us viuh ftjg esa igys rks bl rF; dks xyr crk;k fd izkFkhZ us
jsdkMZ ds vuqlkj izfr o"kZ 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gks] fQj dgk fd mlus ,d ckj gh 240 fnu rd dk;Z fd;k A blds vykok
foi{kh ds ;gka la/kkfjr eLVjjksy ds vuqlkj Hkh ,slk izrhr ugha gksrk fd jktdqekj eh.kk us 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gks A
izn'kZ&2 izek.k i= ls Hkh ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd jktdqekj eh.kk us foi{kh laLFkku esa vius fu;kstu dky esa fujUrj dk;Z
fd;kA
bl izdkj foi{kh }kjk izLrqr lk{; ls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd jktdqekj eh.kk 'kjkc ihus dk vknh gks rFkk og
'kjkc dh yr ds dkj.k Lo;a dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gksrk gks A jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk vius fu;kstu dky esa 240 fnu ls
vf/kd dk;Z fnol ij mifLFkr gskdj viuh lsok,a nh gS A foi{kh dh vkSj ls ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha vkbZ fd jktdqekj
eh.kk fnuakd 03-08-2007 dks 'kjkc ihdj vk;k gks vkSj mls M~;qVh ij ugha fy;k gsk A foi{kh }kjk tkjh izek.k i= izn'kZ&2
ds vuqlkj jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk 01-03-2005 ls 31-07-2007 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gS rFkk foi{kh ds ;gka
la/kkfjr eLVjjksy ds vuqlkj jktdqekj dh fnukad 1 o 2 vxLr 2007 dh mldh mifLFkfr ntZ gS rFkk fnukad 03-07-2007
ls mldks vuqifLFkr crk;k x;k gS] ysfdu mldh vuqifLFkfr ckcr mls dksbZ uskfVl fn;k gks] ;g rF; lk{; ls izekf.kr
ugha gS A blfy;s mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdV gksrk gSfd jktdqekj eh.kk fnukad 03-08-2007 dks foi{kh ds le{k
M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;kA
vc ;g ns[kuk gS fd bl voS/k lsok eqfDr ds fy;s izkFkhZ D;k jkgr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
jktdqekj eh.kk }kjk foi{kh ds v/khu nks o"kZ ls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk jktdqekj dks lsok i`Fkd
fd;s tkus ds ckn Hkh foi{kh ds ;gka mDr in dk dk;Z Fkk] bl lEcU/k esa gjh'k vjksjk us viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS
fd izkFkhZ ds ckn gekjs ;gka ,d vU; O;fDr nSfud dzsu vkWijsVj dk dke djus yxkA jktdqekj eh.kk dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s
tkus ds ckn fnukad 14-09-2009 dks mldh e`R;q gks xbZ ;g rF; lk{; ls izdV gqvk gS A ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa jktdqekj dks
iqu% lsok esa j[kus dk vkns'k ugha fn;k ldrk gS vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2004(3)
WLC(Raj.) Page 142 District Education Officer Vs. Babulal esa Hkh 240 fnu dh lsok ekurs gq, izfrdj fnyk;k tkuk
mfpr ekuk x;k bl izdkj jktdqekj eh.kk ds okfjlku dks Hkh mDr fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij 1]00]000@&:i;s {kfriwfrZ fnyk;k
tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA
vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr izlax fnukad 18@11@2008 dks mRrfjr djrs gq, iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k
tkrk gS fd &
fd foi{kh laLFkku esllZ v'kksdk feujYl] xkao o iksLV <syk.kk] rglhy [kSjokMk] ftyk mn;iqj }kjk Jfed Jh
jktdqekj eh.kk firk Jh eksxkjke eh.kk dks fnukad 03@08@2007 dks lsok ls i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gS A blfy;s
bl voS/k lsok eqfDr ds fy;s jktdqekj eh.kk ds okfjlku ¼ Jherh lfjrk] lqJh eksfudk] lqJh jatuk] fufru] lqJh [kq'kcw ½ dks
,d eq'r 1]00]000@& ,d yk[k :i;s izfrdj fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS A
foi{kh iapkV izdk'ku ds nks ekg esa izkFkhZ dks mDr jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djs] vU;Fkk mDr jkf'k ij fu.kZ; dh fnukad ls
Hkqxrku rd 8 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ns; gksxk A
iapkV izdk’kukFkZ Hkkjr ljdkj dks Hkstk tkosa A
iapkV vkt fnukad 27 uoEcj] 2018 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh’k
नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
227
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 48
48
48
48.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस इंटरनेशनल िमनरल इPड&Jीज िलिमटेड के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4
औ ोिगक िववाद म औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 04/2009) को $कािशत करती
है जो केीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को $ा; <आ था।
[सं. एल-29012/76/2008-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 48.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2009) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. International Mineral
Industries Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. L-29012/76/2008-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh && Jh v:.k dqekj nqcs
izdj.k la[;k 04@2009 I.T.R.(C)
Jh Nxuyky firk ckcwyky cSjkxh
fuoklh lk/kq cLrh] Hkxokuxat] vtesj
---izkFkhZ
fo:)
esllZ bUVjus'kuy feujy b.MLLVªht fy-
tfj;s izcU/k funs'kd@ izcU/kd]
futZjuk] ftyk jktleUn
---foi{kh
mifLFkr %
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls % Jh jkts'k fla?koh] vf/koDrk
foi{kh dh vkSj ls % Jh vkj-,l- pkSgku] vf/koDrk
iapkV
fnukad 29 vDrwcj] 2018
Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk Øekad L-29012/ 76/2008(IR{M})New Delhi fnukad 15-07-2008 ds
}kjk fuEukafdr fookn bl U;k;ky; dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k &
‘‘Whether the action of the management of
M/s. International Mineral Industries Ltd.,
Nijarana, Distt. Rajsamand in terminating
the services of their workmen Shri Chaganlal
S/o Sh. Babulal w.e.f.07.10.2006 is Just and
legal ? If not, to what relief the Workman
is entitled to and from which date ?”
mDr vk’k; dk izlax izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkdj lEcfU/kr i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh
fd;s x;sA ftl ij izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls fnukad 06-04-2009 dks Dyse fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk foi{kh dh vkSj ls fnukad 28-01-2010
dks tckc is'k fd;k x;k A
228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk fnuakd 01-08-1998 dks dkj MªkbZoj
ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k tgka izkFkhZ us fnuakd 06-10-2006 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k o fnukad 07-10-2006 dks tc viuh M~;wVh
ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk rks foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k A izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd
djus ls iwoZ dksbZ vkjksi] psrkouh i= ugha fn;k u gh dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl&is vkfn nh A izkFkhZ us foi{kh laLFkku esa vius
fu;kstu ds nkSjku izR;sd okf"kZd dky esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok,a nh gS A izkFkhZ dks vuqfpr :i ls lsok i`Fkd dj
mlds LFkku ij u;k dkj MªkbZoj fu;qDr dj fn;k A blfy;s izkFkhZ us fnukad 07-10-2006 dks dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks voS/k o
vuqfpr ?kksf"kr djus o izkFkhZ dks lHkh ykHkks lfgr lsok esa cgky djk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k A
foi{kh us vius tckc esa izkFkZuk i= ds rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g vafdr fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 07-10-
2006 dks foi{kh }kjk fdlh Hkh vkns'k ls lsok eqDr ugha fd;k ] cfYd izkFkhZ fnuakd 07-10-2006 ;k mlds ckn vU; fdlh
fnukad dks dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk A izkFkhZ foi{kh ds ilwUn fLFkr dk;kZy; ij MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qDr Fkk rFkk
dk;kZy; esa dk;Z ugha gksus ls fnukad 05-09-2006 ds vkns'k ls foi{kh laLFkku dh futZuk fLFkr [knku ij LFkkukUrfjr fd;k
x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dks ;g fgnk;r nh xbZ Fkh fd og gsSoh eksVj Oghdy dk yk;lsUl cuok;s vkSj bl gsrq mls 7 fnu dk
loSrfud vodk'k Hkh fn;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ fnukad 04-10-2006 ds ckn foi{kh laLFkku esa Hkh mifLFkr ugha gqvk ftl ij mls
fnuakd 02-12-2006 dks jftLVMZ lwpuk i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k bldh izkfIr ds ckn Hkh og mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj u gh viuh
vuqifLFkfr ckcr dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k fn;kA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k] blfy;s dksbZ vkjksi i=]uksfVl
vkfn nsus dh vko';drk ugha Fkh A izkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh fu"Bk o bZekunkjh ls dk;Z ugha fd;k A
izkFkhZ us fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k blls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k A blfy;s izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk
fuosnu fd;kA
izkFkhZ us fnukad 22-09-16 dks viuk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k rFkk ftjg gsrq vkxkeh is'kh nh xbZ] ysfdu fnukad 17-11-16
ls 24-10-2017 rd vusdks volj fn;s tkus ds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ ftjg gsrq mifLFkr ugha gqvk rFkk fnuakd 09-01-18 dks Hkh
mifLFkr ugh gqvk blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lk{; cUn dh xbZ A foi{kh dh vkSj ls Hkh dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha gqbZ A
i{kdkjku ds vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh xbZ A i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A
izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls 2015 DNJ (SC) Page 297 Bhavnagar Municipal Corp. Vs. Jadeja Gopvubha U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k
dj ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd ;fn fu;kstd }kjk 240 fnu dk;Z djus ds lEcU/k esa nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s gS rks fu;kstd ds
fo:) foijhr mi/kkj.kk yh tkosxh A
blds foijhr foi{kh dh vkSj ls fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s x;s gS &
(1)
2005 LLR Page 737 (S.C.)
Manager RBI Vs. S. Mani and others
(2)
2013 LLR Page 726 (Delhi)
The Manager R.R.Foundation Vs. Pappu & Anr.
(3)
2014 LLR Page 282 (Allahabad)
Cambridge School Vs. State of U.P.
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd Jfed vius
LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse esa fy;s x;s vfHkdFkuksa dk fof/k vuqlkj iqzQ ds tfj;s lkfcr djuk vko';d gS] ;fn izkFkhZ vius i{k dks
lkfcr djus esa vleFkZ jgrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh dh izfrj{kk ds lkfcr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkh izkFkhZ dksbZ lgk;rk
izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS rFkk ;fn izkFkhZ vius Dyse dks lkfcr ugh dj ikrk gS rks izfrj{kk esa jgh fdlh deh ds
vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; us mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa ,sls gh
er O;Dr fd;s gS A fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa ;g fl)kUr ikfjr fd;k gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
229
fdlh Hkh nLrkost dks fof/k vuqlkj lkfcr fd;s fcuk bl rjg ds nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh rjg dh dksbZ jk; ugha
nh tk ldrh gS A
mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;fn izkFkhZ us nLrkost is'k Hkh fd;s gS vkSj mUgS fof/k vuqlkj lkfcr ugha djk;k gS rks
,sls nLrkostks ij dksbZ er O;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ us vius Dyse esa fy;s x;s vfHkopuksa dks fof/k vuqlkj
lkfcr ugha fd;k gS] blfy;s izkFkhZ dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugh gS A izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls tks U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k
fd;k gS] mlesa rks izkFkhZ us viuh mifLFkfr ds ckcr nLrkost dh QksVks izfr is'k dj mUgS lkfcr djk;k Fkk] tcfd gLrxr
izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius }kjk izLrqr nLrkost dks lkfcr ugha djk;k gS A izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr ds rF;
gLrxr ekeys esa ykxw ugh gksrs gS] D;ksafd blesa rks Lo;a izkFkhZ us vius i{k dks lkfcr ugha fd;k gSA
izkFkhZ us ,slh Hkh dksbZ ekSf[kd ;k nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh fd izkFkhZ fnukad 07-10-2006 dks foi{kh laLFkku esa
M~;qVh ds fy;s mifLFkr gqvk vkSj foi{kh us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok i`Fkd dj fn;k gks A blfy;s
lk{; ds vHkko esa foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks fnukad 07-10-2006 dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus dk rF; Hkh lkfcr ugha gS A bl vk/kkj
ij izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A
vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr izlax fnukad 15@07@2008 dks mRrfjr djrs gq, iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk
gS fd&
foi{kh laLFkku esllZ bUVjus'kuy feujy bUMLV~zht fyfeVsM] fu>juk] ftyk jktleUn }kjk Jfed Jh Nxuyky
firk ckcqyky dks fnukad 07-10-2006 ls lsok eqDr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugh gS A
vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
iapkV izdk’kukFkZ Je foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj dks Hkstk tkosa A
iapkV vkt fnukad 29-10-2018 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh’k
नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 49
49
49
49.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस आर०के० माब ल $ाइवेट िलिमटेड के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4
औ ोिगक िववाद म औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 55/2015) को $कािशत करती
है जो केीय सरकार को 27.12.2018 को $ा; <आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 49.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2015) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the
230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. R.K. Marbal Private
Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj
izdj.k la[;k 55 lu 2015 ITR (Central)
dj.k flag jkBkSM iq= Jh nwYgs flag fuoklh xksofy;k iksLV e.Mksy rglhy o ftyk jktleUn ¼jktLFkku½
&cuke&
egkizcU/kd] vkj-ds-ekcZy izkbZosV fyfeVsM] eksjoM] ftyk jktleUn¼jktLFkku½
08-09-2018
izkFkhZ dj.kflag e; vfHkHkk"kd Jh lqHkk"k Jhekyh mi0A foi{kh dh vksj ls vpy flag jkBkSM e; vfHkHkk"kd
Jh eksgEen 'kjhQ Nhik mifLFkr A i{kdkjku }kjk ,d izkFkZuk i= is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd muds e/; yksd vnkyr dh
Hkkouk ls vkt jkthukek gks x;k gS eqrkfcd jkthukek ds izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnuakd 16-4-1998 ls izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fnuakd
26-03-2014 rd izfro"kZ dh lsok vof/k ds vk/kkj ij (Per Completed Years Of Service)¼dqy lsok vof/k 15 o"kZ 11 ekg 10
fnu dks 16 o"kZ ekurs gqos½ dk 30 fnu dk rRle; feyus okys Hkqxrku 9040@& dh nj ld ,Dlxzsfl;k Hkqxrku
1]44]640@& ds :i esa foi{kh fn;k tk;sxk A osru esa ewy osru ,p-vkj-,- o dUosUl Hkqxrku 'kkfey gksxk A ;k uksfVl
ihfj;M esa fn;s x;s osru nj ls Hkqxrku fd;k tk,xk A
mDr ,Dlxzsfl;k Hkqxrku #- 1]44]640@&o xzsP;qVh #- 50]123@& dqy Hkqxrku #-1]94]763@&ds vfrfjDr #i;s
20]137@&dqy feykdj 2]15]000 ¼v{kjs nks yk[k iUnzkg gtkj #i;s½ foi{kh] izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg ds vUnj Hkqxrku dj nsxkA
vU;Fkk mDr jkf'k ij 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls vkt fnuakd ls C;kt ns; gksxk A
blds vykok izkFkhZ dh foi{kh ls bl laca/k dksbZ cdk;k jkf'k ugha jgsxh rFkk fdlh izdkj dk lsok lac/kh ;k vU;
fookn 'ks"k ugha jgsxk A
jkthukek nksuksa i+{kdkjksa dks i<dj lqu;k o le>k;k x;k nksuksa i{kdkjksa us jkthukek lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA izkFkhZ
d.kZflag dks mlds vfHkHkk"kd Jh lqHkk"k Jhekyh rFkk foi{kh Jh vpyflag jkBkSM] izcU/kd H.R dh vf/koDrk
Jh eksgEen 'kjhQ Nhik us igpkuk dhA jkthukek i`Fkd ls rLnhd fd;k x;k A layXu i=koyh jgs A jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij
nksuksa i{kdkj ikcUn jgsxsaA
¼dsfUnz;½ vtesj }kjk tkjh i= Øeakd AJ-5(75) 2014-RLC fnuakd 9] tqykbZ 2014 ,ao mlds lkFk layXu izek.k
i= ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k 2(A) I.A. Act ds rgr~ is'k fd;k x;k Fkk A
vr% iapkV izdk'kukFkZ leqfpr ljdkj dks Hkstk tkos A
i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy nkf[ky n¶rj gks A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 50
50
50
50.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस आर. के. माब ल $ाइवेट िलिमटेड के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4
औ ोिगक िववाद म औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, उदयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 04/2014) को $कािशत करती
है जो केीय सरकार को 27.12.2018 को $ा; <आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 50.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2014) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Udaipur now as shown in the
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
231
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. R.K. Marbal Private
Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] mn;iqj
izdj.k la[;k 04 lu 2014 ITR(Central)
fnyhi flag iq= Jh Hkaojflag jktiwr fuoklh ckxksy rglhy nslwjh ftyk ikyh ¼jktLFkku½
cuke
egkizcU/kd] vkj-ds- ekcZy izkbZosV fyfeVsM] eksjoM] ftyk jktleUn ¼jktLFkku½
30-07-2018
mHk;i{k ds vfHkHkk"kdx.k mi-A
i{kdkjku us yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek is'k fd;k] tks i`Fkd ls rLnhd fd;kA 'kk- i=koyh jgs A
i=koyh jkthukek QSly 'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy izfo"B ys[k Hk.Mkj gks A lwpuk ljdkj dks Hksth tkos A
v:.k dqekj nqcs] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 51
51
51
51.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस एयरपोट अथॉRरटी ऑफ इंिडया के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म िन3द4
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय सं.-1, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या
142/2016) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को $ा; <आ था।
[सं. एल-11011/11/2016-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S.O. 51.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 142/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1, New
Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of
M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. L-11011/11/2016-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
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. 142/2016
Shri G.A. Rudrappa through
The General Secretary,
Indian Airport Kamgar Union (IAKU),
CHQ Office : Qtr.No.B-14-, Pocket A,
INA Colony, New Delhi 110023.
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
The Chairman,
Airport Authority of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Safdarjang Airport,
New Delhi 110003.
… Management/ Respondent
AWARD
This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide
letter No.L-11011/11/2016/IR(M) dated 13.07.2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which
are as under:-
‘Whether the refusal of the management of Airport Authority of India to extend the benefit of the workman
Shri G.A. Rudrappa for attending the meeting on 2.3.2009 at Mumbai in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
High Court in W.P.(C) 283/2015 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?’
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant G.A. Rudrappa filed statement of claim. As per the averments
made in the claim petition, claimant G.A.Rudrappa is General Secretary of Indian Airport Kamgar Union (IAKU) - a
registered Trade Union operating in the establishments of Airport Authority of India (AAI) & representing the workers of
AAI throughout the country and functioning for the welfare & interest of the employees of AAI. The AAI had leased
out Chatterpati Shivaji Internatiional Airport to M/s GVK on the basis of agreement which is called as Operation
Management & Development Agreement (OMDA) w.e.f. 3/5/2006. Due to implementation of aforesaid agreement, the
workers employed with AAI started facing various problems and the claimant Union raised an industrial dispute which
was adjudicated upon by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.2, Mumbai and interim order dated 15/1/2009 was
passed, thereby some relief to the workers was provided. AAI challenged the same before Hon’ble High Court at
Mumbai in a W.P. No 2085 of 2009. During hearing, Hon’ble High Court directed that an attempt should be made by the
parties to settled the matter amicably by mutual discussions. Consequent upon the said direction of Hon’ble High Court,
Regional Executive Director of AAI (Western Region), Mumbai convened a meeting for 2/3/2009 at 2.30 p.m. at
Mumbai. M/s K.V. Kini & Co., Advocates & Solicitors of the AAI vide letter dated 27/2/2009 communicated to the
Advocate of the Union about the date & time of the said meeting and requested him to instruct his client to attend the
aforesaid meeting. Ms. Gayatri Devi, Advocate of the Union asked the General Secretary of the claimant Union to attend
the meeting. The claimant informed the Controlling Officer viz. the Airport Director of AAI, Hyderabad about the said
meeting and sought permission to leave the station on 28/2/2009 vide his application dated 27/2/2009.
3.
It is alleged that the claimant being General Secretary of the Union attended the said meeting on 2/3/2009 at
Mumbai and made request vide his application dated 19/3/2009 to the Director of AAI, Hyderabad to grant him the
benefits attached to the official tour for attending the said meeting. In the meanwhile the AAI transferred the workman
from Hyderabad to Madurai Airport where he joined on 18/12/2009. It is also alleged that the claimant submitted a
representation dated 12/5/2010 to the Regional Executive Director of AAI at Chennai and in reply thereto, the Airport
Controller, Madurai Airport informed him vide letter dated 6/7/2010 that his request could not be agreed to since grant of
special casual leave for attending court is not within the AAI leave regulation and thereby his claim for official benefits
for attending the said meeting was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant sent his request dated 18/8/2010 to the
Chairman, AAI through proper channel for grant of Special Casual leave as well as benefits of Tour & TA/DA etc.,
which was returned to him by the Airport Controller, Madurai vide his memo dated 20/8/2010 with an advice to take up
the matter directly as General Secretary with AAI Management and hence, he directly sent a letter dated 6/9/2010 to the
Chairman but to no response. Thereafter he approached the Conciliation Officer which culminated into the present
reference. Prayer has been made for passing an Award of giving him all the benefits of tour on equal footings as granted
to the General Secretary of Airport Authority Employees Union.
4.
Management has resisted the claim of the Workman and filed written reply, taking preliminary objections that
this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition as no cause of action arose at Delhi and
admittedly the writ petition was filed by the Management before Hon’ble High Court at Mumbai. The claimant is not
entitled to any relief inasmuch as Indian Airport Kamgar Union (IAKU) is not a recognized Trade Union of the
Management and as per Airport Authority (Leave) Regulations, 2003 there is no provision for granting special casual
leave to the workmen of the non recognized Union for attending courts. It is also alleged that the claimant is neither a
member of the recognized Union of AAI, nor he is representing the workers of AAI throughout the country and that there
is no privity of contract between IAKU and the Management. There was no written or verbal direction of Hon’ble High
Court for grant of such facilities to the claimant. It is further alleged that the claimant was neither on official tour, nor
any such approval was ever granted to him by the Management. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim
petition.
5.
Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman/claimant, whereby the case as set up in the claim petition has
been reiterated and allegations made in the written statement have been denied.
6.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 1/8/2017 :-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
233
i)
Whether the claim is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections ?
ii)
In terms of reference ?
7.
The Claimants in support of his case examined himself WW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A & relied
on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/14, whereas Management examined one Shri I.P. Aggarwal, Asstt. General
Manager (HR), AAI who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A
Issue No.1 :
8.
Learned A/R for the Management strenuously argued that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the claim petition inasmuch as no cause of action arose at Delhi and admittedly the writ petition was filed by the
Management before Hon’ble High Court at Mumbai, the meeting was convened at Mumbai and the workman/claimant at
the relevant time was not posted here in Delhi. However, during the course of arguments he conceded that the
Head/Principal Office as well as Human Resource (Personnel department) office of AAI is located at Delhi. Even the
final representation/request letter by the claimant regarding grant of Special Casual leave and other benefits was made to
the Chairman, whose office is also situated here in Delhi. Further, all policy decision in respect of administrative matters
of the AAI are taken by the Head Office. In view of all these and the fact that the reference has been received by this
Tribunal from the Appropriate Government, I am afraid to accept the contention of learned A/R for the Management that
this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
9.
During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management submitted that there was no espousal of
cause of action since the claim made by the claimant is not sponsored or espoused by a Union of the workers, rather the
claimant himself claiming to be the General Secretary of IAKU – unrecognized Union has filed, signed and verified the
claim petition whereas he has raised a cause/dispute of his own i.e. an individual workman. As such, the claimant has no
locus standi to file the present claim petition, without there being espousal and it can not be termed as industrial dispute.
10.
Per contra, learned A/R for the Workman/claimant has strenuously argued that the claimant G.A. Rudrappa
happens to be the General Secretary of the claimant Union IAKU which Union is functioning for the welfare & benefit of
the workers and as such the claimant was a protected workman of the Management during the year 2009. Being General
Secretary of the claimant Union, the claim petition filed by G.A. Rudrappa/ claimant is maintainable.
11.
I may mention that the procedure for reference of an “Industrial Dispute” under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of
the Act, has been narrated in Part-I of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Rule 4 of the said Rules clearly
provides as under :-
4. Attestation of application – The application and the statement accompanying it shall be signed –
(a) in the case of an employer……………….
(b) in the case of workmen, either by the President and Secretary of a Trade Union of the workmen, or by
five representatives of the workmen duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for
the purpose;
(c ) in the case of an individual workman, by the workman himself or by any officer of the trade union of which
he is a member or by another workman in the same establishment duly authorised by him in this behalf;
Provided that such workman is not a member of different trade union.)
Definition of “industrial dispute” has been carved out in Section 2(k) of the Act and same is reproduced hereunder for the
sake of convenience :-
2(k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between
employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or
non employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person”
Law in relation to “industrial dispute” is well settled, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Workman of Dharampal
Premchand (Saughandhi) Vs. Dharampal Premchand (Saughandhi), (1965) 1 LLJ 668 SC, has held that :-
“For the purpose of Section 2(k) it must be shown that (1) the dispute is connected with employment or non
employment of a workman; (2) the dispute between a single workman and his employer was sponsored or
espoused by the union of workman or by a number of workmen. The phrase “the union” merely indicates the
Union to which the employee belongs even though it may be a Union of a minority of the workmen; (3) the
establishment had no union on its own and some of the employees had joined the Union of another
establishment belonging to the same industry. In such a case it would be open to that Union to take up the cause
of the workmen if it is sufficiently representative of those workmen, dispute the fact that such Union was not
exclusively of the workmen working in the establishment concerned.”
In renowned case of “Workmen of Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Management of Indian Express Newspaper
Pvt. Ltd., “an outside Union” was held to be sufficiently representative to espouse the cause.
12.
It is manifest from the above decision that in order to give jurisdiction to refer the dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication, it was essential for the workman/claimant to show that his individual cause/dispute, was sponsored or
espoused by a Union of the workmen. Apparently, there is nothing on record to suggest that the claimant’s
234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cause/dispute for grant of special casual leave and other benefits of TA/DA etc. is/was espoused by IAKU Union
(though it is unrecognized by the Management herein). The claimant G.A. Rudrappa, seeking relief for himself, has
himself signed & verified the claim petition, though he has also affixed the seal of General Secretary of IAKU under his
signatures. Neither in the pleadings nor in his affidavit, he has stated that he was seeking relief not as an individual but
that of Member of the Union. However, he has neither filed on record any resolution of five representatives of the
workmen/Union (IAKU) duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting held for the purpose, nor the present claim
petition is signed jointly by the President & General Secretary so as to comply with the provisions of Rule 4 of Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Hence, it can not be said that the cause of the claimant has been espoused by the Union
(IAKU) or else.
13.
In the light of the aforesaid rulings and the fact that there is no espousal to the cause/dispute of the
workman/claimant herein, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the claim petition being not covered under the
definition of “industrial dispute” is not maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the Management and
against the claimant herein.
Issue No.2 :
13.
From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that in relation to an industrial
dispute between the parties, interim order dated 15/1/2009 was passed by CGIT, Mumbai, thereby some relief to the
workers was provided. AAI challenged the same before Hon’ble High Court at Mumbai in a W.P. No 2085 of 2009.
During hearing, Hon’ble High Court directed that an attempt should be made by the parties to settle the matter amicably
by mutual discussions. Consequent upon the said direction of Hon’ble High Court, Regional Executive Director of AAI
(Western Region), Mumbai convened a meeting for 2/3/2009 at 2.30 p.m. at Mumbai. M/s K.V. Kini & Co., Advocates
& Solicitors of the AAI vide letter (Ex.WW1/3) dated 27/2/2009 communicated to the Ms. Gayatri Singh, Advocate of
the IAKU as well as to Ms. Jane Cox Advocate for Airport Kamgar Union, about the date & time of the said meeting
and requested him to instruct his client to attend the aforesaid meeting (not more than two members of each of the
Union) as to find out the possibility of settlement talks.. It is claimed by the claimant that Ms. Gayatri Devi, Advocate
of the IAKU asked General Secretary of the claimant Union (i.e. to him) to attend the meeting. The claimant vide his
application dated 27/2/2009 (Ex.WW1/4) informed the Controlling Officer viz. the Airport Director of AAI, Hyderabad
about the said meeting and had simply sought permission to leave the station on 28/2/2009 (A/N) for the purpose of
attending the meeting on 2/3/2009. It is pertinent to mention here that vide his request letter dated 27/2/2009
(Ex.WW1/4), the claimant had no where sought for Special Casual Leave, nor had stated that he will be claiming T
A/DA etc, if any, as per rules.
14.
It is undisputed fact that the claimant herein had attended the meeting at Mumbai on 2/3/2009 in the capacity of
General Secretary of IAKU and besides him, four other office bears of the same Union/IAKU namely K.S.Prajapati –
Regional Secretary, Mahesh Gumgaonkar, Branch Secretgary, Srikant Pant, Asstt. General Secretary and P.K.
Bandopadhya= President of IAKU had attended the said meeting, which fact is apparent from the very first page of the
minutes/record note of discussion of the said meeting (Ex.WW1/5). Thus, it is evident that five office bearers of IAKU
had attended the said meeting, though it was specifically mentioned in the letter Ex.WW1/3) that not more than two
members of each of the Unions should attend the meeting.
15.
It is also not in dispute that vide his application dated 19/3/2009 (Ex.WW1/6), addressed to the Director of AAI,
Hyderabad, the claimant had requested for grant of benefits attached to official tour /meeting which he attended on
2/3/2009 at Mumbai. It is noteworthy that the claimant had made no request for grant of Special Casual leave, rather he
had simply requested for grant of benefits attached to the said official tour and had not disclosed as to how (either by Air
or by Train) he travelled and what expenses he had actually incurred for the same. Even if it is presumed for the sake of
arguments, that it was an official meeting convened by the side of the Management at Mumbai, yet invitation was meant
only for two office bearers of IAKU. But there is no explanation from the side of the claimant as to why five office
bears of IAKU had attended the said meeting.
16.
It is also not in dispute that the claimant had sent his request dated 18/8/2010 (Ex.WW1/10) addressed to the
Chairman, AAI through proper channel for grant of benefits of attached to official Tour & TA/DA etc., which was
returned to him by the Airport Controller, Madurai vide his memo dated 20/8/2010 with an advice to take up the matter
directly as General Secretary with AAI Management because he had attended the meeting in his capacity as General
Secretary of IAKU & not as Sr.Supdt(FS) and hence, he directly sent a letter dated 6/9/2010 (Ex.WW1/3) to the
Chairman but to no response.
17.
Perusal of the record shows that the Management had issued certain Guidelines under the cover of office order
dated 22/11/2002 (Ex.WW1/14 (colly.) for providing certain facilities to the Recognised (majority elected) Union
vis-à-vis office accommodation, furniture, telephone facilities, Notice Board, TA/DA for attending official
meetings/conferences convened by the Management.
18.
Learned A/R for the claimant placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UOI Vs. Paschim Railway
Karamchari Parishad Union (Special Civil Application No.8069 of 1997 – decided by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat
at Ahmedabad and Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs.Indain Airlines Technical Assist ants Union W.A.848/1994 – dated on
12/6/1996, decided by Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to stress that unrecognized Union is also entitled to same
privileges which are accorded to the Recognized (Majority elected) Union.
19.
Per contra, learned A/R for the Management submitted that the Management is rules & regulations governing
the Management organization does not provide for payment of any such benefits to non-recognised union and as such
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
235
claim of the claimant/workman is misconceived. Moreover, the claimant had attended the meeting at Mumbai alongwith
four other office bearers of IAKU, though only two of them were required to attend the meeting.
20.
There is no dispute about preposition of law that
“The Trade Union Act confers certain rights on the Registered Union to ventilate the grievance of the members
of its union. The Management is obliged to hear them and resolve its disputes as far as possible without
resorting to the conciliation & adjudicatory process Though the Management is not obliged to recognize the
unrecognized (minority elected) Unionbut at the same time it can not refuse to hear the grievances voiced
by it in respect of service conditions of its members. The Management is expected to conduct itself in a fair
and reasonable manner in the interest of industrial peace and harmony. Therefore reconginising the Union for
the limited purpose of negotiation and settlement in respect of its members, can not be construed as recognition
under the Code of Discipline On the other hand, it improves the labour-management relations and paves the
way for achieving optimum output. There is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act or Trade Union Act,
prohibiting the management from negotiating, discussing or entering into settlement with the unrecognized
union. It is only in cases where the demand of unrecognized union is already seized of by the recognized union
such a demand would not be maintainable….
Further that, unrecognized Union is also entitled to same privileges which are accorded to the Recognized
(Majority elected) Union.
However, in the instant case, the claim of the claimant/workman does not appear to be justifiable, inasmuch as there is no
explanation from the side of the claimant as to why five office bears of IAKU had attended the meeting at Mumbai,
whereas only two of them were required to attend the same. Vide his first request letter dated 27/2/2009 (Ex.WW1/4), the
claimant had no where sought for Special Casual Leave, nor had stated that he will be claiming T A/DA etc, if any, as per
rules rather he had sought permission to leave station. Further, vide his application dated 19/3/2009 (Ex.WW1/6), the
claimant had made no request for grant of Special Casual leave, rather he had simply requested for grant of benefits
attached to the said official tour. Neither in his application as well as subsequent representations made to the Chairman
nor in the claim petition filed before this Tribunal, the workman/claimant disclosed as to how (either by Air or by Train)
he travelled and what expenses he had actually incurred for the same. No document about the expenses incurred for the
same has been filed on record. The meeting was attended by the claimant on 2nd March, 2009. Final request
letter/representation was made by him to the Chairman, AAI on 6/9/2010 but to no avail, whereas the claimant/workman
approached the Conciliation Officer only in the year 2016, that is after gap of six years. This shows that there is belated
raising of claim by the workman /claimant. There is no pleadings or evidence from the side of the claimant to show that
he ever raised any grievance during the period after September, 2010 till 2016 before any forum, about grant of Special
Casual Leave and benefits attached to the official tour. It would not be out of place to mention here that IAKU had
moved the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P (Civil) No. 6446/2013 concerning the election of the recognized Trade
Union of the Airport Authority of India, held on 29/1/2013 wherein the Airports Authority “Employees Union (AAEU)
was declared elected as the recognized(majority) union of AAI”. The said writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble High
Court vide order dated 17/3/2016. It appears that thereafter workman/claimant again agitated his claim for grant of
Special Casual Leave & benefits of TA/DA etc before Conciliation Officer. This fact also strengthen my view that the
claim of the workman/claimant is belated one and has been made beyond reasonable period, besides the same is
unspecified in terms of money which is sought to be reimbursed by the Management. All these peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case lead this Tribunal to conclude that claim of the workman for grant of Special Casual Leave and
benefit of TA/DA etc. for attending the meeting on 2/3/2009 at Mumbai, is unjust and improper at this belated stage.
Relief :
In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2 above, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the claimant is not
entitled to any relief whatsoever, firstly because there is no espousal to his claim and lastly his claim being belated is not
justifiable. The award is accordingly passed.
Date : 06.12.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018
का.
का.
का.
का. आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 52
52
52
52.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस दली इंटरनेशनल एयरपोट िलिमटेड एवं अय के $बंधतं/ के संब0 िनयोजक2 और उनके कम कार2 के बीच अनुबंध म
236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िन3द4 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय सं. 1, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या
32/2013) को $कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 24.12.2018 को $ा; <आ था।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2018-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2018
S. O. 52.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd. And other and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 24.12.2018.
[No. Z-16025/4/2018-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
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. 32/2013
Shri Ram Kishan,
S/o. Shri Chander Prakash,
R/o. E-2344 Block,
Gurgaon 122017 (Haryana).
… Workman/Claimant
Versus
1. M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd.,
New Uddan Bhawan, Terminal No.III,
IGI Airport, New Delhi 110037.
2. M/s. Biman Bangldesh Airlines Ltd.,
317, 320-321, Indra Prakash Building,
Bara Khamba Road,
New Delhi.
….Management
AWARD
This award shall decide a claim petition filed by the workman/ claimant Ram Kishan under Section 2-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) with the averments that the claim petition, the workman was appointed
by Management No.2 M/s Biman Bangladesh Airlines as Accounts Assistant on 16/4/2010 initially on daily wage basis
vide appointment letter dated 16/4/2010 but was deputed at Indira Gandhi International Airport as Traffic Officer. In
view of his satisfactory work and conduct, his services were regularized vide letter dated 15/11/2010 and since then he
had working with the Management No.2 on a monthly salary of Rs.14,300/- . It has been alleged that though the
workman was appointed for a job of perennial nature but unlawful terms & conditions to renew his employment after
three years were mentioned in the letter dated 15/11/2010. It is pleaded that job of the workman was of operation,
clerical and manual. Though he had been appointed as Accounts Assistant but he worked as Traffic Officer and that is
why Management had got issued him Airport Entry Pass to work as Traffic Officer at IGI Airport. One of the officers of
the Management wanted the workman to do some unlawful act and when he denied to do so, the said Officer got annoyed
and threatened the workman of victimization of service and thereafter he started harassing the workman/claimant and the
said Officer got the workman transferred from IGI Airport to Biman City Office at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi vide
letter dated 12/6/201. The claimant was made to sit idle throughout his duty hours and sometimes upto 8 PM without
allowing him to have tea or lunch etc. and as such the workman became patient of hypertension. On 10/7/2012 while the
claimant as on duty, his conditions got deteriorated in the office where office boy helped him in getting auto-rickshaw for
his house. On reaching home, his family members took the workman to Kapoor Clinic where he remained under
treatment w.e.f. 11/7/012 to 2/8/2012. When on 3/8/201`2 he reported for duty alongwith medical certificate and
application, the Management refused to receive the same and did not allow him to perform duty. As such, the claimant
sent his medical certificate and application through courier on 3/8/2012. He also served a demand notice dated
23/8/2012 upon the Management. It is alleged that termination of service of workman is in gross violation of Section 25-
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
237
F of the Act. The workman approached the Conciliation Officer who took up the matter on 22/11/2012, 21/12/12 and
19/2/2013 but no settlement could be arrived at and hence, he filed the present claim petition. It is also alleged that the
workman is unemployed from the date of termination of his service as he could not get any job despite his best efforts
and is facing economic hardship. He has prayed for reinstatement into service with continuity of service and full back
wages and all consequential benefits.
2.
The claim petition has been resisted by the Management No.1 who filed its written statement and took
preliminary objections inter-alia that the the workman/claimant is not its employee and on the contrary it has been
admitted by the claimant that he was appointed by Management No.2 and his salary was paid by Management No.2..
Prayer has been made that Management No.1 be deleted from the array of the parties in the claim petition
3.
Management No.2 also resisted the claim of the workman, filed written statement and took preliminary
objections inter-alia that since the appointment of the workman was on contractual basis, therefore in terms of Section
2(00)(bb) of the Act, the present dispute is not sustainable, as termination of such a contractual employee does not fall
within the ambit of retrenchment. However it is admitted that the workman was appointed by the Management No.2 as
Accounts Assistant on 16/4/2010 initially on daily basis. It has been denied that due to his satisfactory work and
conduct, the workman was regularized in service w.e.f. 15/11/2010 vide letter dated 15/11/2010. The service contract of
the workman was terminated on 24/7/2012 in terms of clause 5 of the contract letter dated 15/11/2010 and he was offered
the salary upto the period 24/7/2012 alongwith salary of two weeks’ in lieu of notice period and was directed to deposit
the property of the Management viz. ID card and entry/security pass, uniform, office keys etc. which the workman was
holding during the course of his contractual employments with the Management but the workman did not comply with
the same. It has been denied that the workman worked as Traffic Officer or that Officer of the Management ever asked
him to perform some unlawful and immoral traffic act or that he was mentally harassed and tortured by the Management.
Since the contractual term of the workman had come to an end on 24/7/2012 , there was no occasion for him to report for
duty alongwith medical certificate on 3/8/2012. It is alleged that the claimant is not entitled to claim back wages or
reinstatement into service as he had voluntarily accepted contractual employment. Prayer has been made that present
dispute is not tenable and no dispute award be passed against the claimant.
4.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 16/5/2013 :-
(1) Whether action of termination of service of the claimant by M/s Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. falls
within sub clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 ?
(2) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service ?
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 WW1/3.
6.
On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Mohd. Mofizul Islam,
Operations Manager as MW1 who who also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the
documents Ex. WW1/M-1 to Ex.WW1/M-7
7.
I have heard Shri Maya Ram, A/R for the claimant; Shri Ramesh Thakur, A.R for Management No1 and Shri
Subhash Bakshi, Deputy General Manager of Management No.2. and have also gone through the evidence adduced on
record by the parties.
Issue No.1 and 2 :
8.
Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be conveniently
disposed of.
9.
From the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is evident that the claimant herein was
appointed by the Management No.2 M/s Biman Bangldesh Airlines as Accounts Assistant initially on 16/8/2010 on daily
wage basis and in fact the Management No.1 M/s DIAL has got no privity of contract with the claimant/workman in
respect of his employment, inasmuch as Management No.2 alone was the controlling and paying authority and this is so
apparent from the document Ex.WW1/3 viz. appointment-cum-regularization letter.
10.
A/R for the workman/claimant submitted that services of the claimant were regularized by the letter dated
15/11/2010 (Ex.WW1/3) to a post of perennial nature, as his work and conduct was found to be satisfactory by the
Management from 16/8/2010 onwards and further that while he being unwell & under treatment remained on leave
w.e.f. 11/7/012 to 2/8/2012, he reported for duty alongwith medical certificate and application on 3/8/2012, the
Management refused to receive the same and did not allow him to perform duty. As such action of the Management in
terminating his services is illegal.
11.
Per contra, A/R for the Management submitted that appointment of the workman was purely on contractual
basis for a period of three years and the Management terminated the services of the workman vide letter dated 24/7/2012,
in terms of clause (5) of the agreement/contract letter dated 15/11/2010 (Ex.WW1/3). As such, the Management was
well within its rights to disengage the services of the workman/claimant at any time and as such, there is no violations of
the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act . In fact, the Management had issued termination letter dated 24/7/2012
(Ex.WW1/M-1) to the claimant/workman and same is within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.
12.
To ascertain the truth, It will be worthwhile to refer to the evidence adduced on record by the parties, in the light
of the appointment letter dated 15/11/2010, relevant extracts of which are reproduced hereunder :-
238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Subject : Regularization of service as “Accounts Assistant”
Dear Mr. Kishan,
The management of Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. has decided to appoint your as “Accounts Assistant for a
contractual period of 3 (three) years under the following terms & conditions :-
1. Your consolidated monthly remuneration will be Rs.14,300/-
2. Your employment will be renewed after satisfactory completion of three years of service including six
months of apprenticeship period.
3. …………….
4. …………………
5. Both the parties (Biman and/or employee) reserve the right to revoke the contract through serving 2 (two)
weeks’ notice in advance. However, Biman reserves the right to terminate your service forthwith on
payment of notice pay.
6. You will be entitled to enjoy 14 days leave per year after completion of one year service. Any unutilized
leave will not be accumulated for the next year.
7. Your appointment will be effective from 16th April, 10. ’’
13.
Though the claimant WW1 specifically denied the suggestion that letter Ex.WW1/M-1 was served upon him on
24/7/2012 whereby his contractual appointment was terminated, however the Management did not file on record any
document like postal receipt or acknowledgement etc. to show that the said termination letter dated 24/7/2012 was
actually served upon the claimant. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the claimant/workman that he happened to
be on medical leave w.e.f. 11/7/2012 to 2/8/2012 and that on 3/8/2012 when he reported for duty alongwith medical
certificate and application, Management did not allow him to perform duty. Sick leave application of the workman for
the said period has been produced on record by the Management itself as Ex.WW1/M-2. The said leave application
dated 3/8/2012 is on the prescribed proforma of the Management and bears the signatures of the workman/claimant. In
the face of this document Ex.WW1/M-2, the version of the workman/claimant is believable and it appears that the
Management has cooked up a false story and fabricated the termination letter dated 24/7/2012, inasmuch as had the
Management disengaged the services of the workman through termination letter dated 24/7/2012 there was no question
for the workman/claimant to submit his leave application Ex.WW1/M-2 on 3/8/2012 alongwith the medical certificate
Ex.WW1/M-7, so produced by the Management. As per the contract/appointment letter Ex.WW1 the claimant/workman
was entitled to enjoy 14 days leave per year and he had already put in service for about two years.
14.
The workman/claimant also denied the suggestions of the Management that letter Ex.WW1/M-4 was sent to him
by the Management alongwith a cheque of Rs.18,590/- (Ex.WW1/M-5), wherein his postal address written thereon is
correct. He also denied the suggestion that he refused to accept the said letter Ex.WW1/M-4 when it was handed over
to him by the postal authorities. Despite that the Management has not filed any document about the service of the said
letter Ex.WW1/M-4 upon the workman. Moreover, this letter is dated 15/4/2013 whereas the cheque Ex.WW1/M-5 is
dated 16/4/2013. It appears that the said letter was issued by the Management, only after the claimant/workman had filed
the claim petition and notice of the same was received by the Management for hearing dated 17/4/2013, when
Authorised representative of the Management had put in appearance before this Tribunal.
15.
At the time when the services of the claimant were terminated w.e.f. 3/8/2012 or 24/7/2012 as the case may be,
the workman/claimant had already served the Management for about two years. The appointment cum regularization
letter Ex.WW1/3 clearly goes to show that the appointment though on contract basis, was made for three years. It is not
the case of the Management that the workman was employed for any specific project/scheme and that is why the
Management had shut down its business/operations in the year 2012 when the services of the claimant were
terminated/disengaged. MW1 Mohd. Mofizul Islam –witness of the Management admitted that Management Airlines
was operational but not in Delhi, in the year 2012, 2013 and 2014 intermittently. He also admitted that Airways Bills
Ex.MW1/W-1 and MW1/W-2 are of the Management company. Same pertains to the period July, 2014 which shows
that the Management company was in operation even in July, 2014. The Management has not led any evidence to show
that the work or the post to which the claimant was employed itself ceased to exist when the services of the claimant
were disengaged/terminated. In the given circumstances, this Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the
Management that the order of retrenchment/termination is within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, inasmuch
as contractual employment appears to have been resorted to as a mechanism to frustrate the claim of the employee to
become regular or permanent against a job of regular and perennial in nature. In S.M. Nilajkar Versus Telecom,
District Manager, Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3553, their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted Section
2(oo)(bb) of the Act and laid down the following propositions :-
“12. Retrenchment in its ordinary connotations is discharge of labour as surplus though the business or
work itself is continued, it is well settled by a catena of decisions that labour laws being beneficial
pieces of legislation are to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries in case of doubt or where it is
possible to take two views of a provision. It is also well settled that the Parliament has employed the
expression “the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
239
while defining the term retrenchment which is suggestive of the legislative intent to assign the term
retrenchment, a meaning wider than what it is understood to have in common parlance. There are four
exceptions carved out of the artificially extended meaning of the term ‘retrenchment’ and therefore,
termination of service of a workman so long as it is attributable to the act of the employer would fall
within the meaning of ‘retrenchment’ do hors the reason for termination. To be excepted from within
the meaning of ‘retrenchment’ the termination of service must fall within one of the four excepted
categories. A termination of service which does not fall within the categories (a)(b),(bb) and (c) would
fall within the meaning of ‘retrenchment’.
13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to
retrenchment within the meaning of Sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:
i)
that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration.
ii)
the employment was on a contract and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia
that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
iii)
the employment came to an end simulateneously with the termination of the scheme or project
and consistently with the terms of the contract
iv)
the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the
employer the commencement of employment. ’’
In K. Rajendran Versus Director, Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., 1995-III LLJ (Suppl.) 240
Mad., the facts were that the petitioner was appointed as Messenger for 44 days at a time. He continued to work on
similar terms for about three years and the work was available on the date of termination of his service. While rejecting
the plea of the employer that termination of service was covered by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo), Hon’ble Madras High
Court held as under :-
“But there is nothing in sub-clause (bb) which enables an unscrupulous employer to terminate the service of the
workers on the ground of non-renewal of their contract even when the work for which they were employed
subsists. The exception as contained in Sub-clause (bb) will have to be strictly construed and clause (bb)should
be made applicable only to such cases where the work ceases with the employment or the post itself ceases to
exist. Clause (bb) can not be made applicable to a case when the employer resorts to contractual employment as
a device simply take it out of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act not-withstanding the fact that the work for
which the workmen are employed continues or the nature of duties which the workman was performing are still
in existence.”
In the light of aforesaid ruling and the facts of the case as discussed above, this Tribunal is the considered view that the
action of termination of services of the claimant by the Management No.2 Biman Bengladesh Airlines Ltd. does not fall
within the purview of sub clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. 16) There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and
termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action
of the Management Bank to be illegal and void under the law.
17.
Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the
time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation has actually been paid to the claimant/workman, as such
action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.
18.
Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the
employment of the Management since 15/11/2010 and prior to that he had been working on daily wage basis since
16/4/2010. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the
job of the workman being employed as Accounts Assistant is/was of perennial and regular nature relating the operation
and management activities of the Airlines of the Management. The claimant has specifically pleaded and deposed on
oath that he is unemployed from the date of termination of his services and he could not get any job despite his best
efforts. The Management has not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to show that the claimant is gainfully employed
somewhere.
19.
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.
240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 5, 2019/PAUSA 15, 1940
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.”
20..
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).
21.
A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken
away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that
eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the
removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
22.
However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh,
reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination
of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy
or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered
with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are
wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age
and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,
where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the
complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is
often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be
compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”
27.
Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of
illegal termination and reinstatement held as under :-
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 5] 2019@ikS"k 15] 1940
241
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018)
MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s
salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be
illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing
as under :-
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not
on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties
as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,
of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of
service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his
termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages
which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”
23.
Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a
post of regular and 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, and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his
termination by the Management No. 2. Award is passed accordingly against Management No. 2 M/s. Biman Bengladesh
Airlines Ltd.
Date : 15.11.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed
by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2019.01.22
15:45:47 +05'30'