109 GI/2019

(335)

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- 3]

ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 13—tuojh 19] 2019] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 23—ikS"k 29] 1940

No. 3]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 13—JANUARY 19, 2019, SATURDAY/ PAUSA 23— PAUSA 29, 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 मंालय

मंालय

(राज व

राज व

राज व िवभाग)

िवभाग)

नई द ली, 5 नव बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 84

84.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के

उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म' राज( व िवभाग के अधीन क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक आयु/ालय, भोपाल

तथा इसके िन1िलिखत अधीन(थ भागीय काया4लय िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम4चा6रय ने िह दी का काय4 साधक

8ान ा9 त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है :-

क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक आयु/ालय, भोपाल और िन1िलिखत अधीन(थ भागीय काया4लय

1) क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक भाग- I, भोपाल

2) क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक भाग- II, भोपाल

336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3) क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक भाग- III, भोपाल

4) क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक भाग- IV, भोपाल

5) क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक भाग- I, ;वािलयर

6) क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक भाग- II, ;वािलयर

7) क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर तथा क'ीय उ,पाद शुक भाग- सागर

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- िह दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश च , संयु? त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 5^th November, 2018

S.O. 84.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the central government, hereby notifies Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central

Excise, Bhopal & Its attached divisional offices under the department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :—

Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal & Its following attached divisional offices :

1) Central GST & Central Excise Division- I, Bhopal

2) Central GST & Central Excise Division- II, Bhopal

3) Central GST & Central Excise Division- III, Bhopal

4) Central GST & Central Excise Division- IV, Bhopal

5) Central GST & Central Excise Division- I, Gwalior

6) Central GST & Central Excise Division- II, Gwalior

7) Central GST & Central Excise Division- Sagar

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR DOR]

DR. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

नई द ली, 5 नव बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 85

85.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के

उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म' राज( व िवभाग के अधीन िन1िलिखत काया4लय िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम4चा6रय ने

िह दी का काय4 साधक 8ान ा9 त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है :—

1) काया4लय आयु/, सीमा शुक, इंदौर।

2) आयु/ालय क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर, दली पूव4।

3) क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर आयु/ालय, गुBCाम।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- िह दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश च , संयु? त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

337

New Delhi, the 5^th November, 2018

S.O. 85.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the central government, hereby notifies the following Offices under the department of Revenue,

where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :—

1) Office of the Commissioner, Customs, Indore.

2) Central GST Commissionerate, Delhi East.

3) Central GST Commissionerate, Gurugram.

[F.No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR DOR]

DR. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

नई द ली, 7 दस बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 86

86.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के

िह दी का काय4 साधक 8ान ा9 त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है :—

(1) काया4लय आयु/, क'ीय माल एवं सेवाकर (अपीस), नोएडा।

(2) क'ीय माल एवं सेवा कर आयु/ालय, राजकोट।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- िह दी-2 डीओआर डीओआर]

डॉ. सतीश च , संयु? त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)

New Delhi, the 7^th December, 2018

S.O.86.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the central government, hereby notifies the following Offices under the department of Revenue,

where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :-

1) Office of the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax (Appeals), Noida.

2) Central GST Commissionerate, Rajkot.

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR DOR]

DR. SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Director (OL)

(िव ीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई दली, 26 दस बर, 2018

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 87

87.—राD Eीयकृत बGक (बंध और कण4 उपबंध) ( कम, 1980 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प6ठत

बGककारी कंपनी (उपKम का अज4न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1980 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) Mारा द, त

शि/य का योग करते Nए, क'ीय सरकार, एतदMारा, केनरा बGक क काय4पालक िनदेशक, सुOी पी. वी. भारती (ज म ितिथ

22.3.1960) को दनांक 1.2.2019 को या उसके बाद काय4भार Cहण करने क तारीख से और अिधवTषता क आयु ाU

करने क तारीख (31.3.2020) तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, कापVरेशन बGक म' बंध िनदेशक एवं मुWय

काय4कारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु? त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

8ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

(Department of Financial Services)

338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26^th December, 2018

S. O. 87.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, Central Government hereby appoints

Ms. P. V. Bharathi (DoB: 22.3.1960), Executive Director, Canara Bank as Managing Director and Chief Executive

Officer in Corporation Bank with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 1.2.2019 and up to the date of

her attaining the age of superannuation (31.3.2020), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 दस बर, 2018

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 88

88.—राD Eीयकृत बGक (बंध और कण4 उपबंध) ( कम, 1980 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प6ठत

शि/य का योग करते Nए, क'ीय सरकार, एतदMारा, सेEल बGक आफ इंिडया के महाबंधक, Oी िबBपY िमOा

(ज म ितिथ 26.1.1961) को काय4भार Cहण करने क तारीख से दनांक 31.1.2021 तक अथा4त् अिधवTषता क आयु ाU

करने क तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, कापVरेशन बGक म' काय4पालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु? त

करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2017-बीओ-I]

8ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26^th December, 2018

S. O. 88.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Birupaksha Mishra (DoB: 26.1.1961), General Manager, Central Bank of India as Executive Director in Corporation

Bank with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post and up to 31.1.2021, i.e., the date of his attaining the

age of superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 दस बर, 2018

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 89

89.—राD Eीयकृत बGक (बंध और कण4 उपबंध) ( कम, 1980 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प6ठत

शि/य का योग करते Nए, क' ीय सरकार, एतदMारा, कापVरेशन बGक के महाबंधक, Oी बालकृDण अलसे एस. (ज म ितिथ

3.4.1960) को काय4भार Cहण करने क तारीख से दनांक 30.4.2020 तक अथा4त् अिधवTषता क आयु ाU करने क

तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, ओ6रयंटल बGक आफ कामस4 म' काय4पालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु? त

करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2017-बीओ-I]

8ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26^th December, 2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

339

S. O. 89.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Balakrishna Alse S. (DoB: 3.4.1960), General Manager, Corporation Bank as Executive Director in Oriental Bank

of Commerce with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post and up to 30.4.2020, i.e., the date of his

attaining the age of superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 26 दस बर, 2018

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 90

90.—राD Eीयकृत बGक (बंध और कण4 उपबंध) ( कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प6ठत

बGककारी कंपनी (उपKम का अज4न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) Mारा द, त

शि/य का योग करते Nए, क'ीय सरकार, एतदMारा, कापVरेशन बGक के महाबंधक, Oी के. रामाचन (ज म ितिथ

7.6.1961) को काय4भार Cहण करने क तारीख से अिधवTषता क आयु ाU करने क तारीख (30.6.2021) तक अथवा

अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बGक म' काय4पालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु? त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

8ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 26^th December, 2018

S. O. 90.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri K. Ramachandran (DoB: 7.6.1961), General Manager, Corporation Bank as Executive Director in Allahabad Bank

with effect from the date of assumption of office and up to the date of his attaining the age of superannuation

(30.6.2021), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO.I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 91

91.—राD Eीयकृत बGक (बंध और कण4 उपबंध) ( कम, 1970 के पैराCाफ 11 के उप-पैराCाफ (2) Mारा

द, त शि/य का योग करते Nए, यह एतदMारा जनसाधारण क सूचना के िलए अिधसूिचत कया जाता है क केीय

सरकार ने दनांक 15.11.2018 से इिaडयन ओवरसीज बGक के िनदेशक मंडल म' अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के bप म'

Oी िशवरमन अनंत नारायण Mारा दए गए ,याग-पc को (वीकार कर िलया है।

[फा. सं. 6/9/2017-बीओ-I]

8ानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 27^th December, 2018

S.O. 91.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, it is hereby notified for public information that the Central

Government has accepted the resignation tendered by Shri Sivaraman Anant Narayan as part-time non-official Director

on the Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank, with effect from 15.11.2018.

[F. No. 6/9/2017-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई दली, 31 दस बर, 2018

340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 92

92.—राD Eीयकृत बGक (बंध और कण4 उपबंध) ( कम, 1980 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प6ठत

शि/य का योग करते Nए, केीय सरकार, एतदMारा, िवजया बGक के काय4पालक िनदेशक, Oी नागेdर राव वाई.

(ज म ितिथ 12.7.1961) के काय4काल को दनांक 22.1.2019 से एक वष4 क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो

भी पहले हो, बढ़ाती है।

[फा.सं. 4/5/2015-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 31^st December, 2018

S.O. 92.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, Central Government hereby extends the

term of office of Shri Nageswara Rao Y. (date of birth: 12.7.1961), Executive Director, Vijaya Bank for a period of one

year with effect from 22.1.2019, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2015-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

कृिष एवं कसान क या

कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

(कृिष

कृिष

कृिष, सहकारता एवं कसान क या

सहकारता एवं कसान क या

सहकारता एवं कसान क याण िवभाग

ण िवभाग

ण िवभाग)

नई दली, 27 दस बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 93

93.— बN-राe य सहकारी सिमित िनयमावली, 2002 के िनयम 31 के उपिनयम (क) Mारा द, त शि? तय

का योग करते Nए क'ीय सरकार एतदMारा, कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंcालय, कृिष, सहका6रता एवं कसान क याण

िवभाग, भारत सरकार म' अपर सिचव के पद पर काय4रत, सुOी वसुधा िमOा, भा..से., (टीजी:87) को बN-राe य सहकारी

सिमित अिधिनयम, 2002 क धारा 99 क उपधारा (2) के योजनाथ4 अपीलीय ािधकारी के bप म' िनयु? त करती है।

[सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एंड एम]

हष4 काश, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS’ WELFARE

(Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare)

New Delhi, the 27^th December, 2018

S. O. 93.—In exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-rule (a) of Rule 31 of Multi State Cooperative Societies

Rules, 2002, the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Vasudha Mishra, IAS, (TG:87), Additional Secretary to the

Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and

Farmers’ Welfare as the Appellate Authority for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 99 of the Multi State

Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.

[No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M]

HARSH PARAKASH, Under Secy.

वाय और प रवार कयाण मंालय

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

341

नई दली, 11 जनवरी, 2019

का

का.आ. . . . 94

94.—क'ीय सरकार, सरकारी (थान (अािधकृत अिधभोिगय क बेदखली) अिधिनयम 1971 (1971 का

40) क धारा 3 Mारा दf शि/य का योग करते Nए और अिधसूचना सं. का.आ. 1800 तारीख 19 अग(त 2016 को

िसवाय उन बात के िजनको ऐसे अिधKमण से पूव4 कया गया है या करने का लोप कया गया, अिधKांत करते Nए नीचे

सारणी के (त भ (1) म' वTणत अिधकारी, जो भारत सरकार का राजपिcत अिधकारी है, को उ/ अिधिनयम के योजन के

िलए स पदा अिधकारी िनयु/ करती है, जो उ/ अिधिनयम के अधीन उ/ सारणी के (त भ (2) म' िविनhदi सरकारी (थान

के संबंध म' अिधका6रता क (थानीय सीमाj के भीतर संपदा अिधकारी को दf शि/य का योग करेगा और उसे

अिधरोिपत कत4k का पालन करेगा ।

सारणी

अिधकारी का पदनाम

सरकारी थान का वग और थानीय सीमा क अिधका रता

नीरज सचदेवा उप िनदेशक

शासन,

लेडी

हाlडग

मेिडकल कॉलेज और सह

अ(पताल, नई दली-01

1. लेडी हाlडग मेिडकल कॉलेज और सह अ(पताल, नई दली के सभी आवासीय

यूिनट जैसे बंगले, mलैट, nाट4र, हॉ(टल आवास, अपूरटेन'ट यूिनट', जैसे गैरेज, सरव'ट

nाट4र आद

2. पी. के. रोड, नई दली टाइप – 4, nाट4र संWया 001-006, 101-108, 201-208,

301-308, नव िनTमत,

3. पी. के. रोड, नई दली टाइप – 3, nाट4र संWया 31-60, नव िनTमत,

4. Oी िनवास पुरी, नई दली, टाइप –IV oलॉक संWया 16, nाट4र संWया 001, 201,

301, 401, 501, 602, और oलॉक संWया 15, nाट4र संWया 101, 201, 202,

301.

5. Oी िनवास पुरी, नई दली, टाइप –III लॉक 17

लॉक 17

लॉक 17, nाट4र संWया 01, 101, 201,

301, 401, लॉक सं#या 18

लॉक सं#या 18

लॉक सं#या 18, nाट4र संWया 01, 02, 03, 101, 102,103, 201,

202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403,

लॉक सं#या 19

लॉक सं#या 19, nाट4र संWया 01, 02, 03, 101, 102,103, 201, 202, 203,

301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 601, 602, 603, 701,

702, 703,

लॉक सं#या 20

लॉक सं#या 20, nाट4र संWया 01, 02, 03, 101, 102,103, 201, 202, 203,

301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 601, 602, 603, 701,

702, 703, लॉक सं#या 21

लॉक सं#या 21

लॉक सं#या 21, nाट4र संWया 01, और 101.

6. Oी िनवास पुरी, नई दली, टाइप –III (केवल कलावती बाल सरन अ(पताल के

िलए) लॉक 21

लॉक 21

लॉक 21, nाट4र संWया 02, 03, 102,103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302,

303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 601, लॉक 22

लॉक 22

लॉक 22, , , , nाटर संWया 01, 02,

03, 101, 102,103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501,

502, 503, 601, 602, 603, 701, 702, 703.

7. टेलीCाफ (कावयर, नई दली टाइप–III nाट4र संWया 01, 04, 06, 08,10,12,13,

33, 35.

8. टेलीCाफ Eैफक 9लेस, टाइप –III, nाट4र संWया 01,03,05,06,08.

342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. टेलीCाफ Eैफक 9लेस, नई दली, टाइप –III nाट4र संWया 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.

10. फोछ (कावयर , नई दली, टाइप –III nाट4र संWया ई-63

11. राजा बाजार, नई दली, टाइप –III nाट4र संWया 24ए, 24बी, 24सी, 24डी, 24ई,

24एफ.

12. पी. के. रोड, नई दली टाइप – III, लॉक 1

लॉक 1

लॉक 1, nाट4र संWया 01 से 15, लॉक 2

लॉक 2

लॉक 2,

nाट4र संWया 16 से 30.

13. पी. के. रोड, नई दली टाइप – II, लॉक 1

लॉक 1

लॉक 1, nाट4र संWया से 01 से 15, , , , लॉक 2

लॉक 2

लॉक 2,

nाट4र संWया 16 से 30.

14. नानक पूरा, नई दली, टाइप –II nाट4र संWया ई-22ए, ई-25, ई25ए ई-26, ई-28,

ई-29, ई-30ए, ई-31ए, ई-34, ई-39ए.

15. िमटो रोड, नई दली, टाइप – II nाट4र संWया 01, 08,17, 28, 35, 36, 37,

40, 41, 44, 47, 53, 54, 55 और 60.

16. पी के रोड़, नई दली, टाइप -1, लाक 112

लाक 112

लाक 112, nाट4र संWया 1 से 112

17. पी के रोड़, नई दली, टाइप -1, लाक 45

लाक 45

लाक 45, nाट4र संWया 113 से 157

18. पी के रोड़, नई दली, टाइप -1, लाक 85

लाक 85

लाक 85, nाट4र संWया 120 से 127, 133 से

139, 265 से 309

[फा. सं. वी. 21020/21/2015-एच-II]

जी. पी. साम ता, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 11^th January, 2019

S.O. 94.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), and in supersession of the notification number S.O. 1800, dated 19^th August, 2016,

except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints

the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being a Gazetted officer of the Government of India to be

Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed

on an Estate Officer by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises

specified in column (2) of the said table.

TABLE

Designation of officer

(1)

Categories of Public Premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(2)

Sh.

Neeraj

Sachdeva,

Deputy

Director

Administration, Lady Hardinge Medical College

and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi.

1. All residential units like bunglows, flats, quarters, hostel

accommodation, appurtenant units like garages, servants

quarters, etc.,of Lady Hardinge Medical College and

Associated Hospitals, New Delhi.

2. P.K. Road, New Delhi. Type-IV, Quarter Numbers 001-

006, 101-108, 201-208, 301-308, newly constructed,.

3. P.K. Road, New Delhi Type-III, Quarter Numbers 31-60,

newly constructed,.

4. Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi. Type-IV Block No. 16,

Quarter Numbers 001, 101, 201, 301, 401, 501 and 602;

Block No. 15, Qtr No. 101, 201, 202 and 301.

5. Sri Niwas Puri, Type-III Block 17, Quarter Numbers 01,

101, 201, 301 and 401; Block No. 18, Quarter Numbers 01,

02, 03, 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302 and 303,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

343

401, 402 and 403; Block No. 19, Quarter Numbers 01, 02,

03, 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402,

403, 501, 502, 503, 601, 602, 603, 701, 702 and 703;

Block No. 20, Quarter Numbers 01, 02, 03, 101, 102, 103,

201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503,

601, 602, 603, 701, 702 and 703; Block No. 21, Quarter

Numbers 01and 101.

6. Sri Niwas Puri, Type-III(only for Kalawati Saran Children

Hospital)

Block No. 21, Quarter Numbers 02, 03, 102, 103, 201,

202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 503 and 601;

Block No. 22 Quarter Numbers 01, 02, 03, 101, 102, 103,

201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503,

601, 602, 603, 701, 702 and 703.

7. Telegraph Square, New Delhi Type-III, Quarter Numbers

01, 04, 06, 08, 10,12,13,33,35.

8. Telegraph Traffic Place, Type-III, Quarter Numbers 01, 03,

05, 06 and 08.

9. Telegraph Traffic Place, New Delhi Type-III, Quarter

Numbers 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17.

10. Fouch Square, New Delhi Type-III, Quarter Number E-63.

11. Raja Bazar, New Delhi, Type-III, Quarter Numbers 24A,

24B, 24C, 24D, 24E and 24F.

12. P.K. Road, New Delhi, Type-III, Block-I, Quarter

Numbers 01 to 15; Block-II, Quarter Numbers 16 to 30.

13. P.K. Road, New Delhi Type-II, Block-I, Quarter Numbers

01 to 15; Block-II, Quarter Numbers 16 to 30.

14. Nanak Pura, New Delhi. Type-II, Quarter Numbers E-22A,

E-25, E-25A, E-26, E-28, E-29, E-30A, E-31A, E-34 and

E-39A.

15. Minto Road, New Delhi. Type-II, Quarter Numbers 01, 08,

17, 28, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 53, 54, 55 and 60.

16. P.K. Road, New Delhi. Type-I, Block 112, Quarter

Numbers 01 to 112.

17. P.K. Road, New Delhi. Type-I, Block 45, Quarter

Numbers 113 to 157.

18. P.K. Road, New Delhi. Type-I, Block 85, Quarter

Numbers 120 to 127, 133 to 139 and 265 to 309.

[F. No. V. 21020/21/2015-H-II]

G.P. SAMANTA, Under Secy.

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय

(उ+ च

उ+ च

उ+ चतर िश.ा िवभाग

तर िश.ा िवभाग

तर िश.ा िवभाग)

(राजभाषा भाग

राजभाषा भाग

राजभाषा भाग)

नई द ली, 3 जनवरी, 2019

का

का.आ. 95

95.—के ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के

उप िनयम 4 के अनुसरण म', मानव संसाधन िवकास मंcालय (( कूल िशYा एवं साYरता िवभाग) के अंतग4त िन निलिखत

काया4लय को, ऐसे काया4लय के bप म', िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम4चारी-वृ द ने िह दी का काय4साधक 8ान ा9 त कर

िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है:—

344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. क'ीय िवrालय, नं. -1, मंगूर िहल, वा( को-डा-गामा, गोवा- 403802

2. क'ीय िवrालय, वधा4, महा, मा गांधी अंतरराD Eीय िह दी िवs विवrालय,

गांधी िह स, वधा4- 442001 महाराD E

3. क'ीय िवrालय, पडा, हवेली कुतt, पडा, गोवा-403401

4. क'ीय िवrालय, बुडायन, तहसील-उचाना कलां, जuद-126115 (ह6रयाणा)

5. क'ीय िवrालय, रानाघाट, गांव-कुमारशातपुर, डाक- रानाघाट, िजला-नदया - 741201

6. क'ीय िवrालय नं.-1, ईशापुर, 4 टी पाक4, डाक-नवाबगंज, ईशापुर, िजला-24, परगना (नाथ4) - 743144

7. क'ीय िवrालय बंडेल, भवन सं.-5, आमबगान,रेलवे कालोनी, बंडेल, vगली, पिs चम बंगाल- 712123

8. क'ीय िवrालय, कूचिबहार, पो( ट – िनलकु6ठ (बाबुरहाट) कूचिबहार, पिs चम बंगाल- 736156

9. क'ीय िवrालय, बालुरघाट, दिYण दनाजपुर, िजला- दिYण दनाजपुर, पिs चम बंगाल- 733103

10. क'ीय िवrालय, आई ओ सी हि दया, पो( ट- हि दया, टाऊनिशप, िजला-ई( ट िमदनापुर, पिs चम बंगाल-

721607

11. क'ीय िवrालय, अंडाल, वक4शॉप कॉलोनी, िजला-बद4वान, पिs चम बंगाल- 713321

12. क'ीय िवrालय, बहरमपुर, 51ए , बाबुलबोना रोड, मुTशदाबाद,पिs चम बंगाल- 742101

13. क'ीय िवrालय, रेलवे कॉलोनी, खडगपुर, ई( टन, रेलवे पो( ट, खड़गपुर,

िजला- पिs चम िमदनापुर- 721301

14. क'ीय िवrालय, कांकनाड़ा, 313, एम. यू. कGप, कांकनाड़ा, पिs चम बंगाल- 743126

15. क'ीय िवrालय Kंमाक-2, वायु सेना ( टेशन, जालाह ली पूव4, ब'गलुb-560014

[फा. सं.11011-2/2018-रा.भा.ए.]

संजय कुमार िस हा, संयु? त सिचव

(MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT)

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2019

S.O. 95.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Human Resource

Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy) as office, whose more than 80% members of the staff have

acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—

Kendriya Vidyalaya, No-1, Mangoor Hill, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa- 403802

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Wardha, Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi University,

Gandhi Hills, Wardha-442001 (MS)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ponda, Haveli Kurti, Ponda, Goa-403401

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Budayan, Tehsil –Uchana Kalan, Jind-126115 (Haryana)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ranaghat, Vill-Kumarshatpur, Post-Ranaghat,

Distt. Nadia, Pin-741201

Kendriya Vidyalaya No-1, Ishapore, 4, The Park, Post- Nawabganj, Ishapore,

Distt-24, Pargana (N)- 743144

Kendriya Vidyalaya Bandel, Building No- 5, Ambagan, Railway Colony,

Bandel Hoogly , West Bengal-712123

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Coochbehar, Post- Nilkuthi (Baburhat) Coochbehar-736156

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur,

Distt-Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal-733103

10.

Kendriya Vidyalaya , IOC Haldia, Post-Haldia Township,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

345

Distt-East Midnapur, West Bengal- 721607

11.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Andal, Work Shop Colony, Distt- Burdwan, West Bengal- 713321

12.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Berhampore, 51A, Babulbona Road, Murshidabad

West Bengal-742101

13.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Railway Colony, Khadagpur, Eastern Railway, Distt- Paschim Midnapur- 721301

14.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kankinara, 313, M.U. Camp, Kakinara, West Bengal-743126

15.

Kendriya Vidyalaya No-2, AFS, Jalahalli East, Bengaluru-560014

[F. No. 11011-2/2018- रा.भा.ए.]

SANJAY KUMAR SINHA, Jt. Secy.

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 96

96.—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- 1098 rkjh[k 17 tqykÃ] 2018 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= Øekad 29] rkjh[k 22 tqykÃ

& 28 tqykÃ 2018 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 Ekkysxako 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 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 iznÙk '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 iznÙk '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 dkWiksZj'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%&Ekkysxako

ftyk%& ukfld

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

p®a<h

110@1@v

110@1@c

346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

110@2

112@1

112@2

111

113

72@1@v

72@1@c

72@2

72@3@v

72@3@c

61@c

56@1

59@1

59@2

49@1@v

49@1@c

49@2@v

49@2@c

49@v@1

17@1

17@2@1

17@2@2

17@2@3

17@2@4

17@2@6

17@3

20@1

20@2

20@3

20@4

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

347

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½6@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&23678]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2019

S. O. 96.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas vide S.O. No. 1098 dated the 17^th 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 the dated 22 – 28 July, 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 Malegaon 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 19^th 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;

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

342

339

333@c@1

333@c@2@1

333@c@2@2

333@c@3

333@c@4@1

333@c@4@2

333@c@4@3

333@c@4@4

333@c@3

333@c@6@1

333@c@6@2

333@c@7

338@1

338@2

338@3

338@4

336@1

336@2

335

348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

encumberances.

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:- Malegaon

District:- Nashik

State :- Maharashtra

Mouje / Village

Survey/Block No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Chondhi

110/1/A

110/1/B

110/2

112/1

112/2

111

113

72/1/A

72/1/B

72/2

72/3/A

72/3/B

61/B

56/1

59/1

59/2

49/1/A

49/1/B

49/2/A

49/2/B

49/A/1

17/1

17/2/1

17/2/2

17/2/3

17/2/4

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

349

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

17/2/6

17/3

20/1

20/2

20/3

20/4

342

339

333/B/1

333/B/2/1

333/B/2/2

333/B/3

333/B/4/1

333/B/4/2

333/B/4/3

333/B/4/4

333/B/3

333/B/6/1

333/B/6/2

333/B/7

338/1

338/2

338/3

338/4

336/1

336/2

335

[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.97

97.—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- 2222 rkjh[k 14 flrEcj] 2017 tks

Hkkjr ds jkti=] Øekad 38] rkjh[k 17 flrEcj & 23 flrEcj 2017 ,oa dk-vk- 1102 rkjh[k 17 tqykÃ] 2018 tks Hkkjr ds

jkti= dzekad 29] rkjh[k 22 tqykÃ & 28 tqykÃ 2018 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa

fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa egkjk"Vª jkT; esa ftyk vgenuxj esa rkYkqdk Jhjkeiqj 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 7 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 (

350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk '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 iznÙk '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 dkWiksZj'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 dkWiksZj'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

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½6@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&23678]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2019

S. O. 97.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas vide S.O. No. 2222 dated the 14^th 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 No.38 dated the 17^th September-23^rd September 2017, Gazette of India, No.29

dated 22 – 28 July, 2018 S.O.No.1102 dated 17^th 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 Shrirampur in Ahmadnagar

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 7 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:- Shrirampur

District:- Ahmadnagar

State :- Maharashtra

Mouje / Village

Survey/Block No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Malunje BK

152

[F. No. R-11025(11)6/2018-OR-I/E-23678]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

rkyqdk%&Jhjkeiqj

ftyk%& vgenuxj

jkT;%& egkjk"Vª

ekSts @xzke

losZ @ Cykd @ la-

¼IyksV la-½

lc&Mho&la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

vkjs

oxZ ehVj

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¼6½

Ekkyqats cqnzwd

152

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

351

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 98

98.—केीय सरकार ने पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म' उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न)

अिधिनयम,1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसमे इसके पxात उ/ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) के

अधीन जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंcालय क अिधसूचना का.आ. 1038 तारीख

03.07.2018 िजसका काशन भारत के राजपc संWया 26, भाग-II, खaड 3, उप-खaड (ii) तारीख 07.07.2018 मे कया

गया है । इस अिधसूचना म' संलy अनुसूची म' िविनhदi ओिड़शा राeय के तहसील : डेलांग, िपिपिल िजला: पुरी क भूिम म',

ओिड़शा राeय म' पारादीप से तेलंगाना राeय म' हैदराबाद तक पेEोिलयम उ,पाद के प6रवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड के Mारा Kयािवत कए जा रहे " पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना” के संबंध म' पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के योजन के िलये उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न करने के िलये अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी;

और उ/ राजपc अिधसूचना क ितयाँ जनता को उपलoध करा दी गई थu। और उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा

(1) के अनुसरण म' सYम ािधकारी न' केीय सरकार को अपनी 6रपोट4 दे दी है;

और केीय सरकार ने उ/ 6रपोट4 पर िवचार करने के पxात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ/ भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलये अपेिYत है, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न करने का िविनs चय कया है;

अत:अब, केीय सरकार उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) Mारा दf शोि/य का योग करते Nए एतद् Mारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूिच म' िविनhदi भूिम म' पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार

अTजत कया जाए; और केीय सरकार उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Mारा दf शि/य का योग करते Nए,

यह िनद{श देती है क उ/ भूिम म' उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से केीय सरकार म' िनिहत होने

के बजाए सभी िबलंगम से मु/ होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड म' िनिहत होगा।

vuqlwPkh

रा2य

रा2य – ओिड़शा

ओिड़शा

3ं3ं3ं3ं. सं.

. सं.

िजला

तहसील

गाँव का नाम

4लॉट नं.

.ेफल

हे:टयर

एयर

वग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

पुरी

डेलांग

बसतपुर

447

524

525

528

पुरी

डेलांग

र'गल

3200

3201

3202

3318

3327

3326

3328

3351

3350

3346

352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

3347

3343

3415

3551

3550

3528

3529

3547

3531

3546

3538

3532

3536

3535

पुरी

िपिपिल

िसउला

206

228

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½236@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&13717]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2019

S. O. 98.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 26 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 07.07.2018 vide S.O.Number -

1038 dated 03.07.2018 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) the Central Government declared

its intension to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil- Delang, Pipili, District-Puri in Odisha 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 Telengana by the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited for implementing the “Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project”.

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent Authority has

under Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government

hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central

Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

353

SCHEDULE

State - Odisha

Sl. No.

District

Tehsil

Village

Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.Mtr.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

PURI

DELANG

BASANTPUR

447

524

525

528

PURI

DELANG

RENGAL

3200

3201

3202

3318

3327

3326

3328

3351

3350

3346

3347

3343

3415

3551

3550

3528

3529

3547

3531

3546

3538

3532

3536

3535

PURI

PIPILI

SIULA

206

228

[F. No. R-11025(11)236/2017-OR.-I/E-13717]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई, द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2019

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 99

99.— क'ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक है क आं| देश राeय म'

पेEोिलयम उ,पाद के प6रवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना के Kयावयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

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

ऊपाब} अनुसूची म' वTणत है, और िजसम' उ/ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का (ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न कया

जाए;

354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अतः अब, केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम म' उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) Mारा दf शि/य का योग करते Nए उस भूिम म' उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज4न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है;

कोई भी kि/, जो उ/ अनुसूची म' वTणत भूिम म' िहतब} है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना म' यु/ भारत के

राजपc क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलoध करा दी जाती हG, इस (21) दन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन

िबछाए जाने के िलए उसम' उपयोग के अिधकार के संबध म' Oी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सYम ािधकारी (आं| देश), इंिडयन

ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइस भाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.

एने?सी भवन, िथना (डायमंड पाक4) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉ पले?स के पास, िवशाशापटनम - 530004, आं| देश राeय को

िलिखत bप से आYेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

िजला : <ीकाकुलम रा2य :

िजला : <ीकाकुलम रा2य : आँ@ देश

आँ@ देश

मंडल का नाम

Bाम का नाम

सवC नDबर

.ेफल

हे: टे

हे: टेयर

यर

एयर

वगमीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

पदूB

मे€ेलावलासा

51/1

52/6

53/15

52/3

56/5

82/7

82/2

32/20

83/1

53/18

पदूB

कतिल

131/13

128/11

123/15

124/7

124/5

पदूB

अि‚पोलावलासा

132/3

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

355

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

पदूB

अि‚पोलावलासा

136/31

136/30

136/17

136/18

136/22

137/5

138/26

138/28

138/19

138/15

138/13

144/2

144/1

140/4

140/3

141/11

141/12

133

पदूB

तोलािप

137/3

73/8

73/16

73/15

77/8

77/6

77/3

356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

पदूB

तोलािप

77/4

80/2

109/2

81/6

81/2

94/19

94/12

94/4

95/24

95/14

95/12

95/5

95/6

95/3

156/15

158/21

158/20

158/18

158/16

158/7

158/4

160/2

159/16

159/19

164/1

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

357

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

पदूB

तोलािप

164/2

164/10

164/12

165/2

165/3

169/2

169/8

169/12

171/1

171/6

185/3

186/5

186/10

186/11

186/14

186/17

188/2

188/16

188/18

192/9

192/12

192/26

192/27

193/10

193/12

358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

पदूB

तोलािप

193/13

188/7

191/2

192/29

पदूB

िपलालावलासा

190/11

पदूB

किनमेƒा

16/5

16/24

16/16

17/2

17/6

19/1

पदूB

धमा4पBम

118/2

119/18

116/17

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

नोवस क डो, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 4^th January, 2019

S.O. 99.—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, 4^th 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

359

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH

MANDAL

VILLAGE

SURVEY No.

AREA

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mt.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

PONDURU

MEDDELAVALASA

51/1

52/6

53/15

52/3

56/5

82/7

82/2

32/20

83/1

53/18

PONDURU

KINTALI

131/13

128/11

123/15

124/7

124/5

PONDURU

ACHIPOLAVALASA

132/3

136/31

136/30

136/17

136/18

136/22

137/5

138/26

138/28

138/19

138/15

138/13

144/2

144/1

140/4

140/3

141/11

141/12

133

137/3

PONDURU

TOLAPI

73/8

73/16

73/15

77/8

360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

PONDURU

TOLAPI

77/6

77/3

77/4

80/2

109/2

81/6

81/2

94/19

94/12

94/4

95/24

95/14

95/12

95/5

95/6

95/3

156/15

158/21

158/20

158/18

158/16

158/7

158/4

160/2

159/16

159/19

164/1

164/2

164/10

164/12

165/2

165/3

169/2

169/8

169/12

171/1

171/6

185/3

186/5

186/10

186/11

186/14

186/17

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

361

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

PONDURU

TOLAPI

188/2

188/16

188/18

192/9

192/12

192/26

192/27

193/10

193/12

193/13

188/7

191/2

192/29

PONDURU

PILLALAVALASA

190/11

PONDURU

KANIMETTA

16/5

16/24

16/16

17/2

17/6

19/1

PONDURU

DHARMAPARUM

118/2

119/18

116/17

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

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 100

100

100.—केीय सरकार ने पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म' उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न)

अधीन जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंcालय क अिधसूचना का.आ. 2852, 2857, 2862,

51, 620 तारीख 18.12.2017, 18.12.2017, 18.12.2017, 11.01.2018, 11.04.2018 िजसका काशन भारत के

राजपc संWया 36, भाग-II, खaड 3, उप-खaड (ii) तारीख 23.12.2017, 23.12.2017, 23.12.2017, 13.01.2018,

21.04.2018 मे कया गया है । इस अिधसूचना म' संलy अनुसूची म' िविनhदi ओिड़शा राeय के तहसील : कुजं

कुजं

कुजंग, जगत

जगत

Fसहपुर

Fसहपुर, एरसमा

एरसमा

एरसमा, िजला : जगतFसहपुर

जगतFसहपुर

जगतFसहपुर क भूिम म', ओिड़शा राeय म' पारादीप से तेलंगाना राeय म' हैदराबाद तक

पेEोिलयम उ,पाद के प6रवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड के Mारा Kयािवत कए जा रहे "पारादीप -

हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना” के संबंध म' पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलये उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न करने के

िलये अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी;

(1) के अनुसरण म' सYम ािधकारी न' केीय सरकार को अपनी 6रपोट4 दे दी है;

िबछाने के िलये अपेिYत है, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न करने का िविनDचय कया है;

362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अTजत कया जाए; और केीय सरकार उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) Mारा दf शोि/य का योग करते

Nए, यह िनद{श देती है क उ/ भूिम म' उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से केीय सरकार म' िनिहत

होने के बजाए सभी िबलंगम से मु/ होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड म' िनिहत होगा।

vuqlwPkh

िजला

िजला : : : : जगतFसहपुर

जगतFसहपुर

रा2य

रा2य: ओिड़शा

ओिड़शा

3ं. सं.

तहसील

गाँव का नाम

4लॉट नं.

.ेफल

हे:टयर

एयर

वग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

कुजंग

नपंग

834

जगत†सहपुर

ओिडस

3898

406

412

411

4083

4099

4100

409

3899

404

3849

3902

3848

4080

4081

4074

3850

4140

4101

410

405

408

जगत†सहपुर

फुलहार

178

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

363

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

जगत†सहपुर

फुलहार

जगत†सहपुर

ओडपडा

485

489

462

414

413

445

464

465

463

295

291

292

479

480

481

483

486

487

293

461

484

488

294

एरसमा

पािणगिड़आकधा

326

327

290

291

292/793

293

295

296

297

298

364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

एरसमा

पािणगिड़आकधा

299

257

278

276

274

273

272

269/777

260

266

239/978

239

238

238/945

239/977

234

235/747

235

210

267

233/779

238/946

एरसमा

फ6रकिछटाकधा

43/463

390

77/388

78/510

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

365

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

एरसमा

फ6रकिछटाकधा

263/453

262

261/460

260

259

258

257

256

255

232/421

100

232

102

103

104

231

229

230

228

132

131

129

130

366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

एरसमा

नुआिडही

660

675

657

651

677

एरसमा

धुआँसाही

120

118

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½236@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&13717+]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2019

S. O. 100.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 36 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 18.12.2017, 18.12.2017,

18.12.2017, 11.01.2018, 11.04.2018 vide S.O.Number - 2852, 2857,2862 51, 620 dated 23.12.2017, 23.12.2017,

23.12.2017, 13.01.2018, 21.04.2018 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) the Central

Government declared its intension to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil- Kujang,Jagatsinghapur

Erasama,District-Jagatsinghapur in Odisha 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 Telengana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the “Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project”.

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent Authority

has under Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land

is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District : JAGATSINGHPUR State : ODISHA

Sl.No.

Tehsil

Village

Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.Mtr

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

KUJANG

NAPANGA

834

JAGATSINGHPUR

ORISA

3898

406

412

411

4083

4099

4100

409

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

367

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

JAGATSINGHPUR

ORISA

3899

404

3849

3902

3848

4080

4081

4074

3850

4140

4101

410

405

408

JAGATSINGHPUR

PHULHAR

178

JAGATSINGHPUR

ORAPARA

485

489

462

414

413

445

464

465

463

295

291

292

479

480

481

483

486

487

293

461

484

488

294

368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

ERASAMA

PANIGARIAKANDHA

326

327

290

291

292/793

293

295

296

297

298

299

257

278

276

274

273

272

269/777

260

266

239/978

239

238

238/945

239/977

234

235/747

235

210

267

233/779

238/946

ERASAMA

PHIRIKCHHITAKANDHA

43/463

390

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

369

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

ERASAMA

PHIRIKCHHITAKANDHA

77/388

78/510

263/453

262

261/460

260

259

258

257

256

255

232/421

100

232

102

103

104

231

229

230

228

132

131

129

130

370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

ERASAMA

NUADIHI

660

675

657

651

677

ERASAMA

DHUANSAHI

120

118

[F. No. R-11025(11)236/2017-OR.-I/E-13717]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 4 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 101

101

101.— कीय सरकार ने, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाईपलाईन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज न ) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम इसके पात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क

उपधारा (1) के आधीन जारी क गई भारत सरकार के पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय क अिधसूचना संया

का.आ. 1093 ता. 17 जुलाई, 2018 जो भारत के राजप मांक 29, ता. 22 जुलाई, 2018 म कािशत क गई

थी उस अिधसूचना से संल! अनुसूची म िविन#द% ट भूिम म पेोिलयम पदाथ) प*रवहन के िलए कोयली - सांगानेर

पाईपलाईन का गुजरात रा,य म मौजूद कोयली से िवरमगाम िवभाग क पेोिलयम पाईपलाईन पुरानी होने से

बदलने हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप)रेशन िलिमटेड .ारा नई पाईपलाईन िबछाने के योजन के िलए उपयोग के

अिधकार के अज न के अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी;

और उ राजप अिधिनयम क ितया जनता को तारीख 7 िसत/बर, 2018 से उपल1ध करादी गई थी;

और स3म अिधकारी ने उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन कीय सरकार को *रपोट

क है;

और कीय सरकार ने, उ *रपोट पर िवचार करने के पात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ

भूिम मौजूदा पाईपलाईन संर3ण के िलए अपेि3त है, उसम उपयोग के अिधकार का अज न करने का िविनय 5कया

है;

अतः अब, कीय सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) .ारा दत शिय6 का योग करते

8ए यह घोिषत करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संल! अनुसूची म िविन#द% ट उ भूिम मौजूदा पाईपलाईन संर3ण

के िलए उपयोग का अिधकार अज न 5कया जाए;

और कीय सरकार, उ धारा क उपधारा (4) .ारा द: शिय6 का योग करते 8ए, यह िनद;श देती है

के उ भूिम के उपयोग का अिधकार, इस घोषणा के काशन क तारीख से कीय सरकार म िनिहत होने क

बजाय, सभी िव<लंगमो से मु हो कर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप)रेशन िलिमटेड म िनिहत होगी।

पेोिलयम और खिनज पाईपलाईन अिधिनयम, 1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन 5कसी भी 3ितपू?त के िलये इंिडयन

ऑयल कॉप)रेशन िलिमटेड पूण तया उ:रदाई होगी और पाईपलाईन से संबंिधत 5कसी भी मामले पर केAीय

सरकार के िवBC कोई वाद दावा या क़ानूनी काय वाही नहD हो सकेगी।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

371

vuqlwPkh

तहसील

तहसील :- वड़ोदरा

वड़ोदरा

िजला

िजला :- वड़ोदरा

वड़ोदरा

रा2य

रा2य :- गुजरात

गुजरात

मौजा

मौजा / / / / गाम

गाम

सवC

सवC / / / / लॉक

लॉक

लॉक / / / / संसंसंसं

(4लॉट

4लॉट

4लॉट संसंसंसं

सब

सब िडव

िडव

िडव संसंसंसं.

.े.े.े.ेफल

फल

हे:टेयर

आरे

वग

वग मीटर

मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

कोयली

1059

पैक 1

अनगढ़

443

कोटना

340

तहसील

तहसील: : : : आंकलाव

आंकलाव

िजला

िजला : : : : आणंद

आणंद

आमरोल

पुराना

पुराना नंनंनंनं.

358/2

नया

नया नंनंनंनं.

662

पुराना

पुराना नंनंनंनं.

357

नया

नया नंनंनंनं.

661

पुराना

पुराना नंनंनंनं.

385

नया

नया नंनंनंनं.

696

तहसील

तहसील: वसो

वसो

िजला

िजला : : : : खेड़ा

खेड़ा

दताली

191

192

279

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½13@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&25725]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2019

S. O. 101.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas vide S.O. No.1093, dated 17^th July, 2018, issued under subsection (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^nd July, 2018. The Central Government declared its intention to acquire

the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to the notification for the purpose of protection of

existing petroleum pipeline from Koyali to Viramgam Section in the state of Gujarat is to be replaced as it is too old by

Indian Oil Corporation Limited western region.

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 07^th September,

2018;

And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to

the Central Government;

And where as the central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land

is required for the purpose of protection of exiting petroleum pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declares that the rights of user in land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification

is hereby required for the purpose of protection of exiting petroleum 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 required for the purpose of protection of exiting petroleum

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.

372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 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 the

pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Tahsil : Vadodara

District : Vadodara

State : Gujarat

Mouja/Village

Survey/Block No.

Sub-Div-No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.Mtr.

Koyali

1059

Angadh

443

Kotna

340

Tahsil : Anklav

District : Anand

Aamrol

Old

358/2

New

662

Old

357

New

661

Old

385

New

696

Tahsil : Vaso

District : Kheda

Dantali

191

192

279

[F.No. R-11025(11)13/2018-OR.-I/E-25725]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 102

102

102.—केीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक क क‡ चे तेल के प6रवहन के

िलए एक पाइपलाइन, हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना के तहत, , , , पिxम बंगाल राeय म' हिदया से िबहार

राeय म' बरौनी तक, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवsयक तीत होता है क उस भूिम म'

िजसके भीतर उ/ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का (ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची मे वTणत है, उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज4न कया जाए ;

अतः अब, केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दत शि/य का योग करते Nए, उस भूिम म' उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज4न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ;

कोई kि/, जो उ/ अनुसूची म' वTणत भूिम म' िहतब} है, उस तारीख से िजसको, भारत के राजपc म' यथा कािशत इस

अिधसूचना क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलoध करा दी जाती है, इस दन के अदर, भूिम के भीतर पाइपलाइन

िबछाये जाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार के अज4न के िलए,Oी िबdनाथ समाजदार, सYम ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन

िलिमटेड, , , , हिदया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना, डाकघर – दुईया, आदुल – मौरी, मौरीCाम, हावड़ा -

711302 (पिxम बंगाल) को िलिखत bप मे आYेप भेज सकेगा ।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

373

अनुसूची

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

कसमत िशबरामनगर - 94

1681

1682

1675

1674

1673

1672

1671

1664

1648

1652

1649

1650

1631

1630

1130

1131

1134

1137

1135

1136

1140

1309

1308

1318

1326

1330

1328

1329

1348

1331

1295

1297

1282

1283

िजला :पू

िजला :पूवववव मेGदनीपुर रा2य : पिHम बंगाल

मेGदनीपुर रा2य : पिHम बंगाल

थाना

मौज़ा का नाम

सवC

सवC नDबर

नDबर

.े

.ेफल

फल

हे:टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

कसमत िशबरामनगर - 94

1220

977

976

966

983

965

962

956

955

954

939

917

916

905

903

814

902

815

816

817

818

2800

821

2801

908

810

811

807

808

809

786

787

788

789

790

795

794

793

792

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

375

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

कसमत िशबरामनगर - 94

775

774

754

773

756

758

741

734

717

716

714

713

702

703

705

698

697

707

696

695

685

686

687

688

690

654

655

657

656

658

1342

1341

1343

1346

1347

सुताहटा - II

चाऊलखोला - 93

2500

2501

2515

2516

376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

चाऊलखोला - 93

2517

2518

2519

2520

2311

2350

2351

2356

2353

2352

2367

2358

2366

2365

2363

2361

2411

2362

2412

2414

2415

2418

2417

1543

1542

1522

1521

1520

1519

1517

1555

1516

1556

1510

1509

1594

1595

1508

1596

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

377

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

चाऊलखोला - 93

1597

1507

1506

1598

1412

2703

1445

1440

1443

1442

1441

1401

सुताहटा - II

बड़बाड़ी – 60

1250

1249

1248

1251

1240

1254

1255

1256

1257

1267

1293

1292

1279

1288

1289

1282

1281

1184

1183

1283

1181

1179

1180

1178

1174

1173

1601

378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

बड़बाड़ी – 60

1602

1602/2853

1606

1607

1623

1622/2984

1622

1621

1620

332

1780

331

1781

1784

1785

1786

1792

329

1793

325

324

323

318

317

312

सुताहटा - II

बाड़बाजीतपुर – 59

612

628

629

2585

626

624

326

313

325

314

315

317

2303

318

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

379

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

बाड़बाजीतपुर – 59

293

292

294

295

2302

2301

289

288

2300

287

286

219

191

194

196

198

199

227

188

186

2261

177

2262

2285

179/2286

179

180

183

182

181

636

697

696

699

722

723

721

724

725

380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

बाड़बाजीतपुर – 59

726

727

728

730

731

732

741/2356

736

741

2357

737

116

69/2272

10/2265

11/2268

सुताहटा - II

कुनारपुर – 58

2494

2493

2492

2489

2490

1955

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

381

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

कुनारपुर – 58

1951/3619

1938

1950

1949

1948

1939

1942

1932

1931

1929

1928

1927

1926

1904

1907

1272

1271

1270

1269

1268

1267

1264

1262

1282

1283

1287

1285

1286

1292

1435

1434

1325

1324

1323

1322

1326

1327

1328

1319

382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

कुनारपुर – 58

1318

1330

1331

1317

1315

1332

1334

1336

776

3419

710

711

712

3277

714

713

765

764

3470

3472

763

627

741

740

736

737

504

503

502

3368

501

500

499

498

490

491

488

487

486

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

383

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

कुनारपुर – 58

493

422

3348

423

3349

428

427

426

363

430

345

344

343

342

348

340

339

298

295

296

294

293

292

299

290

257

258

256

254

3782

250

251

253

249

242

244

243

240

384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

सुताहटा - II

कुनारपुर – 58

238

237

234

232

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@22@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&27779]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 102.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under

Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the

Schedule annexed hereto;

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 copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in

writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Biswanath Samajder,

Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, P.O. Duilya, Andul-

Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302 ( West Bengal).

SCHEDULE

District : Purba Medinipur State : West Bengal

Police Station

Name of Mouza

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Kismat Shibramnagar - 94

1681

1682

1675

1674

1673

1672

1671

1664

1648

1652

1649

1650

1631

1630

1130

1131

1134

1137

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

385

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Kismat Shibramnagar - 94

1135

1136

1140

1309

1308

1318

1326

1330

1328

1329

1348

1331

1295

1297

1282

1283

1220

977

976

966

983

965

962

956

955

954

939

917

916

905

903

814

902

815

816

817

818

2800

821

2801

908

386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Kismat Shibramnagar - 94

810

811

807

808

809

786

787

788

789

790

795

794

793

792

775

774

754

773

756

758

741

734

717

716

714

713

702

703

705

698

697

707

696

695

685

686

687

688

690

654

655

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

387

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Kismat Shibramnagar - 94

657

656

658

1342

1341

1343

1346

1347

Sutahata - II

Chaulkhola - 93

2500

2501

2515

2516

2517

2518

2519

2520

2311

2350

2351

2356

2353

2352

2367

2358

2366

2365

2363

2361

2411

2362

2412

2414

2415

2418

2417

1543

1542

1522

1521

1520

1519

388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Chaulkhola - 93

1517

1555

1516

1556

1510

1509

1594

1595

1508

1596

1597

1507

1506

1598

1412

2703

1445

1440

1443

1442

1441

1401

Sutahata - II

Barabari - 60

1250

1249

1248

1251

1240

1254

1255

1256

1257

1267

1293

1292

1279

1288

1289

1282

1281

1184

1183

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

389

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Barabari - 60

1283

1181

1179

1180

1178

1174

1173

1601

1602

1602/2853

1606

1607

1623

1622/2984

1622

1621

1620

332

1780

331

1781

1784

1785

1786

1792

329

1793

325

324

323

318

317

312

Sutahata - II

Bar Bajitpur - 59

612

628

629

2585

626

624

326

313

390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Bar Bajitpur - 59

325

314

315

317

2303

318

293

292

294

295

2302

2301

289

288

2300

287

286

219

191

194

196

198

199

227

188

186

2261

177

2262

2285

179/2286

179

180

183

182

181

636

697

696

699

722

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

391

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Bar Bajitpur - 59

723

721

724

725

726

727

728

730

731

732

741/2356

736

741

2357

737

116

69/2272

10/2265

11/2268

Sutahata - II

Kunarpur - 58

2494

2493

2492

2489

392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Kunarpur - 58

2490

1955

1951/3619

1938

1950

1949

1948

1942

1932

1931

1929

1928

1927

1926

1904

1907

1272

1271

1270

1269

1268

1267

1264

1262

1282

1283

1287

1285

1286

1292

1435

1434

1325

1324

1323

1322

1326

1327

1328

1319

1318

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

393

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Kunarpur - 58

1330

1331

1317

1315

1332

1334

1336

776

3419

710

711

712

3277

714

713

765

764

3470

3472

763

627

741

740

736

737

504

503

502

3368

501

500

499

498

490

491

488

487

486

493

422

3348

394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Sutahata - II

Kunarpur - 58

423

3349

428

427

426

363

430

345

344

343

342

348

340

339

298

295

296

294

293

292

299

290

257

258

256

254

3782

250

251

253

249

242

244

243

240

238

237

234

232

[F.No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR.-I/E-27779]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

395

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 103

103

103.— केीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक है क क‚े तेल के प6रवहन के

राeय म' बरौनी तक, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

अिधकार का अज4न कया जाए ;

अतः अब, केीय सरकार,पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दf शि/य का योग करते Nए, उस भूिम मे उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज4न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ;

कोई kि/, जो उ/ अनुसूची म' वTणत भूिम म' िहतब} है,उस तारीख से िजसको,भारत के राजपc म' यथा कािशत

इस अिधसूचना क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलoध करा दी जाती है,इस दन के अदर, भूिम के भीतर पाइपलाइन

िबछाये जाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार के अज4न के िलए,Oी भुवनेdर िमOा, से० िन० अपर सिचव िबहार सरकार व सYम

ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड(पाइपलाइंस िडिवजन), , , , हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना, , , ,

बी० के० पी० एल० मुWयालय प6रसर, पो० बरौनी ऑयल 6रफ़ाइनरी, िजला बेगूसराय,िपन– 851114 (िबहार) को िलिखत

bप मे आYेप भेज सकेगा ।

vuqlwPkh

िजला बेगुसराय

रा2य : िबहार

अंचल

मौज़ा का नाम

सवC

सवC/ 4लाट

4लाट

नDबर

.े

.ेफल

फल

हे:टेयर

हे:टेयर एयर

एयर

वग

मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

बरौनी

भभौर - 548

519

520

537

536

535

534

540

555

548

547

549

550

551

560

569

396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

बरौनी

िससवा – 558

568

567

590

609

608

607

606

बरौनी

अलमोचक – 556

बरौनी

केसाबे – 557

1499

1500

1354

1353

1352

मटीहानी

रामदीरी – 418

543

544

545

542

539

537

557

558

561

562

572

574

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

397

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

मटीहानी

रामदीरी – 418

575

576

577

580

582

583

584

585

491

490

487

486

609

586

608

610

611

632

621

622

624

625

627

631

639

640

658

653

652

651

650

[la- vkj&11025¼11½@1@2019&vksvkj&I@bZ&28108]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 103.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under

Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire

the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule

annexed hereto;

398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the

acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Bhubneshwar Mishra, Additional

Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline

Systems Project, Pipeline Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni Oil Refinery, District – Begusarai, Bihar –

851114.

SCHEDULE

District : Begusarai State : Bihar

Anchal

Name of Mouza

Survey / Plot

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Barauni

Bhabhaur – 548

519

520

537

536

535

534

540

555

548

547

549

550

551

560

569

568

567

590

609

608

607

Barauni

Sisva-558

606

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

399

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Barauni

Sisva – 558

Barauni

Almochak – 556

Barauni

Kesabe – 557

1499

1500

1354

1353

1352

Matihani

Ramdiri – 418

543

544

545

542

539

537

557

558

561

562

572

574

575

576

577

580

582

583

584

585

491

490

487

486

609

586

608

610

611

400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Matihani

Ramdiri – 418

632

621

622

624

625

627

631

639

640

658

653

652

651

650

[No. R-11025(11)/1/2019-OR-I/E-28108]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

शुिI

शुिI – प

प

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का

का. . . . आ. 104.

104.

104.—पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दत शि/य का योग करते Nए, क' सरकार पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक

गैस मंcालय म' भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना के का. आ. संWया 2861 दनांक 18.12.2017, भारत के साUािहक राजपc

संWया 51, दनांक 17.12.2017 से 23.12.2017 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) म' 9774 पृŠ पर कािशत, म'

िन1िलिखत संशोधन करता है अथा4त्: —

उ/ अिधसूचना म',

"केीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक है क हदीया- बरौनी पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना के

अतग4त पेEोिलयम पदाथV के प6रवहन हेतु पिxम बंगाल राeय के हदीया 6रफ़ाइनरी से िबहार राeय के बरौनी 6रफ़ाइनरी

तक इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;"और

"Oी भुवनेdर िमOा, से॰ िन॰ अपर सिचव िबहार सरकार व सYम ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड

(पाइपलाइंस िडिवजन), बी॰ के॰ पी॰ एल॰ मुWयालय प6रसर, पो॰बरौनी आयल 6रफ़ाइनरी, िजला बेगूसराय, िपन– 851114

(िबहार)"

संWयाj और शoद के (थान पर,

"केीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक है क क‚े तेल के प6रवहन के िलए एक पाइपलाइन,

हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना के तहत, पिxम बंगाल राeय म' हिदया से िबहार राeय म' बरौनी तक,

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए"और

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

401

(पाइपलाइंस िडिवजन),हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना, बी॰ के॰ पी॰ एल॰ मुWयालय प6रसर, पो॰ बरौनी

आयल 6रफ़ाइनरी, िजला बेगूसराय,िपन– 851114 (िबहार)"

पढ़ा जाए।

[la- vkj&11025¼11½@1@2019&vksvkj&I@bZ&28108]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

ERRATUM

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 104.—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 makes the

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

S. O. number 2861 dated 18.12.2017, published at pages 9807 in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette

of India No.51, dated 17.12.2017 to 23.12.2017, namely:-

In the said notification, for the numbers and words,

“Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of

Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the state of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline

should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited” and

“Shri Bhubneshwar Mishra, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, Pipeline Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni Oil Refinery, District – Begusarai, Bihar – 851114)”

the numbers and words,

“Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of

crude oil,a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni

Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited” and

“Shri Bhuwneshwar Mishra, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, Pipelines Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni

Oil Refinery, District – Begusarai, Bihar – 851114)”

shall be substituted.

[No. R-11025(11)/1/2019-OR-I/E-28108]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

शुिI

शुिI – प

प

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का

का. . . . आ. 105.

105.

105.—पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दत शि/य का योग करते Nए, क' सरकार पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक

गैस मंcालय म' भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना के का. आ. संWया 2860 दनांक 18.12.2017, भारत के साUािहक राजपc

संWया 51, दनांक 17.12.2017 से 23.12.2017 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) म' 9675 पृŠ पर कािशत, म'

िन1िलिखत संशोधन करता है अथा4त्: -

उ/ अिधसूचना म',

"केीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक है क हदीया- बरौनी पाइपलाइन पा6रयोजना के

तक इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;"और

(पाइपलाइंस िडिवजन), बी॰ के॰ पी॰ एल॰ मुWयालय प6रसर, पो॰ बरौनी आयल 6रफ़ाइनरी, िजला बेगूसराय, िपन– 851114

(िबहार)"

संWयाj और शoद के (थान पर,

402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए"और

आयल 6रफ़ाइनरी, िजला बेगूसराय,िपन– 851114 (िबहार)"

पढ़ा जाए।

[la- vkj&11025¼11½@1@2019&vksvkj&I@bZ&28108]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

ERRATUM

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 105.—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 makes the

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

S. O. number 2860 dated 18.12.2017, published at pages 9724 in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette

of India No.51, dated 17.12.2017 to 23.12.2017, namely:-

In the said notification, for the numbers and words,

“Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of

Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the state of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline

should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited” and

“Shri Bhubneshwar Mishra, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, Pipeline Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni Oil Refinery, District – Begusarai, Bihar – 851114)”

the numbers and words,

“Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of

crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni

Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited” and

“Shri Bhubneshwar Mishra, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, Pipelines Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni Oil Refinery,

District – Begusarai, Bihar – 851114)”

shall be substituted.

[No. R-11025(11)/1/2019-OR-I/E-28108]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

शुिI

शुिI – प

प

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का

का. . . . आ. 106

106

106.—पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दत शि/य का योग करते Nए, क' सरकार पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक

गैस मंcालय म' भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना के का. आ. संWया 56 दनांक 11.01.2018, , , , भारत के साUािहक राजपc संWया

02, दनांक 17.01.2018 से 13.01.2018 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) म' 137-138 पृŠ पर कािशत, म' िन1िलिखत

संशोधन करता है अथा4त्: -

उ/ अिधसूचना म',

तक इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;" और

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

403

(िबहार)"

संWयाj और शoद के (थान पर,

"केीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक क क‚े तेल के प6रवहन के िलए एक पाइपलाइन,

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए"और

आयल 6रफ़ाइनरी, िजला बेगूसराय,िपन– 851114 (िबहार)"

पढ़ा जाए।

[la- vkj&11025¼11½@1@2019&vksvkj&I@bZ&28108]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

ERRATUM

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 106.—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 makes the

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

S. O. number 56 dated 11.01.2018, published at pages 149 in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette of

India No.02, dated 07.01.2018 to 13.01.2018, namely:—

In the said notification, for the numbers and words,

“Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of

Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the state of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline

should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited” and

“Shri Bhubneshwar Mishra, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, Pipelines Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni Oil Refinery, District – Begusarai, Bihar – 851114)”

the numbers and words,

“Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of

crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni

Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited” and

“Shri Bhubneshwar Mishra, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, Pipeline Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni Oil Refinery,

District – Begusarai, Bihar – 851114)”

shall be substituted.

[No. R-11025(11)1/2019-OR-I/E-28108]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का

का. आ. 107

107

107.—केीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक है क क‡ चे तेल के प6रवहन

के िलए एक पाइपलाइन, हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना के तहत, , , , पिxम बंगाल राeय म' हिदया से िबहार

राeय म' बरौनी तक, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवsयक तीत होता है क उस भूिम म' िजसके

भीतर उ/ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का (ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची मे वTणत है, उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज4न कया जाए ;

अतः अब, केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दत शि/य का योग करते Nए, उस भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज4न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ;

िबछाये जाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार के अज4न के िलए, Oी िबdनाथ समाजदार, , , , सYम ािधकारी, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन

िलिमटेड, , , , हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(टम प6रयोजना, डाकघर – दुईया, आदुल – मौरी, मौरीCाम, हावड़ा -711302

(पिxम बंगाल) को िलिखत bप मे आYेप भेज सकेगा ।

vuqlwPkh

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

औसCाम - I

गुसकरा - 110

585

588

586

579

583

582

581

औसCाम - I

अलु6टया - 102

3403

3404

3388

3380

3381

3379

3382

3386

3385

िजला :

बIमान

रा2य : पिHम बंगाल

थाना

मौज़ा का नाम

सवC

सवC नDबर

नDबर

.े

.ेफल

फल

हे:टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

405

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

औसCाम - I

अलु6टया - 102

3383

3369

3223

3363

3362

3322

3324

3310

3309

3308

3303

3304

3079

3078

3077

3071

3069

3070

3062

3063

3064

3060

3065

3059

2827

2828

3057

2829

2838

2837

3439

2836

2857

3560

2864

2744

2746

2733

2734

406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

औसCाम - I

अलु6टया - 102

2735

3555

3554

2730

628

627

624

622/3512

286

393

392

3501

750

407

405

409

411

410

3502

413

415

329

734

233

736

235

234

723

722

186

193

195

185

181

180

151

179

150

103

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

407

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

औसCाम - I

अलु6टया - 102

104

713

औसCाम - I

बेलु6ट - 75

1637

1636

1635

1623

1628

1629

1630

1581

1575

1574

1573

1567

1565

1561

1560

1566

1559

1508

1515

1514

1510

1513

1477

1478

1479

1480

1481

1482

1483

1484

1470

1486

1469

408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

औसCाम - I

बेलु6ट - 75

1468

1467

1448

1457

1456

1449

1450

1442

1445

1443

1444

746

747

745

748

750

323

750/768

733

734

732

753

567

564

565

562

545

560

544

795

542

324

188

322

321

320

154

157

153

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

409

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

औसCाम - I

बेलु6ट - 75

152

151

149

150

146

161

140

139

137

136

135

134

119

120

122

121

[la- vkj&11025¼11½@22@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&27779]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 107.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of crude oil,a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under

Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the

Schedule annexed hereto;

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;

410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on

which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in

writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Biswanath Samajder,

Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, P.O. Duilya, Andul -

Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah - 711 302 (West Bengal).

‘‘SCHEDULE ANNEXED’’

SCHEDULE

District : Burdwan State : West Bengal

Police Station

Name of Mouza

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Ausgram - I

Guskara - 110

585

588

586

579

583

582

581

Ausgram - I

Alutia - 102

3403

3404

3388

3380

3381

3379

3382

3386

3385

3383

3369

3223

3363

3362

3322

3324

3310

3309

3308

3303

3304

3079

3078

3077

3071

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

411

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Ausgram - I

Alutia - 102

3069

3070

3062

3063

3064

3060

3065

3059

2827

2828

3057

2829

2838

2837

3439

2836

2857

3560

2864

2744

2746

2733

2734

2735

3555

3554

2730

628

627

624

622/3512

286

393

392

3501

750

407

405

409

411

410

412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Ausgram - I

Alutia - 102

3502

413

415

329

734

233

736

235

234

723

722

186

193

195

185

181

180

151

179

150

103

104

713

Ausgram - I

Beluti - 75

1637

1636

1635

1623

1628

1629

1630

1581

1575

1574

1573

1567

1565

1561

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

413

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Ausgram - I

Beluti - 75

1560

1566

1559

1508

1515

1514

1510

1513

1477

1478

1479

1480

1481

1482

1483

1484

1470

1486

1469

1468

1467

1448

1457

1456

1449

1450

1442

1445

1443

1444

746

747

745

748

750

323

750/768

733

734

732

753

414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Ausgram - I

Beluti - 75

567

564

565

562

545

560

544

795

542

324

188

322

321

320

154

157

153

152

151

149

150

146

161

140

139

137

136

135

134

119

120

122

121

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

415

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Ausgram - I

Beluti - 75

[No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 108

108

108.— केीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है क लोक िहत म' यह आवsयक क क‚े तेल के प6रवहन के

राeय म' बरौनी तक, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

िजसके भीतर उ/ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का (ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से संलy अनुसूची म' वTणत है, उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज4न कया जाए ;

1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दत शि/य का योग करते Nए, उस भूिम म' उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज4न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ;

कोई kि/, जो उ/ अनुसूची म' वTणत भूिम म' िहतब} है, उस तारीख से िजसको, भारत के राजपc म' यथा

कािशत इस अिधसूचना क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलoध करा दी जाती हG, इस दन के अदर, भूिम के भीतर

पाइपलाइन िबछाये जाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार के अज4न के िलए, Oी अजय †सह बड़ाईक (झा॰ ॰ से॰), , , , सYम ािधकारी, , , ,

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड, , , , हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(टम ोजे?ट, , , , देवघर पैलेस, , , , तीसरा तल, , , , वी॰आई॰पी

चौक, , , , देवघर -814112 (झारखंड) ) ) ) ।

vuqlwPkh

िजला :

जमताडा

रा2य : झारखंड

तहसील

गाँव

सवC

सवC नDबर

नDबर

Yेcफल

फल

हे:टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

1627

1626

1625

1612

1558

1557

1560

1559

1515

1575

416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

1576

1573

1574

1564

1567

1568

1566

1234

1233

1235

1232

1237

1238

1282

1283

1280

1286

1279

1287

1335

1288

1289

1291

1290

1302

1300

1301

1307

1306

1305

1324

1325

1329

1326

1368

1369

1370

1367

1378

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

417

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

1379

1380

1384

1383

1385

1052

1053

1049

1048

1047

1042

1045

930

931

932

933

920

919

914

810

फतेहपुर

सेमुलडुबी - 12

622

618

617

616

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

615

628

629

645

644

646

647

648

649

602

601

596

595

597

594

418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

593

592

591

565

590

589

566

567

568

419

417

418

423

424

425

427

406

399

331

334

333

326

327

146

273

272

248

247

246

245

244

243

242

241

240

254

239

236

238

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

419

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

217

151

216

152

215

154

155

फतेहपुर

खमारचक - 45

137

136

134

143

235

147

148

149

150

151

152

155

161

157

156

108

109

110

111

117

114

113

112

420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

खमारचक - 45

फतेहपुर

चड़कमारा - 46

फतेहपुर

मझलािड - 44

332

331

329

330

312

291

292

293

303

301

266

267

268

757

265

फतेहपुर

लाकड़ाकुदा - 43

269

283

256

258

259

245

244

243

242

241

225

195

116

113

114

115

118

117

119

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

421

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

लाकड़ाकुदा - 43

122

120

112

फतेहपुर

जलाँइ - 19

1143

611

607

608

609

603

599

600

फतेहपुर

बाबुडी - 25

344

346

345

343

341

339

340

336

338

304

267

301

299

289

422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

बाबुडी - 25

288/755

291

115/756

फतेहपुर

दुमदुमी- 22

364

365

362

360

338

333

322

330

154

फतेहपुर

कमा4टाँड - 20

117

109

108

106

फतेहपुर

डुम6रया - 21

1560

1561

1559

1558

1552

1554

1553

1513

1507

1508

1511

1510

1476

1482

1481

1480

1479

1469

1477

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

423

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

डुम6रया - 21

1478

1471

1473

1472

1394

1399

1397

1415

469

470

472

473

474

656

658

657

659

1582

649

722

723

724

729

1578

730

733

732

736

734

735

772

609

773

774

788

787

786

784

785

424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

डुम6रया - 21

817

816

818

836

835

फतेहपुर

अ बावाँक - 13

1438

1240

1245

1244

1243

1300

1113

1112

1111

1124

1126

1127

1128

1130

1148

1185

1184

1183

1175

1177

1173

1172

1171

1170

1169

फतेहपुर

डाँड़पुजा - 15

657

612

611

592

610

593

594

595

596

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

425

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

डाँड़पुजा - 15

597

591

590

588

587

586

598

599

576

541

575

574

542

543

फतेहपुर

परासी - 14

338

339

337

336

335

247

246

240

244

245

230

617

229

228

227

185

212

186

211

188

190

189

296

426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

फतेहपुर

परासी - 14

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@21@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&27764]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 108.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under

Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to

acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the

Schedule annexed hereto;

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 copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in

writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ajay Singh Baraik,

JAS, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, Deoghar

Palace,3^rdFloor ,VIP Chowk,Deoghar-814112 (Jharkhand).

SCHEDULE

District : JAMTARA State : JHARKHAND

Tehsil

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

UDALJURI - 4

1627

1626

1625

1612

1558

1557

1560

1559

1515

1575

1576

1573

1574

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

427

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

UDALJURI - 4

1564

1567

1568

1566

1234

1233

1235

1232

1237

1238

1282

1283

1280

1286

1279

1287

1335

1288

1289

1291

1290

1302

1300

1301

1307

1306

1305

1324

1325

1329

1326

1368

1369

1370

1367

1378

1379

1380

1384

1383

1385

428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

UDALJURI - 4

1052

1053

1049

1048

1047

1042

1045

930

931

932

933

920

919

914

810

FATEHPUR

SEMLDUBI - 12

622

618

617

616

615

628

629

645

644

646

647

648

649

602

601

596

595

597

594

593

592

591

565

590

589

566

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

429

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

SEMLDUBI - 12

567

568

419

417

418

422

423

424

425

427

406

399

331

334

333

326

327

146

273

272

248

247

246

245

244

243

242

241

240

254

239

236

238

217

151

216

152

215

154

155

430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

SEMLDUBI - 12

FATEHPUR

KHAMARCHAK - 45

137

136

134

143

235

147

148

149

150

151

152

155

161

157

156

108

109

110

111

117

114

113

112

FATEHPUR

CHARAKMARA - 46

FATEHPUR

MAJHILA DI - 44

332

331

329

330

312

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

431

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

MAJHILA DI - 44

291

292

293

303

301

266

267

268

757

265

FATEHPUR

LAKRAKUNDA - 43

269

283

256

258

259

245

244

243

242

241

225

195

116

113

114

115

118

117

119

122

120

112

432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

LAKRAKUNDA - 43

FATEHPUR

JALAIN - 19

1143

611

607

608

609

603

599

600

FATEHPUR

BABUDI - 25

344

346

345

343

341

339

340

336

338

304

267

301

299

289

288/755

291

115/756

FATEHPUR

DUMDUMI - 22

364

365

362

360

338

333

322

330

154

FATEHPUR

KARMATANR - 20

117

109

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

433

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

KARMATANR - 20

108

106

FATEHPUR

DUMARIA - 21

1560

1561

1559

1558

1552

1554

1553

1513

1507

1508

1511

1510

1476

1482

1481

1480

1479

1469

1477

1478

1471

1473

1472

1394

1399

1397

1415

469

470

472

473

474

656

658

657

434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

DUMARIA - 21

659

1582

649

722

723

724

729

1578

730

733

732

736

734

735

772

609

773

774

788

787

786

784

785

817

816

818

836

835

FATEHPUR

AMBABANK - 13

1438

1240

1245

1244

1243

1300

1113

1112

1111

1124

1126

1127

1128

1130

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

435

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

AMBABANK - 13

1148

1185

1184

1183

1175

1177

1173

1172

1171

1170

1169

FATEHPUR

DANRPUJA - 15

657

612

611

592

610

593

594

595

596

597

591

590

588

587

586

598

599

576

541

575

574

542

543

FATEHPUR

PARASI - 14

338

339

337

336

436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

PARASI - 14

335

247

246

240

244

245

230

617

229

228

227

185

212

186

211

188

190

189

296

[F. No. R-11025(11)/21/2018-OR-I/E-27764]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 109

109

109.— केीय सरकार को लोकिहत म' यह आवsयक तीत होता है क पंजाब राeय म' गाँव : झुिगयाँ,

िजला शहीद भगत †सह नगर से िहमाचल देश के गाँव : पेखुबेला, िजला उना तक पैEोिलयम उ,पाद के प6रवहन के िलए

इंिडयन ऑइल कापVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पीएजेपीएल-उना Žांच पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

437

और केीय सरकार को यह तीत होता है क ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए ऐसी भूमी िजसके भीतर

पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का (ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से उपाब} अनुसूची म' वTणत है, के उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज4न करना आवsयक है।

अत: अब, केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूमी म' उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम,

१९६२ (१९६२ का ५०) क धारा ३ क उपधारा (1) Mारा दf शि/य का योग करते Nए उस भूमी म' उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज4न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है |

कोई kि/ ,जो उ/ अनुसूची म' वTणत भूमी से िहतब} है ,उ/ अिधिनयम ,क धारा ३ क उपधारा

)

(

के अधीन

जारी क गयी अिधसूचना से यु/ भारत के राजपc के ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलoध करा दए जाने क तारीख से

इस दन के भीतर ,उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न या भूमी के िनचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के संबंध म' आYेप ,

िलिखत bप म' Oी देवराज शमा4 ,सYम ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन भाग) पीएजेपीएल-

उना Žांच पाइपलाइन, ३४६ कमला कुंज, डी. सी. कालोनी, उना (िहमाचल देश) -१७४३०३ को कर सकेगा ।

vuqlwPkh

िजला

िजला : उना

उना

रा2य

रा2य : : : :िहमाचल देश

िहमाचल देश

3ं3ं3ं3ं

. . . .

संसंसंसं

तहसील

तहसील का

का

नाम

गाँव का नाम

हदबत नं

खसरा सं

खसरा सं.

.ेफल

हे:टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

हरोली

बाथड़ी

476

1300

998

1279

1001

1002

1037

1031

1032

1034

1035

1036

1038

1039

1040

1044

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@248@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&18228]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 109.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of Petroleum Products from Village : Jhungian, District : Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar of Punjab State to

Village: Pekhubela, District : Una of Himachal Pradesh, PAJPL - Una Branch Pipeline should be laid 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 Mineral

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 21 days from the date on which the copies of

this notification issued under sub-section (1) of the section 3 of said Act, 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 of laying of the pipeline

under the land to Shri. Devraj Sharma, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, PAJPL-Una Branch Pipeline

Project, 346, Kamla Kunj, D.C. Colony, Una (Himachal Pradesh) -174303.

SCHEDULE

District : Una

State: Himachal Pradesh

Sr.

No.

Name of

Tehsil

Name of village

Hadbast No.

Khasara No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Haroli

Bathadi

476

1300

998

1279

1001

1002

1037

1031

1032

1034

1035

1036

1038

1039

1040

1044

[F. No. R-11025(11)/248/2017-OR-I/E-18228]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 110

110

110.— केीय सरकार को लोकिहत म' यह आवsयक तीत होता है क पंजाब राeय म' गाँव : झुिगयाँ,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

439

अज4न करना आवsयक है।

अत :अब ,केीय सरकार ,पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन ) भूमी म' उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न (अिधिनयम ,1962 )

1962 का 50 (क धारा 3 क उपधारा

)

(

Mारा दf शि/य का योग करते Nए उस भूमी म' उपयोग के अिधकार का

अज4न करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है |

कोई kि/ ,जो उ/ अनुसूची म' वTणत भूमी से िहतब} है ,उ/ अिधिनयम ,क धारा 3 क उपधारा

)

(

के अधीन जारी क

गयी अिधसूचना से यु/ भारत के राजपc के ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलoध करा दए जाने क तारीख से इस दन के

भीतर, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न या भूमी के िनचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के संबंध म' आYेप ,िलिखत bप म'

Oीमित रणजीत कौर, सYम ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कारपोरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन भाग) पीएजेपीएल-उना Žांच

पाइपलाइन, 331-बी, सूया4 एं?लेव, जी टी रोड बायपास, जालंधर (पंजाब) -144009 को कर सकेगा ।

vuqlwPkh

रा2य

रा2य : : : : पंजाब

पंजाब

3ं3ं3ं3ं. . . . संसंसंसं.

िजला

तहसील

गाँव का नाम

हदबत

नंनंनंनं.

खसरा सं

खसरा सं. . . .

.ेफल

हे:टेयर

एयर

वग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

एस. बी. एस.

नगर

नवांशहर

राह

223

274 // 16

273 // 19

273 // 20/1

273 // 21

273 // 11/2

एस. बी. एस.

नगर

नवांशहर

सजावलपुर

154

578

579

591

575

एस. बी. एस.

नगर

नवांशहर

लंगरोआ

137

34 // 17/1

एस. बी. एस.

नगर

नवांशहर

सिहबाजपुर

227

2486

2482

2292/553/1

2291/552/3

440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

एस. बी. एस.

नगर

बालाचौर

चांदपुर Bड़क

366

73 // 16/2

एस. बी. एस.

नगर

बालाचौर

सरोया

243

34 // 26

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

िस बली

159

26 // 19/3/1

26 // 19/3/2

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

मैरा

481

30 // 23

30 // 18/2

30 // 18/3

11 // 16

11 // 17

12 // 11

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

डलेवाल

482

39 // 23/2

48 // 9

48 // 3

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

कोकोवाल

476

460

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

कोकोवाल

463-464

462

होिशयारपुर

गढ़शंकर

समुा

160

949

1888/952

1807/951

1886/950

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@1@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&21789]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 110.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of Petroleum Products from Village : Jhungian, District : Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar of Punjab State to

Village: Pekhubela, District : Una of Himachal Pradesh, PAJPL - Una Branch Pipeline should be laid 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 Mineral

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

441

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may within 21 days from the date on which the copies of

this notification issued under sub-section (1) of the section 3 of said Act, 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 of laying of the pipeline

under the land to Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, PAJPL-Una Branch Pipeline

Project, 331-B, Surya Enclave, G T Road bye-pass, Jalandhar (Punjab) -144009.

SCHEDULE

State : Punjab

Sr.

No.

Name of

District

Name of

Tehsil

Name of Village

Hadbast

No.

Area

Khasara

No.

Hectare

Are

Sq. mtr.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

S.B.S. Nagar

Nawanshahr

Rahon

223

274 // 16

273 // 19

273 // 20/1

273 // 21

273 // 11/2

S.B.S. Nagar

Nawanshahr

Sajawalpur

154

578

579

591

575

S.B.S. Nagar

Nawanshahr

Langroya

137

34 // 17/1

S.B.S. Nagar

Nawanshahr

Sahbazpur

227

2486

2482

2292/553/1

2291/552/3

S.B.S. Nagar

Balachour

Chandpur Rurki

366

73 // 16/2

S.B.S. Nagar

Balachour

Saroya

243

34 // 26

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Simbli

159

26 // 19/3/1

26 // 19/3/2

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Maira

481

30 // 23

30 // 18/2

30 // 18/3

11 // 16

442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

11 // 17

12 // 11

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Dallewal

482

39 // 23/2

48 // 9

48 // 3

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Kokowal

476

460

463-464

462

Hoshiarpur

Garhshankar

Samundra

160

949

1888/952

1807/951

1886/950

[F. No. R-11025(11)/1/2018-OR-I/E-21789]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

शुिI

शुिI – प

प

नई द ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 111

111

111.—पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दत शि/य का योग करते Nए, क' सरकार पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक

गैस मंcालय म' भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना के का. आ. संWया 2849 दनांक 18.12.2017, भारत के साUािहक राजपc

संWया 51,दनांक17.12.2017 से 23.12.2017 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) म' 9622 पृŠ पर कािशत, म'

िन1िलिखत संशोधन करता है अथा4त्: —

उ/ अिधसूचना म',

तक इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;" और

(िबहार)"

संWयाj और शoद के (थान पर,

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपVरेशन िलिमटेड Mारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए" और

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

443

आयल 6रफ़ाइनरी, िजला बेगूसराय, िपन– 851114 (िबहार)"

पढ़ा जाए।

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@1@2019&vksvkj&I@bZ&28108]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

ERRATUM

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2019

S. O. 111.—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 makes the

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

S. O. number 2849 dated 18.12.2017, published at pages 9628 in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette

of India No. 51, dated 17.12.2017 to 23.12.2017, namely:—

In the said notification, for the numbers and words,

“Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of

Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the state of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline

should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited” and

“Shri Bhubneshwar Mishra, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, Pipelines Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni Oil Refinery, District – Begusarai, Bihar – 851114)”

the numbers and words,

“Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of

crude oil,a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni

Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited” and

“Shri Bhubneshwar Mishra, Additional Secretary (Retd.), Govt. of Bihar & Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, Pipelines Division, BKPL Head Quarter, Post- Barauni Oil Refinery,

District – Begusarai, Bihar – 851114)”

shall be substituted.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/1/2019-OR-I/E-28108]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

शुिI

शुिI – प

प

नई द ली, 11 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 112

112

112.—पेEोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भुिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) Mारा दान शि/य का योग करते Nए, क'द सरकार पेEोिलयम और ाकृितक

गैस मंcालय म' भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना के का.आ.संWया 1545 दनांक 25/10/2018, भारत के साUािहक राजपc

संWया 42, दनांक 21/10/2018 से 27/10/2018 के भाग II धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) म' 6165 पृŠ पर कािशत, म'

िन1िलिखत संशोधन करता है अथा4त:—

444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

उ/ अिधसूचना म', संWयाj और शद के (थान पर

Oी िवdनाथ समझदार,

डoलु. बी. सी. एस. (शासिनक) अवकाश ाU

सYम अिधकारी

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन िलिमटेड,

पारादीप हिदया दुगा4पुर एल पी जी पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना,

पारादीप हिदया दुगा4पुर एल पी जी पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना का संवध4न

तथा पटना और मुजmफरपुर तक इसका िव(तार प6रयोजना,

हिदया बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना एंव

पारादीप सोमनाथपुर हिदया पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना,

डाकघर - दुईया, आंदुल – मौरी, मौरीCाम,

हावड़ा – 711 302 (पिxम बंगाल)

संWयाj और शद के (थान पर,

Oी िवdनाथ समझदार,

डoलु. बी. सी. एस. (शासिनक) अवकाश ाU

सYम अिधकारी

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन िलिमटेड,

पारादीप हिदया दुगा4पुर एल पी जी पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना,

पारादीप हिदया दुगा4पुर एल पी जी पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना का संवध4न

तथा पटना और मुजmफरपुर तक इसका िव(तार प6रयोजना,

हिदया बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना,

पारादीप सोमनाथपुर हिदया पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना,

दी लीज'ड, दुसरा एवं तीसरा तल,

शहीद खुदराम सरणी, िसटी स'टर,

दुगा4पुर – 713 216

िजला: पिxम बध4मान

पिxम बंगाल

पढ़ा जाए ।

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@239@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&13892]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

445

ERRATUM

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2019

S. O. 112.— 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 makes the

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

S. O. number 1545 dated 25.10.2018, published at pages 6167 in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette

of India No. 42 dated 21.10.2018 to 27.10.2018, namely:—

In the said notification, for the numbers and words,

“Shri Biswanath Samajder,

Competent Authority,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Paradip- Haldia- Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project,

Augmentation of Paradip- Haldia- Durgapur LPG Pipeline

and its extension upto Patna and Muzaffarpur Project,

Haldia- Barauni Pipeline Systems Project and

Paradip-Somnathpur-Haldia Pipeline Project,

P.O. Duilya, Andul- Mouri, Mourigram,

Howrah- 711 302 (W.B)”

the numbers and words,

“Shri Biswanath Samajder,

Competent Authority,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Paradip Haldia Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project,

Augmentation of Paradip Haldia Durgapur LPG Pipeline

& its extension upto Patna & Muzaffarpur Project,

Haldia Barauni Pipeline Systems Project,

Paradip Somnathpur Haldia Pipeline Project,

The Legend, 2^nd & 3^rd Floor,

Sahid Khudiram Sarani, City Centre,

Durgapur – Dist. Pashchim Burdwan (West Bengal)”

shall be substituted.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/239/2017-OR-I/E-13892]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 11 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 113

113

113.— केीय सरकार, पेEोिलयम एवं खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज4न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50), क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण मे, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के (तंभ (1) म' उिलिखत

kि/ को, उ/ अनुसूची के (तंभ (2) म' क त,(थानी िविi म' उिलिखत Yेc के संबंध मे उ/ अिधिनयम के अधीन सYम

ािधकारी के कृ,य का िनव4हन करने के िलए ािधकृत करती है, अथा4त् :—

अनुसूची

ािधकारी का नाम और पता

( 1)

अिधका6रता का Yेc

( 2 )

Oी िसबिया दास गुUा,

उप कले?टर एवम् उप मिज(Eेट (सेवा िनवृत)

सYम अिधकारी

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन िलिमटेड,

पारादीप हिदया दुगा4पुर एल पी जी पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना,

पारादीप हिदया दुगा4पुर एल पी जी पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना का संवध4न तथा

पटना और मुजmफरपुर तक इसका िव(तार प6रयोजना,

हिदया बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस(ट स प6रयोजना,

पारादीप सोमनाथपुर हिदया पाइपलाइन प6रयोजना,

डाकघर - दुईया, आंदुल – मौरी, मौरीCाम,

हावड़ा – 711 302 (पिxम बंगाल)

पिxम बंगाल

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क तारीख से लागू होगी |

[Qk- la- vkj&11025¼11½@239@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&13892]

u¨ol fdUM¨] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2019

S. O. 113.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorises the person mentioned in

column (1) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the “Competent Authority” under the said Act, in

respect of the area mentioned in column (2) of the said Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the Authority

(1)

Area of Jurisdiction

(2)

Shri Sibapriya Das Gupta,

State of West Bengal

Deputy Magistrate & Deputy Collector (Retd.)

Competent Authority

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Paradip Haldia Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project,

Augmentation of Paradip Haldia Durgapur LPG Pipeline

& its extension upto Patna & Muzaffarpur Project,

Haldia Barauni Pipeline Systems Project,

Paradip Somnathpur Haldia Pipeline Project,

P.O. Duliya, Andul – Mouri, Mourigram,

Howrah– 711 302 (West Bengal)

This notification is applicable from the date of issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/239/2017-OR-I/E-13892]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2018@ikS"k 29] 1940

447

म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई द ली, 18 दस बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 114

114

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

मेसस आयु", उ$र दली नगर िनगम नई दली एवं उनके कम चारी के (बंधतं* के संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के

बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय 1, नई दली के पंचाट

(संदभ सं2या 233/2015) को (कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.12.2018 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/124/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18^th December, 2018

S.O. 114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.233/2015) 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

Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 17.12.2018.

[No. L-42011/124/2015-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. 233/2015

Shri Jaswant Singh,

S/o. Shri Hirdey Ram,

As represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union,

C/o. Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House,

New Delhi.

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

4^th Floor, Civil Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi 110002.

…Management

AWARD

This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Govt. vide letter

No. L-42011/124/2015-IR(DU) dated 2.11.2015 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 action of the management by denying promotion to Shri Jaswant Singh s/o. Shri Hirdey Ram by

considering him 8^th Pass is fair and legal ? if not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?

Both parties were put to notice and the workman/claimantJaswant Singhfiled his statement of claim, with the

averments that workman has been working as a Field Worker under the Malaria Wing of MCD though he was appointed

on 24/5/1984 as Malaria Beldar on regular basis which nomenclature has now been changed as Field Worker. The

workman is under matric viz. IX pass. It is alleged that the Management circulated the seniority list of Malaria Beldar

vide office order dated 21/11/2006 seeking objections, in which the name of the workman was mentioned at Sl.No.343

and his qualification has been mentioned as 9^th pass. Same was the position in the subsequent seniority list circulated by

the Management vide order dated 6/9/2010 wherein his name was mentioned at Sl.No.149. Though the workman

according to his qualification was/is eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Field Worker but he was not granted

promotion on the ground that he is illiterate, whereas his juniors have been granted promotion w.e..f 24/10/2011 in the

pay scale of Rs.4440-7440 with Grade Pay of Rs.1650/-. Action of the Management in not granting promotion to the

448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman is not correct. Prayer has been made that workman be ordered to be promoted as Senior Field Worker in the

pay scale of Rs.4440 -7440- w.e.f. 24/10/2011.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary

objections that the present dispute has not been properly espoused by a recognized union.Even no demand notice was

sent by the claimant to the Management before raising the dispute. Hence the claim petition is liable to be rejected. It is

stated that the name of the claimant was considered but he being an illiterate was not found to be eligible for promotion

by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 25/7/2011. The claimant had not even produced

passing certificate of any class or mark sheet and as such his qualification has been recorded as illiterate. It is also stated

that seniority list circulated vide order dated 21/11/2006 was a provisional seniority list of Malaria Beldars (now known

as Field Workers. It has been denied that in the service book of the claimant, his qualification has been mentioned as

9^th pass. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

Workman/claimant filed rejoinder whereby he denied all the allegations made in the written statement and

reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30/9/2016 :—

1. Whether the claim is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections ?

2. In terms of reference ?

3. Relief.

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 & WW1/2. He also got examined Shri B.K. Prasad, President, MCD General Mazdoor Union as

WW2.

6. On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Dr. S.C. Arun, Additional

Medical Health Officer (VBD) working in North MCD, as MW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit

Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.

Issue No.1

Though the Management has taken a preliminary objection regarding non-espousal of the cause/dispute of the

workman by the Union, yet during the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management did not press the same

seriously. Even otherwise, WW2 Shri B.K. Prasad, President of MCD General Mazdoor Union categorically deposed

that the Union espoused the cause of the workman, in its meeting held on 8/1/2012 and he filed on record copy of the

sponsorship certificate so issued by the Union as Ex.WW2/1. In the face of espousal certificate Ex.WW2/1 the

contention of the Management that the present cause/dispute of the claimant has not been espoused by any Union is

unfounded and untenable and it can not be concluded that the claim petition is bad in law. This issue is accordingly

decided against the Management and in favour of the workman/claimant.

Issue No.2 :-

10.

From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is not in dispute that the workman/claimant

has been working with the Management since 24/5/1984 as Belder (which nomenclature is now known as Field Worker).

It is also not in dispute that Promotion post to the post of Beldar/Filed Worker is Malaria Jamadar/Senior Field Worker.

11.

On the strength of document Ex.WW2/2 issued by Health Department of MCD (viz.Recruitment Regulation for

the post of Malaria Jamadar) which was finally adopted by Corporation vide Resolution No.533 dated 10/10/1983 after

approval of UPSC, learned A/R for the workman/claimant vehementally argued that although no qualification was

desirable for promotion to the post of Malaria Jamadar/SFW yet the fact was that the claimant/workman is 9^th pass and

the Management did not consider his qualification as mentioned in the service record. As such action of the Management

in not considering him for promotion to the post of SFW is arbitrary and illegal.

12.

Per contra, learned A/R for the Management submitted that the name of the claimant was considered for such

promotion but he being an illiterate was not found to be eligible for promotion by the Departmental Promotion

Committee in its meeting held on 25/7/2011,

13.

I may mention that as per Annexure-M-1 (attached with the written statement) i.e. minutes of the DPC for

promotion of Malaria Beldar/Field Worker to the post of Permanent Malaria Jamadar/Senior Field Worker, essential

qualification of SFW should be 5^th Pass as per minimum feeder grade. The workman./claimant has categorically deposed

in his claim statement as well as affidavit Ex.WW1/A that he is under-matric (9^th class pass) and in support, he has filed

on record copy of his High School Certificate in respect of Examinations in 1982, as Ex.WW1/1 issued by the Education

Board of Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal. In cross examination he admitted that he does not have any other certificate of

primary or middle class. On the other hand, MW1 Dr.S.C. Arun while filing on record relevant page opf service book of

the claimant as Ex.MW1/2, deposed that the department had issued a letter dated 27-12-2016 (Ex.MW1/3) asking the

workman./claimant to produce his qualification certificate but he failed to do so & filed reply Ex.MW1/4 wherein he has

clarified that he is illiterate.

14.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Management has not confronted the claimant/workman with the

document Ex.MW1/4 during his cross examination. Merely because the claimant/workman failed to produce the original

certificates relating to education, when desired by his department after gap of more than 30 years, it would not mean that

the workman /claimant is illiterate. It may be noted that service book of the claimant./workman, extract of which is

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

449

Ex.MW1/2, clearly shows that his educational qualification has been mentioned as Matric Fail. The service book must

have been prepared at the time of joining of service after due verification of the necessary documents and same is

maintained by the Management. It must be presumed that the official/s concerned of the Management must have verified

the necessary/relevant document in that respect. Once in the service book, educational qualification of the

workman/claimant has been mentioned as Matric Fail, it can be safely concluded that the claimant./workman do possess

educational qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Field Worker, inasmuch as per Annexure-M-1 (attached

with the written statement) i.e. minutes of the DPC for promotion of Malaria Beldar/Field Worker to the post of

Permanent Malaria Jamadar/Senior Field Worker, essential qualification of SFW should be 5^th Pass. In these

circumstances, it will be in the fitness of things to conclude that action of the Management by denying promotion to the

workman/claimant for the post of Senior Field Worker is unfair and illegal. This issue is answered accordingly.

Relief :-

15.

In view of the findings on issue No.1 and 2 above, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the action of the

Management in denying promotion to the workman/claimant to the post of Senior Field Worker is unwarranted and the

Management is hereby directed to promote the claimant/workman to the post of Senior Field Worker in the pay-scale of

Rs.4440-7440 + GP 1400 (pre-revised) from the very date, the officials junior to him were promoted for such post and

also to grant him all such consequential benefits/arrears from the said date. Award is passed accordingly.

Dated : 06.12.2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 18 दस बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 115

115

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

अ9 य: सह (बंधन िनदेशक, कंटेनर कॉपोरेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड नई द ली (कॉ सोर), और अ य एवं उनके कम चारी के

(बंधतं* के संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक

अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय, 1 नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 138/2016) को (कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार

को 17.12.2018 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 18^th December, 2018

S.O. 115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 138/2016) 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

Chairman Cum Management Director, Container Corporation of India (Concor) Ltd New Delhi and Others, and their

workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.12.2018.

[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. 138/2016

Shri Sanjeev Kumar

Senior Assistant (C & O)/Concor,

R/o. D-934 Tigri Colony

New Delhi 110062.

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman cum Management Director,

Container Corporation of India (Concor) Ltd.,

ConcorBhawan,

C-3 Mathura Road,

New Delhi 110076.

…Management

450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This is a claim filed directly by the Workman/claimant Sanjeev Kumar under Section 2(A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with the averments that the claimant/workman was employed as

Senior Assistant (Commercial & Operation) and was posted at Inland Container Deport, Tughlakabad, Okhla, New

Delhi, Northern region office of the Management. Service record of the workman was excellent as he was doing his duty

even in adverse circumstances with utmost sincerity, honesty and full dedication and the management has acknowledged

the same by giving the citations dated 15/2/1999 and 16/6/1999 with cash award for outstanding performance of the

workman. On 13/1/99 the workman was deemed suspended for the period from 18/8/1998 to 5/9/98 and was also placed

under suspension indefinitely w.e.f. 18/2/99 in view of contemplating the disciplinary proceedings. A chargesheet was

issued to the workman vide memorandum dated 25/2/1999 and charges were framed against him in terms of Rule 14(3)

of Scheduled of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 regarding unauthorized absence from

duty inasmuch as he remained in police custody on 18^th and 19^th August, 98 and in judicial custody from 28/8/98 to

5/9/98 and was released on bail on 5/9/98. It has been averred that the Enquiry Officer Shri Manish Puri without

following principle of natural justice conducted & completed the domestic inquiry and submitted his report dated

30/5/2000. Resultantly, the Management mechanically imposed punishment of “Removal from Service” upon the

workman vide order dated 12/7/2000, without appreciating the materials on record and without considering the

representation/submissions made by the workman against the Inquiry Report. The workman preferred an administrative

appeal against the punishment order before the Departmental Appellate Authority which accepted the submissions of the

workman and passed an order dated 13/9/2000, thereby the punishment of “Removal from Service” was kept in

abeyance and directions were issued for de-novo inquiry after obtaining the authenticated certified/attested copies of

FIR, arrest memo etc. But again the same Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23/3/2001 with the same conclusion

and same result, against which the workman also filed his representation/submissions before Departmental Appellate

Authority, which set aside order (of removal from Service) dated 12/7/2000and issued directions for de-novo inquiry

against charges. Vide order dated 10/12/2001 Shri PS Nerwal was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the old

charges listed in the memorandum dated 25/2/1999. It is averred that the order dated 10/12/2001 gave another lease of

life to the dead chargesheet/ memorandum dated 25/2/99 and issued re-notified chargesheet which was also based

without any material to support and without giving workman the opportunity to make submissions. The said inquiry was

held at the corporate officeof the Management situated in Le Meridian CommercialTower, Raisina Road, New Delhi

vide memorandum dated 31/12/2001. It has further been averred that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in

complete violation of principle of natural justice and in a biased manner and consequently, the workman vide his

memorandum dated 14/3/2002 and 25/3/2002 informed the Disciplinary Authority about the behavior and biased attitude

of the Enquiry Officer with the request to take action. The workman received memo dated 2/4/2002 from the Inquiry

Officer, intimating him the postponement of the inquiry fixed for 5/4/2002 till further advice. Thereafter the workman

received an order dated 30/4/2002 of the disciplinary Authority, informing the workman that Shri P.S. Nerwal was re-

appointed as Enquiry Officer but his representation dated 14/3/2002 and 25/3/2002 were rejected vide order dated

16/4/2002. During pendency of the inquiry proceedings, suspension of the workman was revoked by the Appellate

Authority vide its order dated 13./6/2002 but vide order dated 29/6/2002 the workman was transferred & posted at

Jodhpur unit with malafide intention for harassing and victimizing the workman . Being aggrieved from the transfer

order dated 29/6/2002, the workman filed Writ Petition Civil No.3990/2002 before the Hon’ble High Court and vide

order dated 8/7/2002 Hon’ble High Court directed the Management to find out alternative place of posting of the

workman within the radius of 100 km. and fixed the matter for 17/7/2002. The workman gave his acceptance to be

posted at Ludhiana unit. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry on 27/5/2002 and 17/7/2002 at the back of the

workman without intimating him the dates and in a biased manner and did not offer a single opportunity to the workman

to cross examine the witness Shri Jaivir Singh Gill and finally the Enquiry Officer gave his report on 20/11/2002, against

which the workman submitted his representation dated 26/5/2003. Thereafter, on the basis of order dated 26/3/2004 of

Disciplinary Authority, the Management while imposing punishment of removal from service of the workman, filed

application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before Industrial Tribunal for approval of its action. The said application

was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 2/3/2006. Thereafter, the workman moved the Hon’ble High Court vide

Writ Petition (Civil) No.5316/2006 for enforcement of his rights to be taken back in service with consequential benefits.

The said Writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 2-11-2006 with the observation that the

workman has an efficacious remedy provided under the Act. Thereafter the workman filed an application under Section

33-A of the Act before the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal-ll, Delhi which was registered as ID No.11/2008/ The

Tribunal was pleased to pass an Award dated 27/7/2001 thereby directed for reinstatement of the workman in service

with back wages & consequential benefits. Against the said Award, the Management filed Writ Petition (C) No.

7387/2001 before Hon’ble High Court and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 10/10/2011 passed by

Hon’ble High Court. Against that order, the Management preferred LPA NO. 943/2011 and the Division Bench of

Hon'ble High Court passed order dated 21/8/2012, thereby allowing the LPA of the Management & setting aside the

order dated 10-10-2011 passed by the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7387/2001 as well as award dated 27/7/2011 passed

in ID No. 11/2008 and directed the workman herein to raise the dispute in respect of his termination Thereafter the

workman approached the Conciliation Officer who made efforts for reconciliation between the workman and

management but to no success and ultimately, the Conciliation Officer issued certificate dated 25/4/2016, directing the

workman to approach the Tribunal. In this background, the present claim petition has been filed by the Workman

alleging that action of the Management is illegal; the workman has not been gainfully employed since the management

did not allow him to join duties since 26/3/2004 and as such the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of

service and full back wages. Prayer has been made and action of the Management imposing punishment of removal from

service vide order dated 26/3/2004 to be not justified and/or alternatively, inquiry held by the Enquiry Officer Shri PS

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

451

Nerwal be declared as wrong, malafide and perverse and further that, the Management be directed to reinstate the

workman with continuity of service alongwith full back wages and consequential benefits.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed reply thereo& took preliminary objections

that in fact, the claimant/workman was removed from service vide order dated 26/3/2004 and the appeal filed by the

workman was dismissed by the Ld. Appellate Authority vide order dated 29/6/2004 but no prayer challenging the order

dated 26/3/2004 and/or order dated 29/6/2004 has been made in the claim petition and as such, the claim petition is not

covered under Section 2-A of the Act. The claim petition is barred by time and hence liable to be rejected on this score It

is alleged in para (f) of the preliminary objections that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim

petition inasmuch as when the order of removal dated 26/3/2004 was passed, the claimant was admittedly posted and

working at Ludhiana (Punjab). The claimant/workman was arrested on 18/8/98 and remained in custody from 18/8/98 to

5/9/98 i.e for more than 48 hours and as such he was required to be under deemed suspension in view of provisions of

clause No.36.2 of Standing Orders. The claimant had not informed the office about his arrest and custody etc., rather

with a view to conceal his arrest, he had applied for leave only on the ground of “personal”. It has been alleged that

proper charge sheet was issued to the claimant and proper enquiry has been held. Disciplinary Authority had passed the

order of punishment of removal from service, upon the workman after giving him due opportunity to make his

submissions. It is also alleged that the claimant has pursued his further studies and completed graduation in law and he is

practicing in law. Prayer has been made for rejection of the claim petition.

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

Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties, framed three issues on 8/11/2016,

whereas additionallssue No. 2-A was framed vide order dated 9/3/2017. The issues so framed by this Tribunal read as

under

Whether the Domestic Inquiry held against the workman is not fair and perverse as same is also

against regulation and principle of natural justice ?

Whether the management was not justified in not allowing the workman to join his duty ?

2-A)

Whether the claim is not legally maintainable, the Court has no

jurisdiction and the claim filed by the claimant is time barred as alleged ?

Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and consequential

benefits ?

It is notable that issue No. 1 was treated as Preliminary issue and partieswere called upon to produce evidence

on these issues first The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit

Ex.WW1/Aalongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/59. On the other hand, the Management in support of its case

examined Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Senior Manager, as MW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit

Ex.MW1/Aalongwith documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/8. This witness has also tendered in evidence Enquiry

proceedings as well as other documents relating thereto.

I would be discussing the same while giving my findings on aforesaid issue No.1.

Issue No.1

It was strongly urged by the workman/claimant that he was wrongly charge-sheeted under the Standing Orders,

1997 (Ex.WW1/6), whereas Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1993 (Ex.WW1/5) would be applicable to him being the

workman/employee working in the Yard and that he was not governed by the Standing Orders 1997 Ex.WW1/6). The

claimant was admittedly employed in the Yard at Tughlagabad and not in the workshop. Attention of this Tribunal was

also invited to the counter affidavit (Ex.VWV1/7) filed by the Management as respondent No.2 before Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi in W.P(Civil) No. 142/97 titled as Container Corporation of India Employees Union Versus UOI &

another, wherein there is reference to the fact that Disciplinary and Appeal Rules are applicable on those employees who

are not working in the workshop. Therefore, entire action since issuance of chargesheet (Ex.WW1/9) till passing of the

order of removal from service are not valid.

It was also urged by the workman/claimant that documents on which reliance was placed by the Management

during the course of domestic enquiry were not supplied to him alongwith the chargesheet. Even witnesses were later on

introduced in the said enquiry, though their names were not mentioned in the list when chargesheet was served upon

him. Attention of this Tribunal was invited to the proceeding of domestic enquiry dated 27/5/2002 (Ex.\A/W1/30) to

show that one Shri Jaivir Singh Gill, MHER of P S. Parliament Street, New Delhi whose name does not find mentioned

in the List of witnesses relied upon by the Management, was examined by the Enquiry Officer at the back of the

workman who being unwell, could not attend the inquiry proceedings on that day and in fact, no opportunity was

granted to the workman to cross examine the witness..

It has been submitted that no opportunity for leading evidence in defence was afforded to the workman, as

provided in para 42.13 of the Standing Orders (Ex.WW1/6). In nut shell, thrust of arguments advanced by the workman

is that principle of natural justice was not adopted by the Enquiry Officer and that fair opportunity was not granted

during the enquiry proceedings . The workmanplaced reliance on a number of authorities so as to buttress his submission

that fair opportunity is required to be granted to the chargesheeted employee besides supplying him copies of all

documents and list of witnesses along with chargesheet.

452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I may mention that during the course of arguments, reference was made by both the parties to the earlier

litigation between the parties. Perusal of the record shows that against the order dated 26/3/2004 regarding termination

of services of the workman, LPA was preferred before Hon’ble High Court which was decided against the workman on

21/8/2012 and against that order, the workman filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court ; which was decided on

29/4/2013.

10.

On the other hand, A/R for the Management strongly urged that the Management adhered to the principle of

natural justice and that all relied upon documents were supplied to the workman during the course of domestic enquiry

proceedings and hence no prejudice has been caused to the workman. It has been submitted that the witness Jaiveer

Singh was just a formal witness who was examined to prove entry in the Roznamcha and First Information Report

regarding the case registered against the workman at the Police Station. Ld.A/R for the Management invited attention of

this Tribunal to the proceedings dated 2/9/2002 before the Enquiry Officer to show that the workman himself did not

lead any evidence despite the fact that he was asked to submit his defence evidence on 24/6/2002. 9/7/2002. 17/7/2002.

31/7/2002. 12/8/2002 and26/8/2002 and hence, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry vide order dated 2/9/2002.

11.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the

record carefully.

12.

Before I proceed to scan and analyse the enquiry report conducted against the workman/claimant herein, it is

worthwhile to mention that when a departmental/domestic enquiry is conducted against an official, it can not betreated

as a casual exercise and that the Inquiry Officer has to be whollyunbiased and should act as an Independent Adjudicator.

Hon'ble Apex Courtin the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported as(2010) 2 SCC 772 had

heldas under

“An inquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator He is

not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to

examine the evidence presented by the Department, eve in the absence of the delinquent official to see as

to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved ….

When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the Govt, servant, it can not be treated as a

casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also can not be conducted with a closed mind. The Inquiry

Officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not

only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure

that a Govt, servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment

including dismissal/removal from service.”

13.

Original Report of Enquiry against the workman alongwith the proceedings has been filed on record as

Ex.MW1/3 (colly ). Perusal of its running page 52 viz. proceeding of enquiry conducted on 22/1/2002 against the

workman, would show that when the workman informed the Enquiry Officer that he had no received copy of the

chargesheet and enclosures thereof, the Presenting Officer was directed to provide the workman with the copy of the

chargesheet and all relied upon documents and only then and there, the same were supplied to the workman. Record of

domestic enquiry shows that two witnesses namely S.K. Tyagi, Terminal Manager, TKD (PW1) and Shri Sanjeev

Kumar Jain, Partner of M/s Arihant Industries, Okhla (PW 2) were examined before the Inquiry Officer on 9/5/2002 and

16/5/2002 respectively but the workman/charged official had refused to cross examine the witnesses, though he was

afforded opportunity to do so. The conscience of this Tribunal was shaken to see the manner in which these witnesses

were examined, inasmuch as all the questions to those witnesses were put by the Inquiry Officer (1.0.)himself and not by

the Presenting Officer Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj who was very well present and was supposed to put questions to the

witnesses to substantiate the charges framed against the charged official/workman here.

14.

It is, thus, apparent from the face of record of enquiry proceedings that the Inquiry Officer did not act as an

independent and impartial officer to find out the truth, rather he acted as a representative of the Management.

15.

In the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case and the legal position as explained above, the domestic

enquiry conducted against the workman can not be said to be in conformity with the principle of natural justice, fair play

and fair hearing. As such the enquiry got conducted by the Management against the workman is held to be illegal and

improper. This issue is decided accordingly.

Issue No. 2-A

16.

Ld. A/R for the Management strenuously contended that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain

the claim petition because when the order of removal dated 26/3/2004 was passed, the claimant was admittedly posted

and working at Ludhiana (Punjab). On the other hand, the claimant who argued the matter personally, submitted that this

Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try the claim petition because all important events like issuance of charge- sheet,

conducting the domestic enquiry ad passing the punishment order all are happened at Delhi.

17.

I have carefully gone through the record and I am of the considered opinion that there is no force in the

submission of the A/R of the Management, inasmuch as admittedly the affairs and activities of the Management

Corporation are run & controlled from the office situated here in Delhi i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Apart

from this, the domestic enquiry report Ex.MW1/3 clearly shows that the enquiry proceedings were conducted at Delhi

against Shri Sanjeev Kumar, the claimant herein, relating to the misconductduring the period he was posted as Assistant

(C&O), Northern Region at Tughlagabad, Delhi. The witnesses before the Inquiry Officer were examined at Delhi. As

such, it does not lie in the mouth of the Management to argue that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try and

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

453

decide the claim petition. Accordingly, it is held that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim

petition.

18.

It has also been argued on behalf of the Management that in fact, the claimant/workman was removed from

service vide order dated 26/3/2004 and the appeal filed by the workman was dismissed by the Ld. Appellate Authority

vide order dated 29/6/2004 but no prayer challenging the order dated 26/3/2004 and/or order dated 29/6/2004 has been

made in the claim petition and as such, the claim petition is not covered under Section 2-A of the Act. The claim petition

is barred by time.

19.

Per contra, it has been argued by the claimant that the claim petition is well within time because the Special

Leave Petition bearing No.7937 of 2013 preferred by him against the order dated 21/8/2012 passed by Division Bench of

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, was dismissed vide order dated 29/4/2013. Thereafter, the claimant had again preferred

review application before Hon’ble High Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 27/3/2015.

20.

Perusal of the record shows that the claimant was removed from service by the Management vide order dated

29/6/2004 on the basis of order dated 26/3/2004 of the Disciplinary Authority of the Management. The claimant had

fiied a complaint bearing LCA/ID No.11/2008 under Section 33-A of the Act on the ground that the Management failed

to seek approval of the punishment from the Tribunal regarding his removal from service. The said complaint was

decided by the Tribunal vide Award dated 27/7/2011 (Ex.WW1/53). whereby the order dated 26/3/2003 of the

Disciplinary Authority of CCIL removing the claimant from service was declared to be null and void and

Management/CCILwas directed to pay all dues of Shri Sanjeev Kumar deeming him to have continued in service of

CCIL Against the said Award, the Management/CCIL approached Hon’ble High Court vide Writ Petition No.7387/2011

but the Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 11/10/2011 (Ex.WW1/54) dismissed the said petition.

Then, the Management again moved Hon”ble High Court vide LPA No.943/2011 and the Division Bench of Hon’ble

High Court vide order dated 21/8/2012 set aside the judgement of Learned Single Judge and quashed the order dated

27/7/2011 of the Industrial Tribunal which was passed on the application of claimant Sanjeev Kumar under Section 33-A

of the Act. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition bearing No.7937 of 2013 was preferred by the claimant which was

dismissed vide order dated 29/4/2013. Thereafter, the claimant had again preferred review application before Hon’ble

High Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 27/3/2015.

21.

It is fairly settledthat provisions of Section 2-A of the Act enablesa workman to approach Labour Court or

Industrial Tribunal directly, without requirement of reference by Govt, in the cases where any employer discharges,

dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the serviced of an individual workman, for adjudication of the dispute after

expiry of forty five days from the date he makes an application to the Conciliation Officer of the Appropriate Govt.

However, clause (3) of Section 2-A of the Act clearly provides that such an application/claim shall be made to the

Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of his/her discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service.

22.

It appears that the claimant adopted a very casual approach for redressal of his grievance, inasmuch as the

claim petition under Section 2-A of the Act was filed by him only on 5^th July, 2016, though the Management had

imposed punishment of his removal from service vide order dated 29/6/2004 on the basis of report dated 26/3/2004 of

Disciplinary Authority. Even if it isadmitted for the sake of arguments that the claimant had earlier moved acomplaint

under Section 33-A of the Act before the Tribunal, only in the year 2008, that is to say not before the expiry of three

years from the date of his removal from service. As discussedin para 20 above, theManagement/CCIL had filed LPA

No.943/2011 before Hon’ble High Courtagainst the judgement dated 10/10/2011 of Single Judge. While disposing

&summing up of the said LPA, Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court in para 57 ofthe judgement dated 21/8/2012 had

held as under :-

“Though we have earlier observed that the question of justifiability of the disciplinary action was also

required to be gone into in Section 33-A proceedings but having now found that there was no dispute

requiring any application under Section 33)2)(b), the complaint under Section 33-A itself would be not

maintainable. The question thus, of the justifiability of the disciplinary action of removal from service

being tested in Section 33A proceedings or the matter being required to be remanded for the said purpose,

does not arise. The remedy now of Shri Sanjeev Kumar is only to raise a dispute qua his termination.”

As mentioned above, the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court had clearly held that the remedy available with Sanjeev

Kumar (claimant herein) was only to raise a dispute qua his termination but he did not raise any dispute qua his

termination. Rather, he preferred Special Leave Petition bearing No.7937 of 2013 before Hon’ble Supreme Court,

against the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court The SLP was also dismissed vide order dated 29/4/2013.

Thereafter, the claimant had again preferred review application before Hon’ble High Court which too was dismissed

vide order dated 27/3/2015. Even then the claimant did not take steps at the earliest because he filed the instant claim

petition under Section 2-A of the Act only on 5^th July, 2016 i.e. after expiry of more than 15 months of the dismissal of

his review application by the Hon’ble High Court. All this shows callousness on the part of the claimant/workman.

23.

Before concluding I may mention that during the course ofarguments, the claimant had heavily relied on the

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust Versus Swami

Prakasanand & others, (1997) 6 SCC 778 to stress that order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing his SLP in limine

operates as a final order between the parties and the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court stands merged with the

order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the period of limitation be calculated from the order so passed by

Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is reiterated that the SLP so filed by the claimant herein against the order dated 21/8/2012 of

454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Hon’ble High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29/4/2013. Even in such a

situation, the claimant ought to have filed the present petition under Section 2-A of the Act, latest by 29-4-2016 which

was not done by him, rather the present petition was filed only on 5/7/2016. It has been held in the case of

Smt. SwapanaAdhikari Versus State of West Bengal, 2014 LLR 498 (CaL.)that under no circumstances, the

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court can accept and decide such an application under Section 2-A of the Act after expiry of

three years. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled Ajaib Singh Versus The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-

Processing Service Society Limited and another , AIR 1999 SC 1351has held that provisions of Limitation Act are

not applicable to the proceedings under the Limitation Act. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s

ItcInfotech India Ltd. Versus MrVenkataramanaUppada (W.P. No.27510/2015 -decided on 3/3/2016)held that the

provisions of Section 2-A of the Act are mandatory and that on the expiry of three years from the date of discharge,

dismissal etc., the right to invoke Section 2-A of the Act would stand extinguished.

24.

Having regard to the legal position as explained above as well asthe facts & circumstances of the case, this

Tribunal is of the considered vie wthat there is inordinate delay in moving the instant claim petition and it is held that the

claim so filed by the claimant is patently barred by time and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on this score

alone. This issue is therefore decided accordingly against the claimant.

Issue No. 2 and 3

25.

In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2-A above, these issues have become redundant and no findings

are called for.

Relief :

In the light of the aforesaid, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the present claim petition being hopelessly

barred by limitation is liable to be dismissed. Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 11.09.2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 116

116

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

मु बई पोट BC ट के (बंधतं* से संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय

सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय नं. 2, मु बई के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 6/2008) को (कािशत करती है जो

केीय सरकार को 17.01.2019 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-31011/12/2007-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port

Trust and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 17.11.2019.

[No. L-31011/12/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

455

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/6 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman,

Mumbai Port Trust,

Port Bhawan, S.V. Marg,

Ballard Estate,

Mumbai – 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary,

Mumbai Port Trust Dock & General Employees

Union, Port Trust Kamgar Sadan,

Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon,

Mumbai – 400 010.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Shri J. H. Sawant, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 15^th November, 2018

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-31011/12/2007 – IR (B-II) dated 24.12.2007. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in imposing the penalty of reduction in pay by

two stages for a period of one year with prejudice to his future increments and treating his suspension period as

period not spent on duty but be taken into consideration for pension and pensionary benefits on Shri U.S.

Gawade, Security Guard is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the concerned employee is entitled ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

Second party workman wants to dispose of the reference as he is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Application bears signature and signature of his advocate.

In view of this pursis the reference is disposed off since withdrawn.

Other side has also no objection for withdrawing the reference. Hence the reference is withdrawn and disposed

off.

ORDER

Reference is withdrawn and hence disposed off.

Date: 15.11.2018

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 117

117

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

कांदला पोट BC ट के (बंधतं* से संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय

सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 43/2017) को (कािशत

करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-37011/04/2017-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port

Trust and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.01.2019.

[No. L-37011/04/2017-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 03^rd December, 2018

Reference (CGITA) No. 43/2017

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Kandla Port and Dock SC/ST Employees Union,

SGX – 36, 37, Ward No. 2-B,

Adipur,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370205

…Second Party

For the First Party

Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/04/2017–IR

(B-II) dated 16.05.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham by not providing employment on

compassionate ground to Smt. Nanubai widow of late LaxmanJuma, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 16.05.2017 and received on 30.05.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

Notice Ex. 2 was issued to both the parties on 28.12.2017 to appear on 28.02.2018. The first partyThe

Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham, Kutch submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 4 of his

advocate Shri K.V. Gadhia Associates on 25.04.2018 but despite service of notice on the second party union

The General Secretary, Kandla Port and Dock SC/ST Employees Union, SGX – 36, 37, Ward No. 2-B, Adipur,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

457

Kutch on 28.02.2018, statement of claim has not been filed by him, therefore, it appears that the second party

union is not willing to prosecute the reference.

Therefore, the reference in the absence of the statement of claim and evidence of the second party union, is

disposed of with the observation as under: “the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham by not

providing employment on compassionate ground to Smt. Nanubai widow of late LaxmanJuma, is legal and

justified.”

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 118

118

118.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मै.

सीआरएल टमDनल (ाइवेट िलिमटेड के (बंधतं* से संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक

िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय के अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 40/2017) को

(कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-37011/10/2017-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. CRL

Terminal Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.01.2019.

[No. L-37011/10/2017-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 20^th December, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 40/2017

The Managing Director,

M/s. CRL Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (A Royal Vopak Co.),

Unit No. 201, 2^nd Floor, Trade Centre,

BandraKurla Complex, Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400051

The Terminal Manager,

M/s CRL Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (A Royal Vopak Co.),

Near Oil Jetty, Old Kandla,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370210

…First Parties

V/s

The General Secretary,

Transport and Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 583, Ward 12 C,

Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201

…Second Party

For the First Parties

: None

For the Second Party

: None

458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/10/2017–IR(B-

II) dated 09.05.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Transport Dock Workers Union, Kandla (Gujarat) regarding regularisation of services of 68

workmen/contract labours engaged by M/s CRL Terminal Pvt. Ltd., (A Royal Vopak Company) through contractor is

legal, just and proper?”

And

“Whether the said 68 contract labours/workmen are also entitled for benefits payable to employee directly engaged by

said company? If not, then what relief the said workmen are entitled and from which date?”

The reference dates back to 09.05.2017 and received on 22.05.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

All the parties issued notice Ex. 2 on 16.03.2018 to appear on 10.05.2018 for to submit their claims.

Acknowledgements of receipt of notice also received from the second party and first party no. 2 vide Ex. 3 and 4

respectively. Acknowledgement of receipt of notice sent to first party no. 1 received as un-served. But despite service of

notice, the second party union or their workmen did not prefer to submit statement of claim. After that, 5 more

opportunities were given to the second party union to submit the statement of claim but to no result.

Thus it appears that the second party union or their workmen are not willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party union with

the observation as under: “the demand of the Transport Dock Workers Union, Kandla (Gujarat) regarding regularisation

of services of 68 workmen/contract labours engaged by M/s. CRL Terminal Pvt. Ltd., (A Royal Vopak Company)

through contractor is illegal, unjust and improper and the said 68 contract labours/workmen are not entitled for benefits

payable to employee directly engaged by said company.”

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 119

119

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

सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय नं. 2, मु बई के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 80/2009) को (कािशत करती है जो

केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-31011/4/2009-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 80/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port

Trust and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.01.2019.

[No. L-31011/4/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

459

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 80 of 2009

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman,

Mumbai Port Trust,

ShoorjiVallabhadas Marg,

Ballard Estate, Mumbai,

MUMBAI – 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary,

Mumbai Port Trust General Workers Union,

1^st Floor, Kavarana Building, 26/4, P.D. Mello Road,

WadiBunder, Mumbai.

MUMBAI – 400 009.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mrs. P. Shetty, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 30^th November, 2018

AWARD PART – I

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-31011/4/2009 – IR (B-II) dated 13.10.2009. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust by compulsory retiring the workman

Shri Jaywant Govind Raut, Mazdoor, Telephone Section, P & R Department of the Mumbai Port Trust w.e.f.

19.3.2008 is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives.

The second party union has filed statement of claim Ex.5. According to the second party union, the concerned

workman was appointed as Mazdoor in Docks dept on and from 16.11.1981. He was posted on re-employment as

Mazdoor in Telephone Section of Planning & Research Dept. w.e.f. 20.7.2001. He was in continuous employment of the

first party management from 16.11.81 and a permanent Gr.D employee.

It is the case of the second party union that the concerned workman was compulsorily retired from the services

w.e.f. 19.3.08 illegally. He was issued charge sheet dt.5.1.07 on the allegations that he was indulged in harassing one of

the lady officers of MbPT. The concerned workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The first party thereafter

instituted the departmental enquiry to investigate into the charges. The departmental enquiry was commenced on 12.4.07

and concluded on 23.10.07. The E.O. by report dt. 12.11.07 held all the charges leveled against the workman as proved.

Thereafter the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the E.O. and workman was issued show cause notice

dt. 3.1.08. The workman submitted his explanation on 28.1.08. The penalty of removal from service was imposed upon

the concerned workman by order dt. 19.3.08. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority imposing

punishment of removal, concerned workman preferred appeal dt.3.4.08 before the appellate authority. The appellate

authority granted personal hearing to the concerned workman on 21.5.08. The appellate authority modified the penalty

of removal from service to compulsory retirement by order dt.30.5.08.

It is the case of the concerned workman that in the departmental enquiry prosecution could not adduce any

evidence against him which warranted his compulsory retirement from service. E.O. did not appreciate voluminous

evidence adduced on behalf of the workman.

It is also a case of the concerned workman that he himself and his wife were assaulted and threatened on

26.12.05 and 31.12.05 on the incidence of one Mrs. P.R. Patne and therefore he and his wife lodged complaint with the

concerned authorities.Thereafter Mrs. Patne has lodged complain on 5.8.06. However, no action has been taken by the

authority even after follow up letters by the union on behalf of the workman & his wife and instead action has been taken

against the workmen. As such the enquiry was carried out hurriedly by the E.O.

460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is then case of the concerned workman that on one hand he was compulsory retired on 19.3.08 and on the

other hand he was issued with 2^nd charge sheet vide letter dt. 18.9.08. He sought time to file reply.The management in

reply to said representation dt. 3.10.08 considered and agreed to give extension to file reply by another 30 days. The

second charge sheet is still pending and the management has not cancelled or withdrawn the said second charge sheet.

It is then case of the concerned workman that Mrs. Patne also lodged another two private complaints on the

same matter before Metropolitan Magistrate Court which is pending. The management without waiting for the outcome

of the criminal proceedings hurriedly conducted the enquiry and made the workman to retire compulsorily. As such the

action taken by the management in terminating i.e. compulsorily retiring the workman from service is illegal.

Union therefore by its letter dt. 6.11.08 raised the industrial dispute before the ALC Mumbai. ALC

Mumbaiadmitted the said dispute. However, conciliation proceedings ended in failure. Conciliation report was sent by

ALC. As such the dispute is referred for adjudication of the tribunal. The union is therefore asking to held and declare

that the action of the management of compulsorily retiring the concerned workman w.e.f. 19.3.08 is illegal and that the

concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement in his service with full back wages and continuity of service.

10.

The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.6 contending therein that the concerned

workman was arrested and detained by the police authority from 26.1.06 to 2.2.06 u/s. 506 (2), 507 & 509 of IPC for

alleged involvement in the case of sexual harassment of Mrs. Patne, Asst. Railway Manager of first party. As the

workman was in police custody for the period exceeding 48 hours, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 27.1.06 by

order dt. 21.2.06. Thereafter the suspension of the workman was withdrawn on and from 14.8.06 pending departmental

enquiry on the basis of recommendation of review committee dt. 8.8.06 and he was allowed to resume duties. Taking

into consideration his involvement in case of sexual harassment of the lady employee of the first party and his

consequent detention in police custody which amounts to misconduct under MbPT Conduct Regulations 1976, he was

issued the charge sheet for violations of Regulations 3 (1), 3 (1a) (vii) & (xv) & 3 (7) of said Regulations. His reply was

not found satisfactory and hence enquiry was conducted. There were 28 hearings in the departmental enquiry so as to

give ample opportunity to the workmen to defend his case. Opportunities were availed by the concerned workman. As

such the sufficient opportunity to defend himself was given to the concerned workman.

11.

It is then case of the first party management that during the pendency of disciplinary action against the workman

resulting into compulsory retirement upon him once again Sr. Inspector of Police MRA Marg Police station informed the

first party that workmen was arrested on 29.6.07 for the offence u/s. 193, 465, 467, 469 read with section 120 (b), 34 &

109 of IPC and remanded to police custody till 6.7.07. He was placed under suspension and continued to remain under

suspension till 19.4.08 i.e. the date on which disciplinary authority passed an order imposing punishment of removal

from service upon the workman on the recommendations of the review committee. On the basis of detention of workman

in the policy custody the disciplinary action was taken against him and therefore the second charge sheet was issued

before the order of disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of removal from services. The first party accepted the

request of the concerned workman and Marathi translation of the charge sheet was given to him. Copy of report of the

police officer was also forwarded to him. So according to the first party it is not necessary for the first party to deal with

contention of second party in respect of second charge sheet since the action of compulsory retirement was taken against

the workman. Therefore the action taken against the workman imposing punishment of compulsory retirement is legal,

proper and justified. The findings of the E.O. are on the basis of evidence placed before him and therefore the concerned

workman is not entitled to any relief. The first party is thus sought the dismissal of the reference.

12.

By filing rejoinder Ex.9, the concerned workman reiterated that the charges against him are not proved. Action

of the management is illegal and therefore he is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity

of service.

13.

Following issues are framed at Ex.8. Issue No.1 is treated as preliminary issue. Hence I reproduce the Issue

No.1 along with my findings thereon for the reasons given below:

Sr. No.

Issue

Findings

Whether

the

enquiry

the

management

MbPT

against

workman

Shri Jaywant Govind Raut, Mazdoor, Telephone Section, P&R Department, was fair

and proper ?

Yes

Reasons

Issue No.1.

14.

It is well settled that if the service of the employee came to be terminated after proper domestic enquiry held in

accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusions reached at the enquiry are not perverse, the Industrial

Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or correctness of the said conclusion. But at the same time mere form of

the enquiry would not satisfy the requirements of industrial law and would protect the disciplinary action taken by the

employer from challenge. The enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless,

(a)

employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him.

(b)

witnesses are examined ordinarily in presence of the employee in respect of charges.

(c)

employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

461

(d)

he is given fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence.

(e)

E.O. records findings with reasons for the same in his report.

Now it is to be seen whether in the present case these requirements are complied or not ?

15.

From the evidence on record, it appears that the charge sheet was issued to the concerned workman on 15.1.07

for violation of regulations Nos. 3 (1), 3 (1A) (xvii) & (xv) & 3 (viii) of the said regulations. The workman submitted his

reply to the charge sheet and thereafter the departmental enquiry was conducted on 12.4.07 and concluded on 23.10.07.

It is undisputed that the workman appointed Mrs. KundaSawant, Sr. advocate as his D.R. who defended him throughout

the enquiry proceedings. The workman in his cross examination itself has admitted that he has participated in the

enquiry proceedings. His D.R. was also present during the enquiry proceedings. On each page of the enquiry

proceedings there are signatures of the concerned workman and his D.R. Admittedly, enquiry was initiated against him

on the basis of letter dt.3.2.06 given by Sr. Inspector, MRA Marg police station. As per the glaring admission of the

concerned workman, enquiry proceedings are correct and he was given opportunity to cross examine the management

witnesses during the enquiry. Admittedly, he was also given opportunity to file documents during enquiry. During

enquiry concerned workman examined himself and his witnesses and thereafter concerned workman & management

submitted their say before the E.O. and then the E.O. gave report dt. 12.12.07. So as per the evidence of concerned

workman he was given an opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses during the enquiry and therefore it

can be said that the concerned workman was given sufficient opportunity during the course of enquiry to defend himself.

It can be said therefore that the requirements in respect of fair enquiry are complied with.

16.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in English

and his request to conduct the proceedings in Marathi was rejected and thereby he was denied an opportunity to have fair

enquiry since enquiry was conducted in English.

17.

In this respect,on going through the enquiry report it is made clear that although the request of the concerned

workman to conduct the enquiry proceedings in Marathi was rejected the witnesses were allowed to speak in Marathi.

The questions were allowed to put them in Marathi. Replies were recorded in English in presence of D.R. and after

confirmation of D.R. so as to ensure that the meaning of the reply is not lost in translation. It is for that reason it appears

that the concerned workman has not taken any objection and then participated in the enquiry proceedings. Even it is

admitted by him that his D.R. has not given in writing that she required translated copy of enquiry proceedings in

Marathi. His D.R. was advocate and it appears that after confirmation with the concerned D.R. the replies of the

witnesses were recorded. It cannot be said therefore that the enquiry proceedings were not fairly conducted. It is

because no prejudice has resulted to the concerned workman on account of recording the enquiry proceedings in English

that to in presence of his D.R. and therefore again it cannot be said that the concerned workman did not have a fair

hearing or the disciplinary enquiry against him was not a fair enquiry.

18.

In the context, the Learned Counsel for the first party management seeks to rely on the decision in case of State

Bank of Patiala &Ors. V/s. S.K. Sharma – 1996 – II – CLR – 29 to submit that if no prejudice is resulted on account of

furnishing of copies of statement of witnesses that cannot be said that the employee did not have a fair hearing.

19.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the E.O. did not appreciate the evidence adduced on

behalf of the workman. In this respect the submission is that the concerned workman & his wife lodged complaint with

the authorities before Mrs. Patne has lodged the complaint. However, no action has been taken by the authority even

after follow up letters by the union on behalf of the workman and his wife. But then the action has been taken against the

concerned workman and the enquiry was carried out hurriedly by the investigating officer.

20.

On going through the enquiry proceedings by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the enquiry was

conducted hurriedly. Management examined 13 witnesses during the course of enquiry and the concerned workman

examined 4 witnesses. Even it appears that EO has looked into the evidence in detail and also considered the aspect that

the concerned workman and his wife lodged complaint against PW-1 and also referred to various letters written by union

to the Chairman and other letters for taking the action against PW-1. It is then conclusion of the E.O. that the union’s

letters were received subsequent to the police complaint made by PW-1.

21.

Next submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman is that the EO while recording evidence of

Mrs. Patne dis-allowed some of the questions i.e. question No. 75 to 80 on page 170 of the list at C[A], being irrelevant

though the questions were not irrelevant as they pertain to alleged confessional statement and the roll of Patkar in

obtaining alleged confession and delay in lodging the police complaint. With this the submission is that the EO travelled

beyond the scope of charge sheet dt.5.6.07.

22.

It is not possible to countenance the view propounded by Learned Counsel for the concerned workman. On

going through these questions as is referred above, it appears that the questions pertain to obtaining the permission of

superior to take the confession letter from concerned workman and in respect of resignation letter of the concerned

workman. The question No. 78 was the suggestion given to the witness to the effect that as per alleged confession letter

the witness would not have proceeded criminally against the concerned workman if he had resigned. Such questions are

objected by the EO being irrelevant considering the charges leveled against the concerned workman. Obviously,

therefore it cannot be said that by rejecting such questions prejudice has been caused to the concerned workman because

in respect of confessional statement the EO in his report has considered that the concerned workman and his friends,

colleagues and wife were involved in the efforts to resolve the matter internally without letting it go to the police or

MbPT authorities and as such it has not come out during the course of enquiry proceedings that concerned workman was

462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

forced to make confessional statement under duress. From the evidence it has been concluded by the EO that the defence

of the concerned workman that letter was obtained under duress and he was assaulted and threatened appeared to be after

thought.

23.

In respect of findings of the EO, it is well settled that industrial tribunal would not be justified in characterizing

the findings recorded at domestic enquiry as perverse unless it can be shown that such findings is not supported by any

evidence or is entirely opposed to the whole body of evidence adduced before it. In domestic enquiry once the

conclusion is deduced from the evidence it is not possible for some other authority to assail that conclusion even though

it is possible for some other authority to arrive at different conclusion on the same evidence.

24.

In thecontext reliance is placed on the decision in case of Bank of India &Ors. V/S. Dejalasuryanarayan –

1999 – II – CCLR - 465.

25.

The Hon’ble Bombay H.C. in case of Tata Info Media Ltd. V/s. Tata Press Employees Union – 2006 (108)

FLR – 890 has observed that where the findings that has been arrived at disciplinary proceedings is sought to be

questioned. The essential question to be asked is whether the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence or on no

evidence at all. The finding which is based on no evidence is liable to be interfered with because it is susceptible to the

interference of arbitrariness and perversity. But once the finding is based on some evidence the sufficiency of evidence

is proof of findings lies beyond scope of scrutiny of review court. In view of this legal position it is well settled that the

tribunal will not act as appellate court and re-assess the evidence led in domestic enquiry nor interfere on the ground that

another view is possible on the matter on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and findings are based

on evidence the question of adequacy of evidence or reliable nature of evidence will not be a ground for interfering with

the findings of the departmental enquiry. In the context hand can be led on the decision in case of State Bank of Bikaner

& Jaipur V/S. Nemichand&Nalwaya – AIR – 2011 – SC – 1931.

26.

As a matter of fact, the charge leveled against the concerned workman was that during the period from 9.6.2005

to 17.11.2005 the concerned workman made anonymous phone calls to Smt. Patne, Asst. Railway Manager, MbPT on

her mobile No.9869273806 and made indecent proposals. It is alleged that he black-mailed her by saying that he would

show her photograph to her husband if she did not accept her proposals. When she ignored his threats he started making

sexual comments which were highly offending. On 17.11.05 he was caught red handed while making such calls by Shri

Subramanian, representative of Transport & Docks Workers Union.

27.

In this respect on 5.1.06 Mrs. Patne has filed complaint against him with MRA Marg police station and lodged

FIR on 16.1.06 against him. With regard to above complaint he was arrested and detained in the policy custody u/s. 507,

509 of IPC from 27.1.06 to 2.2.06 for the period exceeding 48 hours. In this respect the submission is that taking into

consideration the involvement of the workman in case of sexual harassment of the employee of the first party and his

detention in the police custody the workman was issued the charge sheet for violations of regulations Nos. 3 (1), 3 (1A)

(xvii) & (xv) & 3 (viii) of the said regulations.

28.

On going through the enquiry report, it appears that the E.O. has considered the evidence of PW-1 Mrs. Patne

and also the defence of concerned workman and then concluded that from the evidence brought on record there is no

doubt that Mrs. Patne was infact receiving anonymous calls which were obscene threatening and making references to

her personal life.

29.

From the enquiry report it appears that the E.O. considered the evidence of PW-1 Mrs. Paten and evidence of

PW-2 and also the defence of the CSE and then concluded that the CSE i.e. concerned workman was the person who was

apprehended while making the call to PW-1 from the No. 56389915 at the booth of Digital Colour Xerox on 17.11.05.

30.

Even then, the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that as regards the finding of the E.O.

that concerned workman was apprehended by Mr. Subramanian on 17.11.05 is perverse since considering the distance

from the office of Mrs. Patne to booth it would have taken atleast 10 minutes for Mr. Subramanian to reach the booth and

therefore the contention of Mr. Subramanian that he apprehended the concerned workman is false.

31.

In this respect on going through the enquiry report, it appears that the E.O. while appreciating the evidence of

Mr. Subramanian has considered that PW-2 has convincingly replied that he could repeat the action to prove his

statement that he could reach the Digital Colour Xerox booth within 10 minutes. The E.O. on the basis of evidence

considered that there is no reason to dis-believe PW-1 Mrs. Patne and PW-2 to conclude that CSE was the person who

was apprehended while making the phone calls to PW-1 from the No. 56389915. It can be said therefore that the finding

of the E.O. is based on evidence.

32.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workman seeks to rely on the decision in case of Sur Enamel & Stamping

Works Ltd. V/S. Their Workmen – II – LLJ SC – Pg. 1 to submit that if the report is not made available to the concerned

workman the enquiry in the circumstances is held vitiated.

33.

He seeks to rely on the decision in case of State of Punjab V/s. DeewanChunelal – AIR – 1970 – SC – 2086

wherein it has been held that the refusal of right to examine the witnesses amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity

of showing cause against the action of dismissal.

34.

In the instant case it is not the case of concerned workman that the witness of the management has not been

made available for cross examination. As such the facts in the instant case are quite distinct & distinguishable.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

463

35.

Considering all these facts, I find that the enquiry against the concerned workman was fair & proper and as such

the findings of the E.O. are not perverse. I answer the above issue accordingly as indicated against it in terms of above

observations.

36.

Hence I pass the following order.

ORDER

Enquiry held is fair & proper.

Findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.

Parties are directed to argue and lead evidence on the point of quantum of punishment.

Date: 30.11.2018

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 120

120

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

देना बEक के (बंधतं* से संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार

औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 806/2004) को (कािशत करती है

जो केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-12012/34/2003-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 806/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Dena Bank

and their workmen received by the Central Government on 7.01.2019.

[No. L-12012/34/2003-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 17^thDecember, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 806/2004

The Assistant General Manager (P),

Dena Bank,

Maker Towers, E Wing, Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai – 400005

…First Party

V/s

Shri G. B. Parmar,

Mahadev Nagar Society,

1/28, Zadeshwar Road,

Behind Jyotinagar, Post Maktampur,

Bharuch (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

Shri C.S. Naidu Associates

For the Second Party

Shri Lalit M. Patil

464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/34/2003–

IR(B-II) dated 19.05.2003 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 Dena Bank through its Officers in terminating the services of

Shri Govindbhai B. Parmar is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 19.05.2003 and received on 18.06.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal to the parties, the second party workman Govindbhai B.

Parmar, hereinafter, referred to as “workman” submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 alleging that he has been appointed

by the first party Dena Bank, hereinafter referred to as “Dean Bank” in sub-ordinate cadre at its Godhra branch on

08.10.1975. Later in the month of October 1993, the workman was transferred to the Bharuch branch of Dena Bank.

Later he was promoted in the clerical cadre and was posted at Nikora Branch of Dena Bank. During the whole tenure of

service in Dena Bank, his work was satisfactory. He has further alleged that while serving in the Nikora branch as a

Clerk, prior to his termination of service, his services were also utilised as a Branch Manager in the said branch. He has

further alleged that Dena Bank issued him an order of suspension vide letter no. BRO/PER/8/4/1086/2000 dated

24.05.2000. He was also served with a charge-sheet bearing no. VRO/PER/8/4/1114/2000 dated 09.06.2000. The

departmental enquiry was initiated on the basis of said charge sheet but departmental enquiry was not conducted in

accordance with the principles of natural justice as the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presiding Officer acted with an

ulterior motive and reasons. The departmental enquiry was conducted within a day showing their arbitrary attitude and

motive. After receiving the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority proposed and imposed the penalty of removal from

service with immediate effect vide letter no. VRO/PER/8:3/1506/2001 dated 14.02.2001 which was mala-fide, arbitrary

and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It was also harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The termination was also challenged by the workman before the appellate authority, same was rejected by the appellate

authority vide letter no. VRO/PER/8.3/3197/2002 dated 15.02.2002. He has further alleged that the service conditions of

the Bank were governed by Sastri Award, Desai Award and subsequent Bi-partite Settlement which were not followed in

his case. He has further alleged that he was not paid the subsistence allowance as per the Bi-partite Settlement. He

offered to deposit the requisite amount as alleged in the charge-sheet. Thus the action taken by the Dean Bank was

unjust, improper and illegal, therefore, the workman has prayed for reinstatement with effect from 28.02.2001 with full

back wages and continuity of service.

The first party Dena Bank submitted written statement Ex. 9 admitting the fact that the workman was working

as cashier cum clerk at Nikora Branch and denied all the allegations labelled in the statement of claim and submitted that

the workman had been working with the Dena Bank as cashier cum clerk at Nikora Branch of the Bank where he

committed irregularities and misappropriated the various amounts received from various deposits of account holders for

depositing their accounts totalling Rs.153176/-. The workman was suspended from service vide letter dated 24.05.2000.

The bank issued him a detailed charge-sheet dated 09.06.2000 inter alia making allegations of gross misconduct in terms

of Para 19.5 (d) (j) of the Bi-partite settlement dated 19.10.1966 viz. “wilful damage or attempt to cause damage to the

property of the Bank or any of its customers and doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence

involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss”. The workman submitted his explanation to the said charge-sheet

vide letter 28.06.2000 where he admitted the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet regarding the misconduct.

Looking into the seriousness of the charges, the Bank conducted departmental enquiry and gave him full opportunity to

defend himself. The enquiry officer in his enquiry report found the workman guilty of charges levelled against him,

therefore, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from service. The enquiry conducted by the Dena Bank

was legal and according to the principles of natural justice and in case, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the

enquiry conducted by the Dena Bank was illegal or in violation of the principles of natural justice and if it suffers with

the perversity then the Dena Bank may be permitted to lead evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the

workman.

The second party workman has also submitted number of documents vide list Ex. 11. All are photocopied and

are not certified. He has also submitted number of documents vide list Ex. 21. All are also zerox copies and uncertified.

Thereafter, he also submitted number of documents vide list Ex. 23 namely copies of suspension order, charge-sheet,

papers related to the departmental enquiry, order of removal from service, enquiry report, order on appeal, copy of appeal

etc. He has also submitted the copy of judgement vide list Ex. 25 by which the Criminal Court acquitted the workman for

the charges levelled under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank through its Officers in terminating the services of

Shri Govindbhai B. Parmar is legal, proper and justified?

ii.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

465

Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party workman who submitted his affidavit Ex.12 reiterating the averments made in the

statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he is 60 years old and he is unemployed since his

removal from service and did not search any job thereafter.

The first party did not prefer to lead any oral and documentary evidence and has not denied the documents

submitted by the workman. Thus the documents oral and documentary submitted by the workman appears that the

enquiry was held in a summery manner or in a single day. While on the same charges, the Court of 5^th Additional Civil

Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch acquitted the workman.

This is a basic principle of law that the findings and judgements of the Judicial Court should be obeyed and

honoured. The judgement reveals that the depositors whose amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the

workman appears to have not supported the charges levelled against the workman, that’s why the workman was acquitted

by the Criminal Court.

It is true that there is no bar to initiate departmental proceedings side by side with the criminal trial but the terms

and conditions of the Bi-partite settlement states that the judgement of the Judicial Court must be honoured. This has not

been done in the case. The principle of departmental enquiry makes it mandatory for the enquiry officer to examine the

witnesses and must give the opportunity to the delinquent official to cross-examine the witnesses which has not been

done in this case. Therefore, the enquiry report is sham and bogus and cannot be believed.

10.

Thus in the light of the acquittal of the workman by the Criminal Court for the charges levelled against him

under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code(IPC), the action taken by the Dena Bank against the workman Govindbhai B.

Parmar does not passed the test of law. Thus the action taken is liable to be set aside. Issue No. i and ii are decided in

favour of the workman and the action of termination of service of Govindbhai B. Parmar is set aside. As the

workmanGovindbhai B. Parmar has passed the age of superannuation and he is 68 years old, therefore, notional order of

reinstatement is passed with all seniority and benefits. The Issue No. i and ii are decided accordingly.

11.

The first party Dena Bank is directed to reinstate the workman from the date of suspension notionally. He shall

be given pension as admissible at the time of retirement after giving all service benefits but he will not be given any

arrear of pay from the date of suspension to the age of superannuation. However, he will be given a lump-sum amount of

Rs.300000/- (Rupees Three Lac) for the period he did not serve the bank as being suspended and terminated.

12.

The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 121

121

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

मै. एस जी एस इिGडया िलिमटेड के (बंधतं* से संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक

िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय नं. 2, मु बई के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 28/2016) को

(कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-36011/2/2016-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s SGS India

Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.01.2019.

[No. L-36011/2/2016-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/28 of 2016

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. SGS INDIA PVT. LTD.

The Regional Branch Manager-South II,

M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Satyabhama Bldg.,

3^rd Fl., Above SBI, F.L. Gomes Road,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa – 403 802.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary,

Marmagoa Waterfront Workers Union,

P.B. No. 90, Vasco-da-gama, Goa,

Goa –

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Absent

FOR THE WORKMEN

Absent

Mumbai, dated the 15^th November, 2018

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-36011/2/2016 – IR (B-II) dated 21.10.2016. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of SGS India Pvt. Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in the alleged illegal

transfers of Smt. Vanita S. Shenvi and Shri Amol U. Naik, Chemists is fair, legal and justified ? What relief they

are entitled to ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

On going through Roznama it appears that the second party union remained absent since long. Union has not

filed statement of claim therefore there is no evidence to substantiate the claim and hence for want of evidence the

reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 15.11.2018

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 122

122

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

सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 0म यायालय, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 145/2010) को (कािशत

करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-37011/2/2009-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

467

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 145/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port

Trust and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.01.2019.

[No. L-37011/2/2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 18^th December, 2018

Reference (CGITA) No. 145/2010

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50,

Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

All India Safai Mazdoor Sangh,

157 – A, Shakti Nagar,

Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party : Shri Premkumar R. Dagar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/2/2009–IR

(B-II) dated 13.10.2009 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 Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in awarding the punishment of

compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 16.11.2005 to Shri Jagdish Chauhan, Ex-ward orderly is

legal and justified? If so, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 13.10.2009 and received on 26.10.2009 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. In response to the notices issued to the parties, the second party workman Jagdish Chauhan, hereinafter referred

to as “workman” submitted the statement Ex. 2 along with the authority letter Ex. 3 issued in favour of

Premkumar R. Dagar, National Officiating Chairman, Akhil Bhartiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh, Gandhidham. He

has alleged in his statement of claim that he is a Schedule Caste resides on the address 741/11 B, Balmiki

Society, Gopalpuri, Gandhidham, Kutch. He studied up to class 9^th. He was appointed in the medical department

of Kandla Port Trust on the post of ward attendant on 27.07.1982 at the basic pay of Rs.325/- plus dearness

allowance along with necessary allowances vide appointment letter no. MH/PS 2280/1272 dated 05.08.1982. He

used to serve with honesty and diligently. He was made permanent on the said post after the completion of

probation period. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of ward orderly but these confirmation letters and

promotion orders were lost. He never committed any misconduct and there was no complaint against his work.

He was never served with any charge-sheet for any misconduct but he refused to serve the medical officers and

468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

nursing staff by way of bringing tiffin from their houses and to do their domestic works in their houses. He has

further alleged that on 17.09.2004, he was called in the office by the head clerk V.M. Sankhala by way of

making a telephone call in his neighbour’s phone while he was sleeping in his house being on leave at 14:30

hour where he was beaten by the head clerk V.M. Sankhala. Somehow he escaped from the office to save his

life. His complaint was not registered in the hospital by the concerned clerk, therefore, he make a written

complaint on 18.09.2004 to the Chief Medical Officer but the Chief Medical Officer ignoring his complaint put

him under suspension vide order no. MH/PS/2280-I/484 dated 21.09.2004. Thereafter, he made a representation

to the Kandla Port on 23.09.2004. He has further alleged that ignoring his aforesaid complaint and

representation, he was charge-sheeted on the complaint of head clerk V.M. Sankhala vide charge-sheet

memorandum no. MH/PS/2280-I/698 dated 13.10.2004 and he was subjected to departmental enquiry by

appointing an enquiry officer named S.L. Kharadi. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry on 06.01.2005 to

19.03.2005 on various dates in 6 sittings and submitted the enquiry report. He has further alleged that he was not

permitted to examine his witnesses in the enquiry; therefore, the enquiry was mala-fide. The Chief Medical

Officer vide letter no. MH/PS/2280-I/161 dated 19/20.07.2005 issued him a show-cause notice as to why his

services not to be dismissed under Regulation 9(IX) of KPE (CCA) Amendment Regulations, 2004. The

workman made a representation/appeal to the Chief Medical Officer, Kandla Port Trust. The Chief Medical

Officer, Kandla Port Trust vide letter no. MH/PS/2280-I/672 dated 16.11.2005 after considering the

representation of the workman passed the order of dismissal from service of the workman. The workman made

an appeal against the said order to the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust. The chairman, Kandla Port Trust vide letter

no. MH/PS/2280-I/142 dated 05.09.2006 rejected the appeal. The workman has further alleged that he was not

given proper opportunity in the enquiry by way of producing his witnesses and the action taken was out of

malice and disproportionate. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.

3. The first party Kandla Port Trust, hereinafter referred to as “first party” submitted the written statement Ex. 6

denying the allegations levelled in the statement of claim and submitted that the workman joined the service on

27.07.1982 as a ward attendant at Kandla Port Hospital, Gopalpuri. He has not been discharging his duties

faithfully and diligently. On 17.09.2004 at about 15:35 hours, the workman Jagdish Chauhan threatened the

head clerk and other staff members on telephone under the protects that his medical bill not counter signed and

he came to the office and abused and threatened to kill the head clerk V.M. Sankhala and nursing staff in case

his medical bills are not sanctioned. The medical bills in question in fact were handed over to the concerned

dealing clerk on 17.09.2004 but as the certificate was not signed by Dr. Vachhani whom his son was referred,

the bills could not be got counter signed by the Chief Medical Officer immediately. V.M. Sankhala made a

complaint along with the joint representation of other staff of the office regarding the abuse and threat of the

workman in inebriated condition; therefore, he was transferred to other department. Later on, he was served with

the charge-sheet subjected to departmental enquiry and after the conclusion of enquiry, he was dismissed from

service. The first party has submitted all the relevant documents including enquiry report and dismissal order

vide list Ex. 7 along with the written statement.

4. The workman vide application Ex. 10 challenged the legality of enquiry on the ground of being violative of the

principle of natural justice alleging that one S.L. Kharadi was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the questioned

departmental proceedings. On 06.01.2005 at 15:30 hour, first sitting of the departmental proceedings was held

wherein the Enquiry Officer S.L. Kharadi, Presenting Officer Dr. Mahesh Bapat, workman’s defence assistant

Lalit Variyani and workman himself were present and next date was fixed on 28.01.2005. On 28.01.2005, all the

aforesaid officers were present and the necessary documents were exchanged between both the parties, fixing

15.02.2005 as next date of hearing. On 15.02.2005, the date was adjourned to 17.02.2005, thereafter 23.02.2005

and 09.03.2005. On 09.03.2005, all the aforesaid officers were present and proceedings were conducted asking

the workman to sit outside the room. Thereafter, 11.03.2005 was fixed. On 11.03.2005 and 17.03.2005, all the

necessary witnesses were examined and thereafter on 19.09.2005, the workman as a charged workman was

examined which was alleged to be violative of the principles of natural justice.

5. The workman was cross-examined on this application Ex. 10 on 18.01.2016 wherein he has not uttered a single

word which may create any doubt on the irregularity or misconduct of the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting

Officer in his departmental proceedings.

6. The most important thing in the matter of legality of the departmental proceedings can be assessed from the

cross-examination of the workman. As have already pointed out that the workman has not uttered a single word

as to whether the Enquiry Officer or the Presenting Officer were prejudiced, or the workman was ever denied to

produce any necessary evidence which would have been necessary for the just decision of the proceedings. Thus

I did not find any illegality in the departmental proceedings.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

469

7. Thus the application Ex. 10 was disposed of on 03.10.2017 declaring the departmental inquiry as legal.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

Whether the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in awarding the

punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 16.11.2005 to

Shri Jagdish Chauhan, Ex-ward orderly is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?

9. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party workman who submitted the affidavit Ex. 8 again reiterating the averments

made in the statement of claim. In his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination, he has not stated

anything which may become basis of punishment as being excessive or disproportionate. Therefore, I come to

the conclusion that a sub-ordinate staff who without any reason abuses and makes threat to kill a senior official

and other staff in inebriated condition does not deserve for any relief in reducing the punishment. Such a

punishment of compulsory retirement from service is justified for the aforesaid behaviour because the appellate

authority has already reduced the punishment from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement giving him

the benefit of pension and gratuity.

10. Thus the reference is rejected and award is passed against the second party workman with the observation that

the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham in awarding the punishment of compulsory

retirement from service vide order dated 16.11.2005 to Shri Jagdish Chauhan, Ex-ward orderly is legal and

justified in the light of the discussions made in Para No. 9. The issue no. i and ii are decided accordingly.

11. The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 123

123

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

सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण / 0म यायालय, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 80/2017) को (कािशत करती

है जो केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-37011/16/2017-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 80/2017) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust

and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.01.2019.

[No. L-37011/16/2017-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 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 03^rd December, 2018

Reference (CGITA) No. 80/2017

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Kandla Port and Dock SC/ST Employees Union,

SGX – 36, 37, Ward No. 2-B,

Adipur,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370205

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/16/2017–

IR(B-II) dated 05.09.2017 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham by not providing employment on

compassionate ground to Shri Nitinkumar son of late Tejsi Kara, Ex-D/R/Khallasi is legal and justified? If not,

what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 05.09.2017 and received on 12.09.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. Notice Ex. 2 was issued to both the parties on 28.12.2017 to appear on 28.02.2018. The first party The

Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham, Kutch submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 4 of his

advocate Shri K.V. Gadhia Associates on 25.04.2018 but despite service of notice on the second party union

The General Secretary, Kandla Port and Dock SC/ST Employees Union, SGX – 36, 37, Ward No. 2-B, Adipur,

Kutch on 28.02.2018, statement of claim has not been filed by him, therefore, it appears that the second party

union is not willing to prosecute the reference.

3. Therefore, the reference in the absence of the statement of claim and evidence of the second party union, is

disposed of with the observation as under: “the action of the Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham by not

providing employment on compassionate ground to Shri Nitinkumar son of late Tejsi Kara, Ex-D/R/Khallasi is

legal and justified.”

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 124

124

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

बEक ऑफ इिGडया के (बंधतं* के संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय

सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण / 0म यायालय, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 1205/2004) को (कािशत

करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7आ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/94/2002-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

471

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1205/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and

their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.01.2019.

[No. L-12012/94/2002-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 10^th December, 2018

Reference (CGITA) No. 1205/2004

The General Manager,

Bank of India,

Head Office, Express Towers, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400021

…First Party

V/s

Shri Mahendrakumar Mahashankar Vadia,

13, Panchvati Flats, Opp. Motibaug Agriculture,

Junagadh (Gujarat) – 362001

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri J.D. Chalishazar

For the Second Party

: Party in person

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/94/2002–

IR(B-II) dated 09.09.2002 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 Chief Regional Manager, Bank of India, Rajkot Region in giving punishment of

“Dismissal from service” to Shri Mahendra Kumar M. Vadia vide order dated 05.10.1999 is legal and justified?

If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

1. The reference dates back to 09.09.2002 and received in the Tribunal on 03.10.2002 from Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 and alleged

therein that he has been working as Cash-cum-Accounts Clerk in Bank of India, Junagadh Branch. He put in 19

years of service on the aforesaid post and performed his duties carefully and diligently. His service record was

clean and unblemished. He also passed departmental examination of C.A.I.I.B. Part I and II for which he was

given 3 qualification increments by the first party, Bank of India, herein referred to as First Party. He was also

short listed for promotion by the First Party but he was not given promotion due to pending prosecution and

departmental enquiry at the time of interview, therefore, his result for promotion was kept reserved in the sealed

cover/ envelope. He has further alleged that he was made accused for committing fraud by colluding with the

outsiders for financial gains in a criminal case being registered after lodging FIR. It was expected that the

criminal case ought to be tried speedily but it did not happen and before conclusion of the criminal trial in the

year 1999, the first party Bank of India subjected him to departmental proceedings wherein he was awarded

with a penalty of dismissal on the ground of having done an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or

negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank into serious losses under Para 19 (5) (j) of the Bi-partite

settlement. It was done by the First Party without authority, therefore, was ultra-wires, premature, mala-fide and

against the settled principles of law and rules framed under the bi-partite settlement, as at the time of his

appointment as Cash-cum-Accounts Clerk in the year 1980, his appointing authority was the Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Gujarat Zone while in his case, the Regional Manager, Rajkot acted as disciplinary authority and

Deputy Zonal Manager, Ahmedabad acted as the appellate authority to hear and dismissed the departmental

appeal against the order of punishment in question. Both these officers were junior to his appointing authority

i.e. Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Gujarat Zone. Thus the order of dismissal was passed without authority,

472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

therefore, null and void. Secondly, the punishment order was passed under the Bi-partite settlement which

provides rules and procedures of disciplinary action and the punishment has been awarded violating the

provisions of Bi-partite settlement because he was acquitted in the criminal trial and same was not honoured.

The departmental enquiry against him was initiated in the year 1987 after a few sitting; the management put the

departmental enquiry in abeyance for 9 years. Again in the year 1996, the management reopened the

departmental enquiry and was concluded on 05.12.1996 by the Enquiry Officer S.N. Kundaria, an officer of the

Bank which was not independent and fair. The Enquiry Officer violated the principles of natural justice while

conducting the departmental enquiry. He was not allowed to engage an advocate as a defence lawyer despite a

provision in the Bi-partite settlement. He was also not allowed to inspect the documents taken into consideration

while awarding the punishment. The Enquiry Officer also considered the evidence of co-accused given before

the Investigation Officer in the criminal case which was not admissible in the departmental enquiry. Thus the

findings given by the Enquiry Officer was perverse and the finding thereon is liable to be set aside.

3. The first party Bank of India submitted the written statement Ex. 9 submitting that the averments made in the

statement of claim are false and incorrect. The true facts are that the workman Mahendrakumar Mahashankar

Vadia was served with a charge-sheet dated 19.06.1986 charging him that he colluded with one Ghanshyam

Mohanlal Soni proprietor of M/s Shree Jai Khodiar Metal Industries, 124 GIDC Estate, Porbandar inducing him

to open his current account with the first party Porbandar Branch of the Bank. Accordingly, the current account

was opened on 18.06.1984 with an initial amount of Rs.500/-. He also colluded with another employee of the

Bank of Baroda, Junagadh managing to obtain a cheque book of one of the customers of the Bank of Baroda

which was reported to be lost by the said customer to the Bank of Baroda, Junagadh. Thus he had fraudulently

issued the cheques in favour of M/s Shree Jay Khodiar Metal Industries, Porbandar.

i. He had further instructed Shri G.M. Soni to deposit these cheques in his current account with Porbandar

Branch which was deposited by him on dates mentioned below:

S.No.

Cheque Amount

Deposited On

Date of Credit

Rs. 60545/-

19.06.1984

29.06.1984

Rs. 60816/-

05.07.1984

14.07.1984

Rs. 45350/-

02.07.1984

14.07.1984

Rs. 49840/-

09.07.1984

21.07.1984

All the above cheques were drawn on Bank of Baroda, Junagadh Branch and as such Porbandar Branch had sent

the same to Junagadh Branch vide S.C.S. No. and date as mentioned below:

S.No.

Cheque Amount

Deposited On

Date of Credit

S.C.S. No. and

Date

Rs. 60545/-

19.06.1984

29.06.1984

907/20.06.1984

Rs. 60816/-

05.07.1984

14.07.1984

924/06.07.1984

Rs. 45350/-

02.07.1984

14.07.1984

920/05.07.1984

Rs. 49840/-

09.07.1984

21.07.1984

926/09.07.1984

All the above said cheques were received by Junagadh Branch for collection. It was reported that he had instead

of presenting the said cheques to Bank of Baroda; Junagadh for clearing, surreptitiously/stealthily

removed/destroyed the cheques since at that time he was working in the Clearing Department of the Bank. As a

result of which said cheques were never presented in the local clearing to Bank of Baroda nor were reflected in

any of the Bank’s Books/Records of Junagadh Branch. However, he managed to obtain the signature of the

concerned officers on the credit notes falsely representing that all the above cheques received under S.C.S. from

Porbandar Branch alternatively Debit Notes were to be sent to Porbandar Branch, were presented and cleared by

Bank of Baroda, Junagadh Branch. As a result of which the Credit Notes, which were in fact, to be returned to

Porbandar Branch, were in fact fraudulently cleared and the proceeds thereof were credited in the current

account of M/s Shree Jai Khodiar Metal Industries, which were ultimately withdrawn from the said current

account on four occasions as mentioned below:

Cash of Rs. 60000/- withdrawn on 29.06.1984

b. Cash of Rs. 107000/- withdrawn on 16.07.1984

Cash of Rs. 30000/- withdrawn on 25.07.1984

d. Cash of Rs. 36000/- withdrawn on 27.07.1984

The said current account of M/s Shree Jai Khodiar Metal Industries was closed on 28.09.1984.

ii.

The aforesaid fraud committed by him came to light because of long outstanding entries which

remained un-reconciled in the Head Office reconciliation statement. In this connection, Porbandar

Branch has lodged a Police Complaint at Police Station in Porbandar. During interrogation of

Proprietor of M/s Shree Jai Khodiar Metal Industries, he disclosed the fact of second Part workman

having colluded with him in the above fraud. He was accordingly arrested by Porbandar Police on

15.06.1986 and it was reported that he had confessed before the Police about him having committed the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

473

fraud in collusion with Shri G.M. Soni of M/s Shree Jai Khodiar Metal Industries. He is still under

police custody.

iii.

It is further reported by him that he had attempted to commit the same type of fraud with the same

Modus Operandi and with the collusion of the same staff (Shri Rajpara) of Bank of Baroda, Junagadh

for which he had obtained anticipatory bail from the Junagadh Court. The same case is still pending

with the Junagadh Court.

iv.

His above mentioned acts of tampering/destroying with Bank’s records/documents with mala-fide

intentions to commit a fraud and to deceive Bank management by colluding with outsiders for his own

financial gains, thereby doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, would amount to be gross

misconducts in terms of Para 19.5(j) of the first Bi-partite Settlement dated 19.10.1966.

Considering the gravity of the misconducts committed by him, he was suspended from service of the

Bank pending departmental enquiry proceedings with effect from the date of receipt of the order.

vi.

He was ordered to be paid subsistence allowance as per the provisions of the Bi-partite settlements.

vii.

He was prohibited from entering the Branch premises even for operating his saving bank account

without written permissions of the Manager of Junagadh Branch.

viii.

He was also directed to leave his postal address where he could be contacted in case he goes out of

Junagadh/his place of residence after obtaining permission from Branch Manager.

4. It was further submitted by the first party that the workman had also committed further frauds for which he

obtained bail from the Session Court, thus it is clear that the past service record of the second party

workman/applicant was not unblemished. Though he cleared the departmental examination for promotion

namely C.A.I.I.B. Part I and Part II as well as written test for promotion in the Officer’s Cadre but passing of the

aforesaid examinations do not absolve him from the charges of the aforesaid misconduct. It is misleading to say

that Bank lodged the FIR against him. The truth is that the complainant named G.M. Soni lodged a FIR in the

Police station wherein the Police found complicity of second party workman in the crime and accordingly Police

arrested him and launched the further prosecution against him.

5. It is further submitted that the Regional Manager of the Rajkot Region having been authorised by the Chief

Executive of the Bank vide its order dated 07.12.1981 acted as Disciplinary Authority in the matter. Likewise

the appellant authority was also authorised by the Chief Executive of the Bank to act as Appellate Authority.

Both these authorities might be junior to the appointing authority but since they have been authorised by the

Chief Executive of the Bank to initiate action against the appellant workman as Disciplinary Authority and

Appellate Authority, therefore, their actions cannot be questioned. It is noteworthy that the Clause 19.14 of the

Bi-partite Settlement contains the provisions to the fact that the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank will have

the powers to decide and name the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. It is admitted that

the service conditions of the Bank’s employees were governed by the Bi-partite Settlement dated 19.10.1966

and whatever action was taken against the workman was in consonance with the aforesaid Bi-partite Settlement.

As the criminal prosecution lodged by the Police had been taking much more time, therefore, the Bank lodged

the complaint in the Police Station on 02.06.1986 through a private person as said above. The Police

investigated the complaint and filed the charge-sheet in the Court.

6. It is further submitted that as criminal trial had been pending in the Court since last 9 years, therefore, in the

interest of the workman, the Bank initiated departmental proceedings to give opportunity to the workman to

prove himself as innocent in consonance with the provisions of the Bi-partite Settlement as well as in the light of

various pronouncement of the High Court and Apex Court.

7. It is further submitted that as per the Bi-partite Settlement, the workman was given the opportunity to defend

himself through a Trade Union of Bank’s employees of whom he was a member; therefore, it is wrong to say

that he was not given opportunity to defend himself. It is further submitted that he was given a typist to type the

day to day enquiry proceedings. All the documents were provided to the workman to inspect. He was also given

the copies of the statements of the witnesses examined during the departmental proceedings. The departmental

enquiry was conducted in just and fair manner without violating the provisions of natural justice. After the

conclusion of the departmental enquiry, he was awarded punishment for which he made appeal and same was

rejected.

8. The first party Bank of India vide Ex. 12 submitted all the documents detailed as below:

S. No.

Name of document

Date

Type

Criminal Misc. Application No. 337/84 under Section 438 of Cr.PC filed

by Shri Mahendrakumar Mahasukhrao Vadia before the Hon’ble Session

Court, Junagadh

23.11.1984

Xerox

Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Session Judge, Junagadh in Cri. Misc.

Appln. No. 337/84

11.12.1984

Xerox

Criminal Complaint under Section 468, 471, 477-A, 420 filed by the

Branch Manager, Porbandar Branch of Bank of India before the Police

02.06.1986

Xerox

474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Station ‘A’ Division, Porbandar

F.I.R. No. I-121/86 lodged before the ‘A’ Division Police Station,

Porbandar

02.06.1986

Xerox

Charge-sheet-cum-Suspension Order

19.06.1986

Xerox

Letter written by M/s Amber Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Junagadh to Zonal

Manager, Bank of India, Ahmedabad

16.12.1996

Xerox

Findings of Enquiry Officer in the Departmental Enquiry proceedings

against Shri M.M. Vadia

20.05.1997

Xerox

Order passed by Hon’ble Labour Court, Junagadh in IESO Appl. No. 47/97

20.04.1999

Xerox

Free English translation of Order passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in

IESO Application No. 47/97

20.04.1999

Xerox

Show cause notice issued by Disciplinary Authority to Shri M.M. Vadia

03.05.1999

Xerox

Written submission against proposed punishment given by Shri M.M.

Vadia to Disciplinary Authority

31.05.1999

Xerox

Proceeding of the personal hearing given to Shri M.M. Vadia

31.05.1999

Xerox

Order of punishment issued by Disciplinary Authority to Shri M.M. Vadia

05.08.1999

Xerox

Appellate Order issued by Appellate Authority to Shri M.M. Vadia

02.12.1999

Xerox

Applicant for Review Modification filed by the Bank before the Hon’ble

High Court in CRA No. 1835 of 1996

17.07.1997

Xerox

Oral Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Misc. Civil Application

No. 1383 of 1997

16.11.1998

Xerox

Free English Translation of Order passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in

IESO Application No. 49/1997

20.04.1999

Xerox

9. The second party workman submitted the documents vide list Ex. 26 as detailed herein below:

No.

Details of Document

Date

Remarks

Representation made by the workman to the organisation for

reconsideration of his case after acquittal in criminal trial

26.09.2012

Xerox Copy

RTI application made by the workman to the organisation seeking

copies of correspondence in connection with his representation

dated 26.09.2012

21.12.2013

Xerox Copy

Reply of RTI Application given by organisation to the workman

14.12.2015

Xerox Copy

Letter written by Zonal Manager, Rajkot Zone to General

Manager, Head Office, IL Division of the orgainsation

17.10.2012

Xerox Copy

Reply given by Deputy General Manager (IL) of the organisation

to Zonal Manager, Rajkot on the point of workman’s

representation

22.10.2012

Xerox Copy

Copy of Bi-partite Settlement on “Disciplinary Action and

Procedure therefore” provided by the first party Bank

10.04.2002

Xerox Copy

10. Before addressing the issues, it would be appropriate to point out that the workman challenged the legality of the

enquiry and in support of the challenging the legality of enquiry, the workman submitted his affidavit Ex. 14

stating that FIR registered into the crime was investigated in the year 1987 but he was kept under suspension for

a long period and despite his request and the Government guidelines that the suspension order should not be

extended for a long period, his suspension order was not removed. He has further alleged that despite the

provisions in the Bi-partite Settlement, departmental enquiry was ordered appointing S.N. Kundalia as Enquiry

Officer. He approached the Civil Court, Junagadh for seeking injunction order against the departmental enquiry

being held against the rules and settled principles of law by filing a Civil Suit Number 184/1996 but the Civil

Court refused to grant the injunction. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the appellate court

on the ground of Civil Court having no jurisdiction in service matters. The first party continued with the

departmental enquiry and concluded within a month with a mala-fide and bias attitude of the Enquiry Officer

S.N. Kundalia as the Enquiry Officer refused to grant him adjournment despite a request that he has to file

appeal in the High Court against the orders passed by the Civil Court and its appellate Court. Due to the said

conduct of Enquiry Officer, he suffered attacks of Hypertension as well as depression. He also submitted the

medical certificates to this effect but to no result. Thus Mr. Kundalia acted in two capacities of prosecutor as

well as a Judge in the enquiry which is against the principles of natural justice. He also alleged that the High

Court passed an interim order that no final order in pursuance of the departmental enquiry be passed till the

criminal trial is over that to no result. Thus the departmental enquiry as well as the punishment and rejection of

appeal were held in violation of the principles of natural justice.

11. The Bank’s management submitted his reply to the aforesaid application denying all the averments made in the

application. After hearing both the parties, the then Presiding Officer, Shri Binay Kumar Sinha passed an order

on 13.03.2013 holding that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a legal manner and there was no legal

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

475

infirmity in the departmental enquiry and the punishment awarded therein. The operating part of the order is

reproduced as under:

“Point No. i and ii: 7. I have gone through the entire documentary evidence filed by both sides and also

the oral affidavit of evidence of the second party including admission made by him during cross-

examination. I find, no prejudice has been cost to him during the whole span of enquiry, rather the

delinquent himself has prolonged the span of enquiry to such a long period by approaching the Civil

Court, Labour Court as well as the High Court and lastly as per the High Court’s order, enquiry, kept in

abeyance, was recommended and concluded observing principles of natural justice. The delinquent all

alone participate in the enquiry to the point no. 1 and 2 regarding following the principle of natural

justice and given sufficient opportunity to defend, are decided in affirmative.

Point No. iii: I have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer and findings given by him. He has

meticulously examined all the materials produced before him and the evidences of witnesses. I do not find

any perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 02.05.1997 so the point regarding the illegality

of the enquiry is decided in negative.

Point No. iv: As per the findings of the Point No. i, ii and iii, I find and hold that a valid and proper

departmental enquiry was conducted against the delinquent second party workman. Thus the

preliminary issues as above are decided in the favour of the first party Bank of India.

12. The second party workman did not prefer to challenge the aforesaid order on the point of legality of enquiry in

any higher forum including Hon’ble High Court, therefore, this Tribunal has a limited scope into the matter to

the extent as to whether the punishment awarded by the first party management was excessive to the misconduct

committed by the second party workman or not.

13. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the action of the Chief Regional Manager, Bank of India, Rajkot Region in giving

punishment of “Dismissal from service” to Shri Mehendra Kumar M. Vadia vide order dated

05.10.1999 is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?

14. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party workman who submitted his affidavits Ex. 15 and 19 reiterating 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 admitted that the criminal trial could not be concluded within a year and despite his

request and approaching the Civil Court and High Court, the departmental proceedings were not stayed but these

affidavits were filed at the stage of deciding as to whether finding of departmental enquiry was unjust and

unfair. But regarding issues no. i and ii, as to whether the punishment awarded was excessive and

disproportionate to the misconduct and the punishment awarding authority and appellate authority were

incompetent under Rules no evidence has been adduced at this stage.

15. The second party workman submitted the written arguments Ex. 30 and the first party submitted the written

arguments vide Ex. 33.

16. The second party in his written argument has challenged the punishment on the ground that the provisions of Bi-

partite settlement were not followed in awarding the punishment as well as in holding the departmental enquiry

and despite his acquittal in the criminal trial; he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. He has

referred following judgements of the High Court’s as well as the Supreme Court which are reproduced as under:

The second party workman has argued upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case

of Mavji C. Lakum V/s Central Bank of India, Appeal (Civil) 2385, 2008, held in Para 20 that: “Even if

the enquiry is found to be fair, that would not be only a finding certifying that all possible opportunities

were given to the delinquent and the principles of natural justice and fair play were observed. That does

not mean that the findings arrived at were essentially the correct findings. If the Industrial Tribunal

comes to the conclusion that the findings could not be supported on the basis of the evidence given or

further comes to the conclusion that the punishment given is shockingly disproportionate, the Industrial

Tribunal would still be justified in re-appreciating the evidence and/or interfering with the quantum of

punishment.”

b. The second party workman further argued upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Capt. M. Paul Antony V/s Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679, in which the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed that: “The criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on

identical set of facts, namely, ‘the raid conducted at the appellant’s residence and recovery of

incriminating articles there from.’ The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, indicates that the

charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch Witnesses,

who had raided the house of the appellant and had affected recovery. They were the only witnesses

examined by the enquiry officer and the inquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the

conclusion that the charges were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the

entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from.

476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Since the facts and the evidences in both the cases were the same without there being any iota of

difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the

criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant

case.”

The second party further argued upon the judgement of G.M. Tank V/s State of Gujarat, 2006 (5) SCC

446 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under: “In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the

departmental and criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the

appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and

criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the

instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts

below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the

proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul

Anthony’s case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to

be allowed.”

d. The second party further argued on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of

H.H. Saijani V/s Syndicate Bank, 1980 GLR Page 657 wherein it has observed that a close scrutiny of

provisions of Clause 19.3 (a)(b)(c) of Bi-partite settlement reveals that when an employee is suspended

of having committed criminal offense, which would render him liable to conviction and sentence under

the criminal law, the management cannot initiate departmental or disciplinary proceedings straightway.

The Bank management has to take steps to itself prosecute him or get him prosecuted. Having done so

the Criminal Law must be allowed to take its own curse and the management must stay its hands till the

final outcome of the criminal case. If the prosecution results in a conviction, recourse is to be made to

sub-clause (b). If it results in acquittal, recourse is to be made to sub-clause (c) of Clause 19.3. Until

the criminal court records a finding of guilt or otherwise nothing can be done under clause 19. No steps

can be initiated till the completion of the criminal case which may result either in a conviction or in an

acquittal having regard to the scheme of clause 19.

In the same way, Hon’ble Madras High Court, in the case of P. Manickam V/s Bank of India, W.P. No.

16175/2009 decided on 10.02.2010, referred to Clause 4 of the Bi-partite settlement and held as under:

“17. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view

of the embargo under Clause 4 of the Bi-partite settlement, I am of the firm view that this is a fit case in

which the departmental proceedings have to be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal trial in C.C.

No. 33/2001.” “18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.”

The difference between the terms “Dismissal and Discharge” was clarified by Patna High Court in the

case of Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. V/s D.K. Barman, AIR 1969 Pat. Page 371 holding that the word

‘dismissal’ in relation to service and the expressions ‘termination of the contract of employment’ have

got clear and definite concept. The word ‘discharge’, however, is found used sometimes in the statute

and sometimes in the decisions of the court in different colour and context. Sometimes it is used in the

sense of dismissal; sometimes it is used in the sense of discharge from service, which is dismissal from

service but entitling the discharged employee to some amenities or benefits arising out of service; and

sometimes it is also used in the sense of pure termination of contract of employment.

g. Madras High Court in case of Dy. Inspector General of Police and Anr. V/s S. Samuthiram, Civil

Appeal 8513/2012, has observed as under: “23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any

provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by the Criminal

Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is

that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a Criminal Court and the enquiry

conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of

establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond

reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof

required to establish guild in a Criminal Court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and

preponderance of probabilities s sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for

technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned

hostile etc. In the case on hand, the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial

witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The Court, therefore,

acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the instant case, the

respondent was honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to

claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.”

h. In the case of Bank of India V/s Bhimsen Gochchayat, 2009 (4) LLJ 663 SC, the Supreme Court has

held that the departmental enquiry against Shri Bhimsen initiated by the disciplinary authority after his

acquittal on appeal is not bad in law. In that case, the employee was dismissed on conviction and on his

acquittal in appeal, he was reinstated and departmental enquiry was initiated. This clearly shows that

though there is no bar against departmental enquiry after acquittal, the same cannot be concluded

pending criminal trial, and on acquittal, even by appellant court, the employee is entitled to reinstate.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

477

In the case of Sushila Tiwari V/s Allahabad Bank (Civil Appeal No. 5224 of 2012), the Supreme Court

held as under: “If clause 19.3 (d) is read along with notice dated 02.07.2001, it is clear that Shri Tiwari

stood reinstated w.e.f. 21.07.1999 i.e. the date on which he was originally dismissed from service and

deemed to be continuing under suspension since then.”

In that judgement, in Para 12, after reproducing Clause 19.3 (b)(c)(d) of the Bi-partitie settlement, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para 13 that the above reproduced provisions represent the intention of

the Bank and Union to determine as to what steps the disciplinary authority requires to take in case an

employee who is accused in a criminal case is acquitted during the trial or such employee after

conviction is subsequently acquitted in a appeal or revision. Clause 19.3 (c) applies to cases where the

employee is acquitted during the trial. On the other hand, Clause 19.3 (d) applies to the cases where the

convicted employees prefers an appeal or revision application against his conviction and is acquitted.

Under Clause 19.3 (d), if an employee applies to the management is required to review his case and

may either reinstate him or proceed against him under the provisions set in Clause 19.11 and 19.12

relating to discharge, the period up-to-date for which full pay and allowances have not been paid being

treated as one of suspension. In the event of management deciding, after enquiry, not to continue in

service, the employee shall be liable only for termination with three months’ pay and allowances in lieu

of notice.”

In the case of Roop Singh Negi V/s Punjab National Bank, 2009 (2) SCC 570, the Supreme Court held

as under: “The orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellant authority are not supported by

any reason. As the orders passed by hem have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should

have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there

was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same

evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out

that the guilt are requiring to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is

legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental

proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on

merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The

inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as

is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal

proof. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgement of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is

allowed with costs and appellant is directed to be reinstated with full back wages. Counsel’s fee

assessed at Rs.25000/-.”

k. In the same way, in the case of Rajpal V/s State of Haryana, CWP No. 16661 of 2010, the Punjab and

Haryana High Court has held that when delinquent is acquitted even in appeal against his conviction,

his representation for reinstatement is to be considered positively by the employer.

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sudhir Ranjan Haldar V/s State of West Bengal and

Anr., AIR 1961 Cal. Page 626, has observed as under: “19. We have already referred to the language of

the charge of which the appellant was called upon to show cause. The charge merely said that

inasmuch as the Police has recovered certain ration cards and cloth folders from the appellant’s

possession and started a criminal case against him, he must show-cause why he shall not be dismissed

from the service of the Government. This was no charge at all and this is all the more so because the

plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal trial. Mere prosecution is not conviction and the pendency of a

criminal prosecution is no proof of the guilt of an accused. To call upon a man to show-cause why he

should not be dismissed from Government service because of the pendency of a criminal prosecution

against him is only to make a non-sense of a charge of misconduct.

Finally after discussing various lacunas in the enquiry and legality of notice under Section 80 of CPC,

it was held that for the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a

declaration that the order of his dismissal from service from 05.11.1947 was void and inoperative. The

plaintiff must be treated as a person who has not been dismissed from Government service and entitled

to his pay and allowances according to the scale of pay in which he was serving. We also pass a decree

in terms of prayer (d) of the plaint, subject to the reservation that if the plaintiff has in the meantime

reached the age of superannuation, he will not be entitled to pay and allowance beyond that date. The

matter must go back to the trial court for calculation of the amount as in the aforesaid prayer but

subject to the reservation herein stated and for passing of a decree for the amount found due.

m. In the case of Jasbir Singh V/s Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors, Civil Appeal 8046 of 2004, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held as under: “The judgements of both the Civil Court and the Criminal Court

established that the appellant was treated very unfairly and unreasonably. For all intent and purport, a

criminal case was foisted upon him. A confession, according to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, was

extracted from him by the bank officers in a very cruel manner. It is, therefore, not a case where back

wages should be denied. Respondent Bank has tried to proceed against the appellant in a civil

proceeding as well as in criminal proceedings and at both the independent forums, it failed.

We, therefore, are of the view that the impugned orders and judgements cannot be sustained. They are

set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be reinstated with back wages,

478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The respondent shall also pay and bear the costs

of the appellant which is quantified Rs.10000/-.

n. Again Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Managing Director, State Bank V/s P. Kata Rao

[Appeal (civil)2961-2962 of 2008] has observed as under: “Here the Court is not interfering with the

punishment awarded by the employer on the ground that in the opinion of the Court the punishment

awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Here, the gradation of the punishments

have been fixed by the rules themselves, namely, the rules of Bank of Cochin and the Court is merely

insisting that the authority is confined to the limits of its discretion as restricted by the rules. Inasmuch

as the rules of Bank of Cochin have enumerated and listed out the punishments for “major

misconduct”, we are of the view that the punishment of “removal” could not have been imposed by the

appellate authority and all that was permissible for the Bank was to confine itself to one or the other

punishment for major misconduct enumerated in Para 22(v) of the rules, other than dismissal without

notice. This conclusion of ours also requires the setting aside of the punishment of “removal” that was

awarded by the appellate authority. Now the other punishments enumerated under Para 22(v) are

“warning or censure or adverse remark being entered, or fine, or stoppage of increments/reduction of

basic pay or to condone the misconduct and merely discharge from service.”

o. The Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council V/s A.K. Chopra has observed as under:

“Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty

imposed by the disciplinary or the Departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such

that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and

impose some other punishment or penalty.”

17. The first party submitted his arguments that the provisions of Bi-partite settlement were followed in holding the

enquiry as well as in awarding the punishment. He has also referred following judgements of the High Court’s

as well as the Supreme Court which are reproduced as under:

The Bank relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Hariyana High Court, reported in

2018 (1) LLR 595, in the case of Mohankumar Vs. Chief Manager (HRD) Central Bank of India.

The Hon'ble High Court has specifically dealt with the point as both the authorities are separate and

therefore, the simultaneous proceedings are permitted. It was further held that, the verdict of the Hon'ble

Criminal Court is not binding or likely to be affected to the inquiry conducted against the workman.

The burden of proof for the both the authorities are quite different and therefore, also the judgment of

the Criminal Court will not be having binding effect to the inquiry, concluded long back. It is pertinent to

note that, the judgment of the Criminal Court was on 07.09.2012, which was produced before the Authority

on 22.09.2012 by the second party, in Criminal Case No. 396/2007, the Hon'ble JMFC has vide Ex. 755

·has specifically concluded in Para 26 - that, the acquittal is on circumstantial evidence, as the

complainant fails to prove the authentic expert opinion and therefore, the benefit was given on that point.

The Bank begs to submit that, due to failure of the required procedure, there was acquittal of second party,

which will not help him. In pursuance to the averments of Para 3(G), of the submission, the Bank begs to

submit that, all the submissions are twisted by the second party. For the consideration of

representation, the word not used as 'must', but the word is used 'may', and therefore, all the averments

and statements made in this Para are not going to help him. It is further submitted that, there is no clear

provisions of automatic reinstatement of the second party on the basis of Criminal Acquittal. It is wrong

to say that, when the dismissal order passed on the previous date and when the employee is acquitted

in criminal trial, the order cannot stand, and the management has to review it and workman has to

be reinstated - this statement is ridiculous without any legal base and therefore, liable to be rejected. In

connection of the submission of Para 3 (I), it is required by the Bank that, the authority has

already put the second party on Criminal Trial within prescribed period and therefore, there is not breach

as alleged or otherwise. It is wrong interpretation that, the charges and outcome of both the authorities

are same, in fact both the authorities has dealt the issues, in different manner, as they are empowered

for it and outcome of both the authorities are also came on different period. The Bank begs to submit that,

if any employee, who is acquitted after Criminal procedure is to be reinstated then, there will be an

administrative hierarchy, in convenience and likely to be badly affect discipline of any institution. It will be

encouragement to the employees to commit, such type of misconduct. It is further submitted that, as the

serious misconduct committed by the second party, the departmental proceedings commenced by the Bank,

in accordance with the rules and regulations and after that, the order was passed, the Bank has followed the

required procedure. It is clarified that, the judgment cited by the second party on support of his contention

is not applicable to the case of the second party.

In the case of Dy. Corn. Kendriya Vidhalaya vs. J Husain — reported 2013 (2) SCC — L & S Page

No. 833, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of proportionate punishment and after

discussing all the relevant issues, it was ultimately held that, any sympathy shown in the ground of

disproportionate punishment is allowing person to continue the same offence in future. The Bank begs

to submit that, the employee, who is not trustworthy to the bank, after committing the misconduct of

financial irregularity may not be thrown to the public institution like a Bank dealing with the money of

his respected customers, which protect the interest of their future lives. The money of the account

holder lies with the bank are matters for the account holders and even awarding compensation

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

479

in lieu of the reinstatement will amount to misuse of their earned money. In these circumstances, it is

requested that, the relief prayed for is not worth to be granted and the same deserves to be rejected. On

the demand of second party to exercise the power under Section 11(A) of the ID Act, the Bank begs

to submit that, the Hon'ble Tribunal is to enjoy the powers in very rare case and with restricted

manner, if it is only, because in the opinion of the Hon'ble Tribunal, for the shocking or

disproportionate punishment, the same will not be liable to alter or to substitute. It is settled

principles of law, mentioning in which cases and when the Tribunal empowered under the provisions

is required to be used.

The Bank craves to rely upon the following judgment:

In the case of Divisional Controller Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Palanpur V/s Pathan

Idrishmiya Bhikhumiya & Ors. — reported in 2014 (III) CLR 426 — relevant portion on page 427 as

'Point to be noted'. “It was held that every quasi-judicial authority or even the administrative authority,

when invested some discretionary power has to be careful in the judicious exercise of such power, and it

should not led away by being lenient or sympathetic to the person committing serious type of

misconducts.”

18. The second party workman has also referred the judgement of the Patna High Court Latters Patent Appeal No.

1845/2012, Mahadev Mehtav V/s The Chief Regional Manager, Bank of India wherein it was held that the

petitioner workman was acquitted of the criminal charges by the Sessions Court and the Bank in that case

removed the suspension order. He has further referred a judgement in Civil Appeal No. 2385/2008, Mavji C.

Lakul V/s Central Bank of India decided on 02.04.2008 wherein the apex court confirmed the order of the

Tribunal wherein the Tribunal set aside the punishment of discharge and also the other punishments and

restricted the punishment to stoppage of one year’s increment. He has further referred the judgement of Gujarat

High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1974/1988 decided on 07.07.2000, Dalsukhbhai Kesavlal V/s

National Institute of Design wherein the High Court has held that the Bi-partite Settlement under Section 2 (p)

read with Section 18 of the Act if being registered shall have a statutory cause and binding on the parties. He has

further referred Supreme Court judgement in Bank of India V/s O.P. Sawarnkar in Civil Appeal No. 854/2002

decided on 17.12.2002 wherein the apex court has held, “The employees of the nationalized Bank may not enjoy

a ‘status’ as is the case of government employees or the statutory authorities whose terms and conditions of

service are governed by the constitutional provisions and/or the statutes and the statutory rules; but there is no

gain saying that the employees of the Nationalized Bank enjoy security of their employment. As far as the

employees of the State Bank of India are concerned their terms and conditions of service, as noticed

hereinbefore, are governed by statutory rules. However, so far as the employees of the nationalized Banks are

concerned except for the matter of grant of pension which is covered by the regulations banks are concerned

except for the matter of grant of pension which is covered by the regulations framed in terms of Section 19 of

the 1970 Act, other terms and conditions of their service are not statutory in nature. But the State Bank of India

as also the nationalized Banks is ‘States’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The

services of the workman are also governed by several standing orders and Bi-partite Settlement which have the

force of law. The Banks, therefore, cannot take recourse to ‘hire and fire’ for the purpose of terminating the

services of the employees. The Banks are required to act fairly and strictly in terms of the norms laid down

therefore. Their actions in this behalf must satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He

has further referred the judgement of Supreme Court in Captain M Paul Anthony V/s Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.

decided on 30.03.1999 wherein it has been alleged that there is yet another reason for discarding the whole of

the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were

based on identical set of facts, namely, ‘the raid conducted at the appellant’s residence and recovery of

incriminating articles thereof.’ The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed

before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and

Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had affected recovery. They were the only

witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the

conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the

criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was

conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution

was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a

judicial pronouncement with the finding that the “raid and recovery” at the residence of the appellant were not

proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex-parte

departmental proceedings, to stand. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the

departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the

distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis

of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case. Similar view has been taken in

G.M. Tank V/s State of Gujarat, Civil Appeal No. 2582/2006 by the Gujarat High Court.

19. I considered the evidence oral and documentary of both the parties and the judgements as above referred by the

parties.

20. It is noteworthy that this Tribunal has limited scope in the matter as the second party workman challenged the

legality and validity of the departmental enquiry which was decided by the Tribunal as discussed above against

the workman and the departmental enquiry was held legal. Therefore, this Tribunal is only to decide as to

480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

whether the punishment awarded by the first party Bank of India was proportionate to the misconduct. The

workman has also challenged the punishment awarded on the ground that the punishment was awarded by an

Officer subordinate to the appointing authority but the workman has not filed any document as to who the

Officer appointed him or who was his appointing authority. As the punishment was confirmed by the Chief

Executive Officer by contesting the reference, therefore, the question of awarding punishment by the lower

authority cannot be said to be illegal, however it can be said to be an irregularity and irregularity will not vitiate

the action.

21. The workman has also questioned the departmental enquiry on the ground that as per the terms of Bi-partite

settlement, departmental enquiry cannot be initiated till the conclusion of the Criminal Trial. This argument has

no force because the departmental enquiry was initiated after a lapse of several years of criminal trial and which

was permitted under the Bi-partite settlement. Moreover, he himself has not challenged the finding of the

Tribunal regarding legality of enquiry in any higher forum; therefore, he cannot re-agitate the matter.

22. As appears from the record, the workman since his termination has also been working as advocate registered

with the Bar Council of India.

23. The workman has argued that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court for the charges levelled against him but

the judgement of the Trial Court reveals that he was acquitted for want of evidence as the witnesses became

hostile. It is a settled law that the departmental enquiry can go side by side with the Criminal Trial, therefore,

holding him guilty in the departmental enquiry, he cannot take the plea that he was innocent.

24. The workman was not only held guilty in the present matter but was also found to be involved in number of

cases of misappropriation of money in the Bank, therefore, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be

excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him. Thus the Issue No. i is decided in

affirmative and against the second party workman Mahendra Kumar M. Vadia. As regards Issue No. ii, no relief

can be granted in the light of the aforesaid discussions.

25. The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 125

125

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

बEक ऑफ महाराH B के (बंधतं* से संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय

सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण / 0म यायालय नं. 2, मु बई के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 59/2011) को (कािशत करती है जो

केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7आ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/31/2011-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Mumbai 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 07.01.2019.

[No. L-12011/31/2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/59 of 2011

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

The General Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra, Mumbai Regional Office,

Janmangal Building, 45/47,

Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort,

Mumbai – 400 001.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

481

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The President,

Maha Bank Navnirman Sena,

C/o. Shri Umakant Kotnis, Yeshoda Co-op.

Housing Society, Ranade Road, Extension,

Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. M. B. Anchan Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Shri J. H. Sawant Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 15^th November, 2018

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-12011/3/2011 – IR (B-II) dated 08.11.2011. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the demand of MAHA Bank Navnirman Sena, Mumbai for regularization of the services of

Shri Prashant B. Kadam, Anant S. Bhalekar, Sunil B. Adsul, Anand P. Waghmare, Dilip B. Chache, Mahendra

K. Ghule, Mahesh K. Chavan and Vaibhav A. Patekar, Part Time Sweepers in the Branches of Bank of

Maharashtra, Mumbai Region is legal, just and proper ? What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

Second party workman has filed application to dispose of the reference for want of prosecution. It is contended

that the industrial dispute covered in the reference has been settled and it does not survive since the workman has given

employment in the direct service of the first party.

Other side has also no objection for withdrawing the reference.

Hence in view of withdrawal pursis the reference is withdrawn and hence disposed off.

ORDER

Reference is withdrawn and hence disposed off.

Date : 15.11.2018

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 7 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 126

126

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

बEक ऑफ बडौदा के (बंधतं* से संब+ िनयोजक- और उनके कम कार- के बीच अनुबंध म िन.द/ औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय

सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण / 0म यायालय, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 142/2006) को (कािशत

करती है जो केीय सरकार को 07.01.2019 को (ा6 7आ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/11/2006-आईआर (बी-II)]

रिव कुमार, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 7^th January, 2019

S.O. 126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 142/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.01.2019.

[No. L-12012/11/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 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 13^th December, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No- 142/2006

The General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Buraj Plaza – 2, Bayaji Gunj,

Baroda (Gujarat)

… First Party

V/s

Shri Shaileshkumar Gandhi,

Old Post Office, Kacchi Road, Kalol,

Panchmahal (Gujarat)

… Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri V.K. Mashar

For the Second Party

: Shri Nawnit Taneja

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/11/2006–

IR(B-II) dated 29.06.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda by retrenching the services of Shri S.K. Gandhi

without following the procedure of provisions of Section 25 F and 25 G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent?”

1. The reference dates back to 29.06.2006 and received on 10.07.2006 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 Shaileshkumar Gandhi submitted the

statement of claim Ex. 6 alleging that he was engaged as casual labour (sweeper) on pro-rata basis in the Bank

of Baroda in Kalol Branch on 01.08.1988 where he worked for 15 years till 20.02.2002 when the Regional

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Godhra orally terminated his service without issuing any notice or without giving

opportunity of an alternative job as the aforesaid Kalol Branch of Bank of Baroda was ordered to be closed. The

Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Godhra issued a letter to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Kalol

Branch directing him to pay1/3^rd salary on pro-rata basis at the rate of Rs.375/- to Rs.1250/- per month vide

letter no. CGZ:PR:STF:8:52 dated 23.04.1991 while appointing him as a casual worker (sweeper). The copy of

the letter is enclosed with the statement of claim Ex. 6. Though he was orally assured to be absorbed as a regular

employee against a future vacancy. He was paid 1/3^rd salary on pro-rata basis at the rate of Rs.375/- to Rs.1250/-

per month during the aforesaid period. He has further alleged that in the light of judgements of Supreme Court

in Surender Singh V/s Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D., Dhirendra Chamoli V/s State of U.P., 1986 (1) SC C 637,

his oral termination was violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as violative of

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he has prayed for a declaration to the fact that the second party

workman be declared as continued employee since 20.02.2002 and be also ordered to be regularised in the

service along with any other relief as the Tribunal deems so.

3. The first party Bank of Baroda submitted the written statement Ex. 8 admitting the fact that the second party

workman was engaged as part time sweeper on pro-rata basis who also worked from 01.08.1988 to 20.02.2002

and denied all other averments made in the statement of claim Ex.6. The first party further submitted that the

apex court in the judgement of Civil Appeal No. 1968/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No. 9103-9105/2001,

Secretary State of Karnataka V/s Umadevi, has observed as under: “The apex Court had made it clear that

regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In this case while deliberating upon the issue of

regularisation and absorption of casual/temporary/daily wagers, the apex Court has held that, States have made

Acts, Rules or Regulations for implementing the various constitutional guarantees and any recruitment to the

service in the state or in the Union is governed by such acts, rules or regulations. The Constitution does not

envisages any employment outside this constitutional scheme and without following the requirement said down

therein and there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is ordinarily not proper for courts

to direct absorption in permanent employment who had been engaged without following due process of

selection as envisaged by the constitutional scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that merely

because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the terms of his

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

483

appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on strength

of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as

envisaged by the relevant rules. Therefore, there is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on

daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have right to be absorbed in service.”

The first party has also submitted that he was simply as casual labour (sweeper) on pro-rata basis being engaged

by the Branch Manager/Regional Manager who have no powers to appoint any sweeper as daily wager and the

letter no. CGZ:PR:STF:8:52 dated 23.04.1991 has no relevance or significance to prove the case of the

workman on the aforesaid ground.

4. The second party workman vide list Ex. 5 submitted the copy of the statement of claim as stated earlier, the

aforesaid letters and the copies of proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda by retrenching the services of

Shri S.K. Gandhi without following the procedure of provisions of Section 25 F and 25 G of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?

6. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of

these issues lies on the second party workman S.K. Gandhi who submitted his affidavit Ex. 13 reiterating the

averments made in the statement of claim but in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he will submit his

appointment letter issued by the Bank but no such appointment letter was submitted during the proceeding of the

case. He also admitted that he sent a suicide note to the Bank threatening the Bank to appoint him on regular

basis. He has also admitted that the Kalol Branch of Bank of Baroda was closed and was merged in the main

branch of Bank of Baroda in the same city. In the main branch, there was already a temporary sweeper who

performs the work of sweeping. He has no evidence that he worked for more than 240 days.

7. The first party submitted the affidavit Ex. 20 of Asnani Murlidher Kishordas, The Manager, Human Resource

Management at Regional Office, Godhra wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the written statement.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the workman personally. He also does not know

that this workman worked from 1988 to 2002 in the Kalol Branch. He also does not know that the Gujarat High

Court on 01.05.2005 would have passed the order that any casual worker who have worked for more than 10

years be regularised. The Regional Manager and Branch Manager of the Bank have no power to appoint any

casual labour.

8. Both the parties submitted the written arguments Ex. 23 and 24 respectively. The second party workman in his

written argument Ex. 24 has submitted that he worked for more than 240 days and it was the duty of first party

to maintain the muster role which the first party failed to submit in the Tribunal. The first party has already

admitted in the written statement that the workman worked for 1988 to 2002; therefore, he deserved

reinstatement as well as regularisation. On the contrary, the first party in his written argument Ex. 23 referring

number of judgements of various High Courts and Supreme Court submitted that the workman was purely a

casual labour appointed on pro-rata basis and the services were discontinued as the branch, where the second

party workman was working, was closed in the interest of the Bank’s business. The said branch was merged

with the main branch of the same city where a regular sweeper was working, therefore, this workman could not

be continued to be re-engaged and regularised.

9. I considered the evidence and arguments of both the parties. It is admitted fact that the workman was engaged as

a causal labour on pro-rata basis where he worked for more than 15 years, therefore, even if the hire and fire

policy is applied, the workman ought to have been paid retrenchment compensation which is not done in this

case. Therefore, the relief sought by the workman cannot be granted, though it would be appropriate that the

workman should be granted some compensation for the service he rendered for 15 years. Thus in my view, this

workman must be granted compensation of lump-sum amount of Rs.50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). The

prayer sought for re-engagement and regularisation is refused.

10. Thus both the issue are decided accordingly. The first party Bank of Baroda is directed to pay the aforesaid

amount of Rs.50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the second party workman Shaileshkumar K. Gandhi within

60 days from the publication of this award.

11. The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 8 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 127

127

127.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

MCy;w- lh- ,y- 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 & lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 11/2004½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 31-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22012@36@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8^th January, 2019

S.O. 127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2004)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 31.12.2018.

[No. L-22012/36/2013 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER,CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/11/2004

Date: 04.10.2018

Party No.1

The Chief General Manager,

Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Nagpur Area, Jaripatka,

Nagpur-440014.

Versus

Party No.2

The General Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh(INTUC),

C-3, Koyla Vihar, Civil Lines,

Nagpur.

Dated: 4^th 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 employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their Union Rashtriya

Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/36/2013-IR(CM-II) dated

30.12.2003, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of WCL through its Chief General Manager, Nagpur Area in

superannuating the services of S/Shri Brijraj Beni, Abdul Khalique S/o Abdul Hammed and

Shri Shivmurti S/o Sarabjit Verma w.e.f. 1.7.2002 without considering their request for the change of

their date of birth/age as per the school certificate, Mining Sirdar Certificate and C.M.P.F. record in

which they were relying upon is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workmen are entitled?’’

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,

in response to which, the Union Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), (“the Union” in short) filed the

statement of claim and the management of Western Coalfields Ltd. (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

3. The Union filed a statement of claim by asserting that, union (INTUC) with a registered trade union which is

affiliated with Indian National Trade Union Congress and Indian National Mines Workers of Federation. Party No. 1

Western Coalfields Ltd., a Govt. coal company, it registered office as well as head office at Nagpur.

Workmen involved in this dispute are namely S/Shri Brijraj Beni, Abdul Khalique S/o Abdul Hammed and Shri

Shivmurti S/o Sarabjit Verma. The Party No. 1 has its own Standing Order and covered by National Coal Wage

Agreement, which was issued time to time by the member’s secretary JBCCI (Joint Bipartite Committee for Coal

Industry).

According to union address, date of birth and other particulars of the above workmen wrongly mentioned in

their service records. Date of birth of the workmen involved in the instant industrial dispute were not recorded in form B

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

485

Colliery where in the workman Shri Brajraj Beni initially appointed by M/s. National Coal Development Corporation

Ltd., where Shri Abdul Khalique was initially appointed at Sillewara Colliery and at Pipla Colliery, Sh. Shivmurti was

initially appointed on 01/12/1972, 05/01/1970 and 15/04/1972 respectively. According to union date of birth of these

employees was not filed by these workmen but Party No. 1 subsequently changed their date of birth on their own

imagination without knowledge of the concerned employees.

According to the union, workmen had filed necessary proof of their expected date of birth but management did

not accept the evidence of their age proof and wrongly superannuated above these workmen from service w.e.f. 01^st July,

2002. According to the Union matter were also discussed by the union with the management on time to time but

management did not correct the age of birth of above employees and do not implemented the condition laid down

through Instruction No. 76 of the JBCCI so, action of the management according to the union illegal and unjustified

against the instruction issued by the JBCCI. According to the union matter was referred to age determined committee

(ADC) but workmen were not issued any notice and intimation and did not follow norms of physical examination.

According to the union they filed details information regarding the above three workers. According to the union

workmen had represented the management several times much before the year 2002, management also verified their date

of birth from school records but management did not correct the date of birth of the workmen and they superannuated

workmen only w.e.f. 01/07/2002, so workmen are entitled of reinstatement in their services and prayed for action of the

management superannuating above three workers wrongly declared as unjustified and prayed for reinstatement of these

workmen with full back wages till actual superannuating time and also prayed for other relief.

On behalf of the management written statement was filed by asserting that, present proceeding is not

maintainable in the eye of Law because that the parties are already approaching Civil Court. According to them this

reference is not vague but sham and frivolous. This proceeding is hit by the provisions of resjudicata. According to them

Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the correct date of birth. They have also asserted that Form B Register is a statutory

document; also contain same date of birth. They also prayed that such proceedings are hit by delay and laches. The

workman manipulate the date of birth by mentioning wrong document and they want to create to pressurize the Party No.

1 i.e. Management, they also asserted that they move at belated stage for unlawful gain. According to management

workmen has already retired at ten years back and they cannot be reinstated in service, they also asserted that infact it is

not an individual dispute and is not tenable.

According to the management proof of the date of birth was not filed at the time of initial appointment. Their

claim about the change of date of birth was based on fraudulent document which was decided correctly by the

management and superannuating them in times. They also asserted that fact mentioning of the service of the workmen

are matter of records. They denied all material facts for which was mentioned in statement of claim regarding age proof

document and procedure followed by the management or Age Determination Committee. They also denied that the

workmen entitled to reinstatement with full back wages; they asserted that it is outside scope of reference. They also

asserted that workmen keep mum for a period of over fifteen years; they also asserted that documents are carved for

unlawful purpose. So, they also prayed that reference decided against the Union.

Point of determination:

A) Whether action of the management in superannuating the service of above three workmen is legal and

justified?

B) Whether workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wage?

Reasons of determination

10.

On behalf of the management, they relied on following case laws:- GM, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs.

ShibKumar Dushad, (2000) SC 969, Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SC 673, Babloo Pasi Vs. State of

Jharkhand, (2008) 13 SC 133, Ravinder Singh Gorkhi, (2006) 5 SC 584, Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department

Vs. R. Kirbakaram-AIR (1993) SC 2647, State of MP Vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SC 664, State of Uttatanchal Vs.

Pitamber Dutt Demwal, (20205) 11 SC 477, Dinesh Kumar Vs Western Coalfields Limited & Another, Order dated

11.05.2017 W.P. No. 15616/2016 (M.P. High Court), Ayyub Khan Vs. Western Coalfields Limited & Another WP No.

8403/2016 Order dated 18.05.2017 by Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. &

Other Vs Dinbandhu Majumdar & Another’s AIR 1995 SC 1499, Shiv Prasad Vs. Western Coalfields Limited & Others

W.P. No. 3307/2013 Order dated 27/10/2016, Ishwari Prasad Vs. Western Coalfields Limited in W.P. No. 8761/2016

date of 05/12/2016, judgment dated 10/10/2017 in the W P No. 19829 of 2016 (Smt. Shyuamwati Yadav Vs Western

Coalfields Limited (M.P. High Court):-

(i)

“Where question regarding correctness of date of birth as entered in service record raised by the

employee long after his joining the service and the employer decided the question following the

procedure prescribed by statute, held in absence of any arithmetical or typographical error apparent on

the face of the record, High Court should not interfere with such decision of the employer in exercise of

its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.”

(ii)

“Admission made by a party would be binding on him and a presumption can be drawn that the same

has been established- Age of a candidate had to be proved on the basis of material on record as well as

attending circumstances”.

486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii)

“Opinion of Medical Board/Radiological examination/Ossification test - Such opinion, test and

examination, held are essential but not exclusive proof of age- There can be no uniform standard due

to variations in climate, diet, genes and other factor---------------School Register, held, is relevant and

admissible but is not of much evidentiary value in the absence of the material on which the age was

recorded”.

(iv)

“School leaving certificate produced for proving date of birth of accused-----------it was not original

but second copy of school leaving certificate issued after 26 years of the accused leaving school

Headmaster stating that he had no personal knowledge regarding date of birth of accused------He was

not in school when accused admitted therein----------- held, the said school leaving certificate could not

be relied upon”.

(v)

“Date of birth---Correctness of –Not permissible only on basis of report submitted by Revenue Officer

after holding enquiry”.

(vi)

Age—Date of birth—Circumspection, caution and carefulness must be observed---Reiterated,

government servant cannot claim as a matter of right correction of date of birth in service record after

lapse of time fixed by employer, even if he has good evidence to establish erron4eous entry—On facts

held, High Court committed manifest error in allowing change of date of birth after lapse of over two

decades notwithstanding that no period for filing such application was prescribed”.

(vii)

“Writ Petition, challenging the recorded date of birth, filed by the employee concerned thirty long

years after the preparation of service-book, although he had signed the same several times (at least

times in this case) held----High Court ought not to have interfered with the departmental authorities

decision rejecting the employees request to alter the recorded date of birth-------More so when the

relevant rule prohibited the entertainment of any application or representation for correcting the

recorded date of birth or age.”

(viii)

”Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issue by the Board/University or Middle

Class Certificate issued by the department and admit cards issued by the aforesaid bodies may be

treated as correct; provided they were issued by the said bodies prior to the date of employment”.

(ix)

”The importance of the date of birth of an employee given to his employer and accepted as correct by

the latter and entered in the service and Leave Record of the former, cannot be

underestimated---------he would be required by his employer to declare his correct date of birth and

support the same by production of appropriate certificates or documents, if any. Even where the

person so appointed fail to produce the certificates or documents in proof of their date of birth, they

would be required to affix their thumb impression or signature in authentication of their declared ages

or dates of birth ---------correction of such date of birth of employee after its acceptance by the

Government or its instrumentality, its subsequent correction at the instance of such employee, becomes

impressible---------we have no hesitation, in holding, that ordinarily High Courts should not in exercise

of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by the employee of the

Government.”

10.

On behalf of the union, they relied on following case law---------Sanikommu Venkateswara Reddy Vs The

Singareni Collieries Co Ltd., Kothagudem & others -2015 LAB.I.C. (NOC) 10 (HYD) K. Chary Vs The General

Narasimha and Manager (Personnel) Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., 2015 LAB.I.C. (NOC) 14 (A.P.):-

“Date of birth --------- School certificate being public document can be safety relied on to determine date of

birth of petitioner more particularly, when respondent have not chosen to question its genuineness by enquiring with

education officers ------.”

ii)

“General Mazdoor treated as illiterate and date of birth entered in service records relying upon report of Medical

--------- Company did not challenge said SSC certificate as being fraudulently obtained by General Mazdoor-

Determination of date of birth by Medical Board in mechanical manner-Company directed to consider claim for

correction of date of birth on basis of transfer certificate produced by General Mazdoor.”

I relied above all principles laid down by the Hon’ble Court. Now I want to see the argument submitted by

union with respect to evidence part.

11.

On the behalf of union it was argued that they examine two witnesses namely Abdul Khalique and Brijraj Beni

but on behalf of management only one witness Smt. V. Laxmi Shankar with relate to only Abdul Khalique, so we

argument was that their evidence regarding Brijraj Beni remain un-rebutted this argument was denied on behalf of

management by asserting that evidence is not reliable.

12.

Abdul Khalique stated in his chief examination to support his claim but on his cross examination, he admitted

that at the time of appointment his medical examination was not taken. According to him, he made a representation

challenging date of birth to the management to the year of 1997-98 but his appointment on 05.01.1973. He also

admitted that letter dated 29.06.2002 is not seen to him, nor he receipt the copy. He also asserted that the application

dated 01.07.2002 was filed by him and did not appear any board examination; accordingly to him he was not informed

that age by suggested by the committee. Now I want to see Brijraj Beni.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

487

13.

Brijraj Beni (PW-2) gave his evidence and affidavit to support his claim but in his cross examination he

admitted that he was appointed as Mazdoor in 1972 as a loader but due to accident in 1975 in 1975, he sustained injury.

He was unable to work as loader. He also admitted that on Form –B registered maintained by Kamptee Colliery who has

signed he also asserted that in year 1987 he was first time brought to notice to the management regarding his date of

birth. It shows that, this fact came in notice to the management after near about 15 years.

14.

The workman, Brijraj Beni, PW-2 also admitted that, when service excerpt was supplied to him by the

management, then he came to know about the wrong recording of date of birth. He also asserted that, he filed a school

leaving certificate to the authority of the management, which is related to Monapur Primary School, but this certificate

was produced by him before the management on 1987. He read up to class-V, but at the time of appointment, he did not

file any School Leaving Certificate. He also asserted that, he did not go through Form ‘B’ register before signing the

same. He also denied that, in CMPF register, his date of birth has been mentioned as 1949.

15.

On going above evidence, it appears that, all above three workers filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge,

Sr. Division at Nagpur, which carries the number 942/2002 and 943/2002 etc, but they withdrew the same to file their

claim before CGIT, Nagpur. On going the record, it also appears that, above three workers were working under WCL

and they retired in the year 2002. According to the workman, Age Determining Committee is not working properly in

assessing their age, but that fact was denied by the management. Now, we want to see the management’s evidence.

16.

On behalf of the management, Mrs. V. Laxmi Shankar was examined in support of their defence. She admitted

in cross-examination that, the age of workman was asserted by Area Age Assessment Committee by Document Exhibit

M-XI, but signature of Area Manager was not there. She also asserted that, the age of workman had been recorded

01.07.1942, but denied that, there was glaring mistake in the age of the workman, so this matter was referred to the Age

Assessment Committee. She also asserted that, workman did not produce any document in support of his date of birth.

17.

Mrs. V. Laxmi Shankar, MW-I asserted that, now she is working in Pipla Colliery and discharging the

function of Welfare Officer. She also admitted that, Document Exhibit W-XII concerned with the workman, Abdul

Khalik. She denied that, age of workman has been written in different ink. She also admitted that, by document Exhibit

M-XI, Age Determining Committee, decided the age of workman, Abdul Khalik was between 55 to 60. She does not

know, whether the age of the workman, Abdul Khalik was determined at the midpoint of said age.

18.

On behalf of the workman, it was also argued that, management did not follow the instructions issued by the

JBCCI on 15.04.1988. According to him member of Age Assessment Committee consisting Area General Manager,

Area Personnel Manager and Medical Officer In charge of the area, but this argument was denied by the management by

asserting that, they followed the proper procedure and the union wanted to pressurize the management for their illegal

demand.

19.

On the behalf of union it was argued that school leaving certificate was verified by the management but they

found it genuine. They also argued that in case of Abdul Khalique age must be midpoint which was suggested by ADC

(Age Determine Committee).

20.

In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where

principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if

termination of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu Udhyog

Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was held that:-

“no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by

Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as

well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing

as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to

satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” These principles are also laid down by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh (2016) 7

SCC-571, UPSRTC Vs. Gopal Shukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017) 13 SCC

269, V.D. Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School Vs. A.

Harnoon (2017) 2 SCC 510.

21.

In this case both parties are negligent in conduction the case as well as producing evidence. Mr. Shivmurti did

not examine himself nor any person from the union in support of the case, so case of Shivmurti was not proved. Mr.

Brijraj Beni and Sh. Abdul Khalique did not produce any documents in support of their date of birth but they relied on

management’s document Exhibit M-3 & M-4. Management filed documents M-1 to M-13, but they did not file ADC

report of Shri Brijraj Beni.

22.

On the contrary, argument of workman of workman was that, ADC gave their report without physically and

medically examined the workman. On perusal of the record, it appears that, there is cutting in the document, Form ‘B’

Beni. It shows that, Party No. 1 did not follow proper procedure to certain the age of Brijraj Beni.

23.

On perusal of the records it appears that, M.1 document and C-I (it was marked by the court at the time of

judgment) were concerned with transfer certificate (TC) but concerned teachers were not examined. So, it does not reveal

that, how this date of birth was mentioned in these documents by concerned authority. Moreover, in these documents,

there is cutting between A to A and these two documents were issued after the employment i.e. M. 1 issued on

488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17/07/1987 and C-I issued on 04/04/1997 respectively, which is breach of Implementation Instruction No. 76. Annexure

-I as shown at page No. 692, Part B (a), which was issued by JBCCI on 25/04/1988 (both parties are agreed with this

document). It also appear that, in the process of age determination on document M-VII, M-VIII & M.IX worker Sh.

Abdul khalique puts his thumb impression and on behalf of management which was signed by concerned authority.

24.

In Age Determining Committee, Sub Area Manager had not signed document M- XI, it is also pointed out that

on this document, age of Sh. Abdul Khalique is determined between 55 to 60 i.e.particular age/fixed age not determined

by the Age Determining Committee (ADC). In general it will calculated 57.5 years but on perusal of document M- XI

management deemed it 60 years and superannuated Sh. Abdul Khalique, so it is defect on age determining procedure,

which is against of their own standing rules as well as Instruction No. 76 of JBCCI. In service records age were

mentioned but date of birth are not mentioned. Witnesses also admitted that they did not file any age proof at the time of

appointment, so it may be possible that, they mentioned their age on their own prediction and management has accepted

that age without requiring the document.

25.

Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of principles as mentioned above, I come to in this

conclusion that, all employees have retired in the year of 2002, which is a lapse of near about 16 years so, in my opinion

the reinstatement with back wages is not possible in these circumstances. As pointed out earlier Shri Abdul Khalique was

retired before two and half year, which age was determined by the ADC so, he is entitled of Rs. 3. 50 lakhs as Lumpsum

compensation and Sh. Brijraj Beni is entitled of Rs. 1 lakh compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages but Sh.

Shivmurti is not entitled to any relief.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of WCL through its Chief General Manager, Nagpur Area in

superannuating the services of S/Shri Brijraj Beni, Abdul Khalique S/o Abdul Hammed and Shri Shivmurti

S/o Sarabjit Verma w.e.f. 1.7.2002 without considering their request for the change of their date of birth/age as

per the school certificate, Mining Sirdar Certificate and C.M.P.F. record in which they were relying upon is not

legal and justified. Shri Abdul Khalique and Shri Brijraj Beni are entitled for Lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3.5

lakhs (Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only), Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) respectively in lieu of

reinstatement and back wages, which is payable within one month from the publication of this award in official

gazette, failing which, amount due to workmen will carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of due to the

workmen to the date of actual payment of the amount to the workmen. Shri Shivmurti is not entitled to any

monetary compensation. They are not entitled for any other relief.

S.S.GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 8 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 128

128

128.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

QwM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ+ 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 & lg&Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16/1980½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2-1-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&42012@2@1978&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8^th January, 2019

S.O. 128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/1980) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Food Corporation of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 2.1.2019.

[No. L-42012/2/1978 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

489

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 16 of 1980

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, .Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. J. Dasgupta, Learned Counsel with Mr. U.K. Mondal, Learned Counsel.

On behalf of the Workmen

: Mr. M.S. Dutta, Learned Counsel.

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Food & Supply.

Dated: 19^th December, 2018

This is the oldest reference pending in this Tribunal wherein by Order No.L-42012(2)/78-D.II(B) dated

21.02.1980 and corrigendum of even number dated 19^th December, 1980 the Government of India in exercise of its

powers under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in

retrenching

with

effect

from

25.8.1974, 887 workers of the various Depots in the Calcutta Complex as mentioned in the Annexure, is

justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?”

Brief facts giving rise to above reference are that the Food Corporation of India which is constituted by an Act

of the Parliament for the purpose of procurement of food grains, storing and distribution of the same has

stores/godowns/depots in different parts of India. Some of them were owned by FCI and some were hired on rent from

different sources. In Calcutta Complex, besides having own depots, FCI had also hired some depots from Central

Warehousing Corporation and West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation. There were 77000 workmen who were

employed by FCI all over India including 3337 as handling mazdoors who worked in all such owned and hired godowns

for and on behalf of FCI. Out of aforesaid 3337 handling mazdoors, about 887 were employed in different depots in

Calcutta Complex. The workmen employed in above depots were all engaged during the period 1966 – 70 through

contractors and as they were considered essential and required regular component necessary for day-to-day work of FCI,

they were so departmentalized and continued to work uninterrupted as regular and permanent hands. It has been further

pleaded by the union that though there was no change or shift in the general policy of procurement, storage and

distribution of the Government of India, the local management of FCI without proper application of mind and in a fit of

whims took a decision to de-hire some of aforesaid godowns in Calcutta Complex. FCI gave notice on 21.02.1974 for

vacation of five godowns to the Central Warehousing Corporation which were taken by FCI on rent which are Sankrail

(Belvedere Jute Mill), New Central Jute Mill, Hanuman Jute Mill, RHO Shed and Taratala. The FCI also intimated the

West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation to vacate their godowns of Kankinara (Alliance Jute Mill), Union South

(Metiabruz) and Budge Budge affecting 216 workmen. On 12^th March, 1974 the FCI declared about 384 handling

mazdoors belonging to Kantapukur Bengal Jute Mill and Jagannath Ghat godowns which were owned by FCI and also

issued a letter to the union enclosing copy of retrenchment notice dated 14^th July, 1974 alongwith list of 386 handling

mazdoors belonging to Kantapukur and Jagannath Ghat depots. FCI through their agents, Central Warehousing

Corporation and West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation by notices dated 20^th July, 1974 and 21^st July, 1974

effected retrenchment of 503 handling mazdoors. Thus retrenchment of 887 departmentalized handling mazdoors was

cleverly done by and at the instance of FCI through its agents like Central Warehousing Corporation and West Bengal

State Warehousing Corporation, though it was FCI who used to pay them their wages, bonus, PF contribution and all

such benefits. Union of FCI raised protest against retrenchment and claimed revocation of the orders but failed.

Therefore, the union referred the matter to the Regional Labour Commissioner for intervention and amicable settlement,

but all efforts of conciliation failed due to adamant and unreasonable attitude of FCI. In the circumstances, the dispute at

the instance of the union was referred to this Tribunal where the union by way of filing statement of claims claimed that

the retrenchment of 887 concerned workmen was unjustified, mala fide, inoperative in law and void. Therefore, relief of

reinstatement with all back wages including bonus and other fringe benefits have been prayed.

The Food Corporation of India filed its written statement pleading therein that in addition to operating its own

food storage, FCI had also hired storage space in the godowns of warehousing corporations such as Central Warehousing

Corporation or the West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation which are corporations established under Warehousing

Corporation Act, 1962. The Central Warehousing Corporation and the West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation

engaged their own employees for handling and supervision in respect of the food grains stored in their warehouses run by

them. Prior to 1970 Food Corporation of India in view of nature and necessities of its functions never engaged any

workman of its own and it had all along engaged labour contractors for handling of food grains in its food storage depots

490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

at different places. The labourers are workmen who performed the said task were categorized according to their nature of

work such as Mondal, Sardar, Munshi, handling and ancillary mazdoors. On 15^th January, 1970 Food Corporation

commenced operating with its own employees instead of utilizing the services of labour contractors. At that time the total

strength of workers of all categories under the Food Corporation was 1898. It was gradually raised by different District

Managers to buy industrial peace and harmony without any proportionate increase in work-load so that by 31^st July, 1974

the number increased to 2723 but due to dwindling turnover of business resulting in decrease in requirement or necessity

of storing capacity, there was practically no work and workmen were practically sitting idle to the detriment of FCI.

Since FCI had no material for storage and there was likely-hood of any increased use of storage space in the near future,

FCI had decided in early 1974 to provide its own workers with alternative employment elsewhere and to de-hire depots

which belonged to others. However, alternative employment was refused by the workers at the instance of the union. Due

to such refusal, FCI left with no other alternative but to retrench surplus workers. Therefore, FCI gave its workmen one

month’s and offered payment of legal dues in accordance with law. Retrenchment notices were sent to all individual

workmen by registered post with acknowledgement and a copy of the notice was displayed on the notice board alongwith

a list of surplus labour retrenched. It was also sent to the union’s office. Appropriate government was also informed of

the retrenchment of the workmen. FCI also gave notices to the persons or bodies from whom it had hired godowns

including two warehousing corporations that it would vacate such godowns on the specified dates. Pursuant to the hiring

of warehouses the FCI had no obligation to maintain or absorb the aforesaid workmen of the said statutory bodies.

Accordingly, Central Warehousing Corporation and West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation served notices of

retrenchment upon the workmen employed by them and paid them all in accordance with law. Of the total 887 workers

thus retrenched, only 386 were workers of FCI and the remaining workers were of other employers. It is further pleaded

that above dispute, if any has been resolved and has ceased to exist and is no longer capable of adjudication by reason of

subsequent developments. Inspite of the fact that there was no work left for the workmen, the case of FCI workmen was

taken up with the Chief Minister, West Bengal by the union and at a meeting it was inter alia agreed that the matter

relating to retrenchment of surplus labour after absorbing such of them as could possible be arranged for settlement

within a period of three months. However, the union without fulfilling its obligations arising out of agreement at the

meeting aforesaid, made a fresh demand that the Food Corporation should absorb the workmen belonging to and

retrenched by Central Warehousing Corporation as well as State Warehousing Corporation. At the instance of union

pressure were exertsed upon the Food Corporation, both at the central and state level to take in all the 887 workmen, but

the Food Corporation could only agree to take 300 of its own retrenched workers subject to certain conditions. On further

pressure mounted upon the Food Corporation in 1977 the Food Corporation agreed to take all those retrenched workmen

aforesaid on their being medically fit and upon police verification as per its requirement. Such absorption of retrenched

workmen progressively took place by 19^th July, 1981. Out of 887 retrenched workmen 824 workmen were given new

appointment by the Corporation, while out of remaining 63 workers 8 were found medically unfit and 55 did not report to

their now posts. It is further pleaded that in view of fact that the workmen being already absorbed and no dispute survives

or is capable of adjudication, the reference in question is invalid and not maintainable. Therefore, the workmen are not

entitled for any relief.

In reply to written statement of Food Corporation of India the union filed its rejoinder reiterating the averments

of statement of claim and pleaded inter alia that out of 887 workers only 386 as alleged by Food Corporation were the

workers of the corporation and subsequent to the present reference, only 824 out of 887 workmen are alleged to have

been given employment on 19^th July, 1981. The alleged absorption was not by way of settlement of the dispute and was

unilaterally made by the Corporationto suit their own convenience and the workman accepted this fresh appointment with

protest and without prejudice. They never gave up their dispute pending before this Tribunal. It is also pleaded that

Shri Saugata Roy had no locus standi to represent the union in any alleged settlement with FCI. The Food Corporation of

India has contravened Section 25FFF and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Food Corporation of India has also filed a rejoinder against the rejoinder filed by the union.

In order to substantiate their respective claims, WW-01, Shri Dulal Nath has been examined on behalf of the

workmen and the management has examined MW-01, Shri Malay Ghosh, MW-02, Shri K. Ranganathan, MW-03,

Shri Atul Kumr Mitra, MW-04, Shri Shyam Sundar Dutta and MW-05, Shri Sunelendu Bhattacharjee. Apart from this,

parties have also filed several documents which shall be referred and discussed at the relevant place.

I have heard the learned counsel for the union, Mr. Madhusudan Dutta as well as for the management,

Mr. Jayanta Dasgupta.

Learned counsel for the union has contended that de-hiring of depots by FCI amounts to closure, but the relevant

provisions contained in Section 25FFA and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied with.

However, in the course of argument leaned counsel conceded that as the matter belongs to the year 1974, all the

workmen have already been attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, learned counsel for the union concentrated on

payment of back wages.

Learned counsel for FCI has denied de-hiring of depots amounts to closure. The undertaking of the organization

was not closed, but only depots or godowns meant for storage of food grains procured by FCI was closed due to

dwindling turnover of business resulting in decrease of requirement of storing capacity. It is further contended that before

retrenchment of 386 workers belong to FCI requirement of notice and wages as provided under Section 25F of the Act

was fulfilled. Similarly, the workers belonging to Central Warehousing Corporation and State Warehousing Corporation

were also retrenched by them after complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. However, it is contended

that though all the 887 workers were retrenched after fulfilling the legal requirement of retrenchment, but a settlement

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

491

was reached out between the Corporation and the union where out of 887 workers, 824 were taken back by FCI itself.

Rest were found medically unfit. Some of them did not turn up to join duties and some were reported to be dead. With

above argument learned counsel for the management has submitted that their exists no dispute as all the retrenched

workmen wee taken back by the Corporation. He has further submitted that the retrenched workmen are also not entitled

for relief of back wages.

10.

First and foremost question which crops up for consideration is whether dehiring of godowns of CWC and SWC

by FCI amounts to closure of business. Closure has been defined under Section 2(cc) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) which runs as follows:

“2(cc)

“closure” means the permanent closing down of a place of employment or part thereof.”

From the above definition of closure it is clear that permanent closing down of a place of employment or part thereof

amounts to closure. FCI is not closing the place of employment permanently. Some of the godowns were hired by FCI

from CWC and SWC for the purposes of enhancing storing capacity of food grains of FCI. From the perusal of record it

is evident that it was CWC and SWC who engaged labours to facilitate the storage of food grains by FCI. Admittedly,

those labours were not employees of FCI, though it is contended that lateron those labours were departmentalized by FCI

in 1970 and were continuously employed there as employees of FCI. In order to deal with this issue, it is necessary to

examine the fact of departmentalization of workers by FCI. After a thorough scrutiny of record I failed to find any order

of departmentalization of workers so as to infer their induction in employment of FCI. The union has filed a letter of

Zonal Manager of FCI dated 14^th January, 1970 sent to West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation in the matter of

departmentalization of workers at Union South Jute Mills, Metiabruz. Substance of this letter is that the West Bengal

State Warehousing Corporation would in no way be responsible for departmentalized workers if FCI ceases to make use

of godowns of State Warehousing Corporation. It has been mentioned in this letter that it would be responsibility of FCI

to deploy workers elsewhere. Thus, the only responsibility of FCI was to deploy the departmentalized workers. There is

nothing on record to show that they were inducted in employment of FCI. The terms and conditions of

departmentalization of workers are also not on record. Further, in 1971 a letter was sent to Zonal Manager, FCI by the

Secretary of West Bengal Sate Warehousing Corporation in the matter of decasualization of labour at Budge Budge

Depot informing him about version of union from which it appears that FCI had agreed in principle to departmentalize

the existing labours of Budge Budge Jute Mill Depot being run by SWC. From this it appears that the policy of

departmentalization was not acted upon. In response to above letter dated 30^th March, 1971 Deputy Zonal Manager, FCI

replied to the Secretary, SWC on 2^nd April, 1971 (Ext. M-19) that decasualization of labour in the godown of SWC is a

domestic affair of SWC and it was upto the authority of SWC whether to decasualize labour in any godown or not and in

case decision to decasualize labour is taken, FCI would only reimburse the payment to be made to labours so long as its

stocks lie in the godown of SWC. This fact was again reiterated in a letter dated 30^th April, 1971 (Ext. M-20) that FCI

would only reimburse additional expenses for departmentalization of CWC and SWC workers so long as their depots are

utilized by FCI for their stocks. Again circular No. 12(1)/71-STG dated 20^th March, 1972 confirms the responsibility of

FCI towards so called departmentalized workers only to the extent of reimbursement to CWC the wages of the labour.

Letter of Deputy Zonal Manager of FCI to SWC dated 20^th March, 1974 (Ext. M-26) again clarifies the responsibility of

FCI in the matter of departmentalization of the workers in which it is mentioned that FCI owes no responsibility in

connection with departmentalization of labours with the depots at Kankinara and Budge Budge. Relying on circulars

issued by FCI on 24^th July, 1972 (Ext. W-32) and on 6^th February, 1973 (Ext. W-46) union has contended that bonus and

D.A. have been paid by FCI to the departmentalized workers. But the above circulars do not support the contention of the

union as these circulars relate to the payment of bonus and D.A. to workers of FCI and not for the departmentalized

workers of CWC and SWC. Thus in view of above discussion it cannot be said that besides 386 retrenched workers,

others were ever inducted in employment of FCI. Hence FCI cannot be made responsible in respect of handling workers.

11.

Thus when the labours engaged by CWC and SWC were affected by de-hiring of godowns by FCI that would

not amount to closure of place of employment. It is not the case of the union that FCI has closed down its entire business

from Calcutta Complex, but some of the workers of FCI were refused employment as a result of de-hiring the godowns.

In these circumstances, de-hiring of goowns of FCI does not amount to closure of place of employment and therefore,

provisions of Section 25FFA and Section 25FFF of the Act of 1947 do not apply.

12.

Learned counsel for FCI has submitted that due to dwindling turnover of business of FCI resulting in decrease

of requirement of storing capacity compelled FCI to retrench the workmen for which provisions of Section 25F were

followed. Section 25F of the Act of 1947 may be reproduced hereunder for better appreciation of issue in controversy:

“Section 25F.

Condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen – No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until –

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages

for the period of notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent

to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any partthereof in

excess of six months; and

may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

Undisputedly out of 887 workers, only 386 workers were workers of FCI. It is also not in dispute that these 386

workers were in continuous service of FCI for not less than a year. From above provisions of Section 25F of the Act of

1947 it is clear that before retrenchment of workmen who had been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer, one month’s notice in writing stating therein the reasons for retrenchment and wages for the period of

notice by the employer are required. Burden lies on the employer, FCI in this case to prove that one month’s notice and

one month’s pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation for retrenchment were given by FCI. Apart from this,

notice to the appropriate Government is also required. Learned counsel for FCI has submitted that FCI given notice to all

386 workers and compensation as required under Section 25F of the Act of 1947 before their retrenchment. According to

FCI the notice once sent to the workers’ union alongwith list of 386 workers proposed to be retrenched. Notice sent by

FCI to 386 workers is on record as Ext. W-18 which has been filed by the union itself. From the perusal of notice Ext.

W-18 it is evident that this notice was given by FCI on 19^th July, 1974 for retrenchment of 386 workers of FCI with

effect from 24^th August, 1974. List of retrenched workers are annexed to the notice requesting all above 386 workers to

collect all the dues on account of their wages, wages for the period of notice and retrenchment compensation provided in

Section 25F(b) of the Act of 1947. Receipt of notice by union on behalf of the workers is not denied. Notice was also

sent by FCI to Government of India informing about retrenchment of 386 workers as envisaged under Section 25F of the

Act of 1947. Copy of notice is on record.

14.

As regards retrenchment compensation MW-04, Shri Shyam Sundar Dutta has been examined on behalf of FCI

to substantiate the stand taken by FCI. He has stated that retrenchment compensation was offered to the retrenched

workers of FCI within due time. The workers initially refused to accept compensation, but ultimately they accepted the

said compensation. Union has examined Shri Dulal Nath as WW-01, but the witness nowhere denied the receipt of notice

or the retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. WW-01, Shri Dulal Nath has

merely stated that the retrenchment was made with effect from 25^th August, 1974. The witness is silent on the point of

notice, wages and compensation. His only grievance on the basis of his statement appears to be that within two years of

the date of retrenchment, there was expansion of one of the depots at Jhinjiria Pole Depot, Orient Jute Mill Depot and

Depot at Kalyani and these godowns started functioning after February, 1974. The workers of FCI who were working

there, were asked to work overtime and given incentive and no new recruitment was made in these depots. Further, he

has alleged that new 1200 persons were recruited as contract labour. Thus there is nothing on record to show non-

compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Grievance of the witness regarding new recruitment also

came to an end when 824 were given recruitment by FCI. The witness, Shri Dulal Nath himself has stated that out of 887

workers mentioned in the schedule of reference, about 824 workmen have been given re-employment in FCI with pay

protection.

15.

Learned counsel for the union has submitted that besides retrenchment of above 386 workers, CWC and SWC

also issued notices to rest of workers on behalf of FCI which is illegal. CWC and SWC had no authority to issue

retrenchment notice to workers working in de-hired godowns. There appears no substance in the submission of learned

counsel as it has been seen above that only 386 workmen belonged to FCI. Rest of the workers are handling workers

working at godowns of CWC and SWC. Hence FCI cannot be responsible for their retrenchment.

16.

However, FCI had given them option of alternative employment which was refused on the ground that the

alternative employment was being given outside Calcutta Complex. However, with the intervention of good offices of

some responsible persons the retrenched workers accepted the offer of employment subject to their medical fitness and

verification of their previous antecedents. A letter sent by Deputy Zonal Manager to Additional Labour Commissioner,

Ext. M-30 shows that FCI had agreed to take back retrenched workers of CWC and SWC subject to their previous

antecedents and medical fitness. It is admitted by WW-01, Shri Dulal Nath that out of 887 workers mentioned in

schedule to the order of reference, about 824 have been taken in employment by FCI with pay protection. He has further

stated that out of 887 retrenched employees, 824 have been reemployed in the service of FCI and their salary was fixed

not at the initial stage as new entrants, but at the stage when their services were terminated. Thus FCI having taken back

all the retrenched workers except those who were found medically unfit or who never turned up for employment, the

question of legality or illegality of the retrenchment of the workers or their reinstatement does not arise. Moreover, it is

conceded by the learned counsel for the union during argument that all the workers have attained the age of

superannuation, hence no question of reinstatement otherwise arises. Learned counsel for the union has concentrated only

on the point of back wages.

17.

As it has already been seen above that 386 workers belonging to FCI were validly retrenched and they have

already been taken back by FCI, no question of back wages arises. So far as other workers belonging to CWC and SWC

are concerned, it has already come that they were not departmentalized as amounting to their induction in employment of

FCI. FCI cannot be made responsible either for their reinstatement or for back wages. Moreover, WW-01, Shri Dulal

Nath had deposed before this Tribunal that out of 887 workers 824 have already been reemployed in the service of FCI

and their salary was not fixed at initial stage, but at the stage where their services were terminated. Therefore, there

appears to be substance in the argument of FCI that no dispute exists for adjudication. As their salary has been fixed not

at the initial stage but at the stage where their services were terminated, question of back wages also does not arise.

18.

Learned counsel for FCI has submitted that even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that the retrenchment

of all the 887 handling workers is ineffective, payment of back wages to them cannot be ordered automatically. Learned

counsel has relied on U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narayan Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that –

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

493

“17………we may observe that although direction to pay full back wages on a declaration that the order of

termination was invalid used to be the usual result but now, with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of the

matter is being taken by the court realizing that an industry may not be compelled to pay to the workman for

the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all to it and/or for a period that was

spent unproductively as a result whereof the employer would be compelled to go back to a situation which

prevailed many years ago, namely, when the workman was retrenched.”

In M.L. Binjolkar v. State of M.P., (2005) 6 SCC 224 also the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that –

“…….. The earlier view was that whenever there is interference with the order of termination or retirement,

full back wages were the natural corollary. In has been laid down in the cases noted above that it would depend

upon several factors and the Court has to weigh the pros and cons of each case and to take pragmatic view.

19.

Further in order to claim back wages burden lies on the union to show that the workers remained unemployed

during the period in question. Hon’ble the Apex Court in Navartis Limited v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 124

has observed that

“19.

There can, however, be no doubt whatsoever that there has been a shift in the approach of this Court

with regard to payment of back wages.Back wages cannot be granted almost automatically upon setting aside

an order of termination inter alia on the premises that the burden to show that the workman was gainfully

employed during interregnum period was on the employer. This Court in a number of decisions opined that

the grant of back wages is not automatic. Burden of proof that he remained unemployed would be on the

workman keeping in view the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872.”

20.

Thus, the fact that the workers remained unemployed must not only be pleaded but must be proved by sufficient

evidence. In the present case from the perusal of statement of claim it is evident that the above fact has not been pleaded.

WW-01, Shri Dulal Nath has not uttered a single word regarding non-employment of workers during the period in

question. Contrary to it he has confirmed that 824 workers have been taken back by FCI and they were also paid wages.

Therefore, no ground exists for payment of back wages to the workers.

21.

In view of above, present reference is answered in the affirmative. Workmen concerned are not entitled to any

relief.

22.

Award is passed as above.

The 19^th December, 2018

Dated, Kolkata,

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 8 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 129

129

129.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

vkj- ch- ,We- ikrh ¼ts oh½ 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 & lg&Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36/2005½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2-1-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&42012@200@2004&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8^th January, 2019

S.O. 129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2005)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Kalkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. R.B. M-Pati (JV) and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 2.1.2019.

[No. L-42012/200/2004 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 36 of 2005

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. RBM-Pati(JV)

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. Tarak Duta, Ld. Counsel.

On behalf of the Workmen

: Mr. Himadri Prasad Paul, Ld. Counsel.

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Petroleum.

Dated: 30^th November, 2018

AWARD

By Order No.L-42012/200/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 04.08.2005 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. RBM-Pati(JV) contractor of National Highways Authority of

India in terminating the services of Sh. Shyamal Kumar Santra, Helper at 56 KM camp, vide its order dated

25^th May 2004 is legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”

After receipt of order of reference, notices were issued to the parties. In compliance to which both the parties

appeared and completed pleadings and the case is at the stage of evidence of the workman. At this stage, when the case is

taken up today, it is submitted that the parties have settled their dispute out of court in terms of memorandum of

settlement. Shri Pook Fong Fee, Director of the company is present to accept that the matter has been settled between the

parties. Shri Shyamal Kumar Santra, concerned workman is also present in court and accepted the memorandum of

settlement according to which after getting Rs.20,000/= he will not press this reference and shall not lead evidence.

Receipt of Rs.20,000/= through a bank draft is mentioned in the memorandum of settlement.

However, as the workman does not want to press this reference, the reference needs to be decided in affirmative.

He has not challenged the action of the management terminating him from service by adducing evidence to substantiate

his claim.

In view of the above, there exists no dispute between the parties.

Reference is disposed of accordingly.

Dated, the 30^th November, 2018.

Kolkata

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 8 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 130

130

130.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM 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 & lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50/2013½ dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22012@23@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8^th January, 2019

S.O. 130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2013)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31.12.2018.

[No. L-22012/23/2013 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

495

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th October, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 50/2013

Between:

The General Secretary

(Sri Riyaz Ahmed),

Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union(HMS),

Qtr. No.C-34, Sector-I,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar – 505209.

… Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandammari Area,

Mandamarri – 504231.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Workman

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Lakshmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide

order No. L-22012/23/2013-IR(C.II) dated 23.4.2013 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute i.e.,

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Adilabad Distt.

in terminating the services of Sri Baldari Jannaiah, Ex-Coal filler, Kaispeta Mine, Mandamarri Area with effect

from 9.3.2004 is justified? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to?

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No.50/2013 and

issued notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their

respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

The workman Sri Baldari Jannaiah, Ex-Coal Filler at Kasipet Mine, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri was appointed on 7.3.1988. He was regular to his duties and performing his duties upto

the satisfaction of all his superiors. While so, during the year 2001, the workman and his wife while travelling in an

auto, they met with an accident and both sustained injuries. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dated 1.2.2002

was issued to him by the Respondent alleging that the Workman absented for duty during the year, which amounts to

misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time

of enquiry, the Workman was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing

on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved, and basing on the erroneous findings of the

Enquiry Officer, the Workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 2.3.2004 w.e.f. 9.3.2004. It is stated that

during the course of the enquiry the Workman has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly

during the year 2001, which was only on account of his ill-health and his wife’s ill-health. But without considering any

of his submissions, the Workman was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondents’

management in dismissing the Workman from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural

justice. The Workman has rendered 14 years of continuous service in the Respondents’ management. The Workman

approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it.

Therefore, the Workman was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order dated 2.3.2004 issued

by the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to

reinstate the Workman into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, and back

wages etc..

Respondent filed counter with the averments in brief as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Workman was

appointed in the Respondent’s company on 7.3.1988 as Badli Filler and later regularized as Coal Filler. He was

dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following

the principles of natural justice. The Workman had participated in the enquiry which was conducted purely following the

496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Workman was proved. A copy of the enquiry report

and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Workman by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make

representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Workman is proved and it

was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through

the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view

and lastly, the Respondent was constrained to dismiss the Workman from service. It is stated that in fact the Workman

was irregular to his duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after

receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Workman is justified and legal

and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

In view of the memo filed by the counsel for the Workman conceding the legality and validity of the domestic

enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent is held as legal and valid vide

order dated 2.5.2018.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Baldari Jannaiah is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman argued

that due to his ill-health as well as his wife’s ill-health the Workman could not be able to attend his duty sincerely.

Even in his show cause the Workman has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of

the enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Workman.

When the Workman has taken a stand that due to his illness and his wife’s ill-health, and other family problems he

could not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while

imposing capital punishment. In this case, the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Workman, and

has given capital punishment to the Workman when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s

Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent’s management argued that

when the Workman was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment

imposed by the Respondent’s company is legal and proper. When the Workman was not sincere in his duty and failed to

maintain minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness and also his wife’s illness, and other family problems, the Workman could not be able to be regular in his duty,

the Workman has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed

by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was

imposed. After dismissal of service, the Workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family

members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 46 years, he is now aged

about 51 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the

Workman being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under

the Respondent, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of

punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. Though the Workman is a first offender and has worked for

about 14 years under the Respondent, while imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think

of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the Respondent

for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the management in

imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Baldari Jannaiah is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri Baldari Jannaiah is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Workman has

already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a

chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Workman has become jobless and he being the

sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances

atleast the Workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondent’s

management. But in this case, the Workman has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. Therefore, in

the opinion of this Tribunal the Workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is

only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

497

RESULT:

In the result, the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Baldari Jannaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, Kasipeta Mine,

Mandamarri Area, w.e.f. 9.3.2004 is not justified and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman be taken into

service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of service,

subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period of one

year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of his

posting.

The Workman cannot claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman shall

have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management shall

have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of attendance

during the period of the three months, the service of the workman shall not be terminated and he will be cautioned to

improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of attendance during

one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and enquiry and in the

event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till the age of attaining

superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine accidents/ Natural disasters,

taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be

applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for appointment afresh.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day of

October, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Workman

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Workman

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई द ली, 8 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 131

131

131.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM 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 & lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 59/2013½ dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22012@32@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8^th January, 2019

S.O. 131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2013)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31.12.2018.

[No. L-22012/32/2013 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 1^st day of October, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 59/2013

Between:

The General Secretary (Sri Riaz Ahmed),

Singareni Mines & Engg. Workers Union(HMS),

Ar.No.C-34, Sector-I, Godavarikhani -505209.

Karimnagar District.

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri (P.O.)

Adilabad district – 504231.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. K. Vasudeva Reddy & A. Sarojana, Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide

order No.L-22012/32/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 30.4.2013 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute

i.e.,

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District., in terminating the services of Sri Nookala Srinivas, Badli Filler, KK-5A Inc.,

SCCL, Mandamarri Area, with effect from 28.9.1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is

entitled for?

After receiving the above said reference this Tribunal registered the case with I D No. 59/2013 and issued

notices to both the parties and secured their presence.

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

It is submitted that the Petitioner Workman was initially appointed as a Badli Filler on 28.2.1997. Since the date of his

appointment the workman was regular to his duties and performing his duties upto the satisfaction of all his superiors.

But during the year 1998, the Petitioner Workman could not be regular to his duties due to his ill health and other

family problems. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet was issued to him by the Respondent alleging that the

Petitioner Workman absented for duty during the year 1998, which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing

Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted and during the time of the enquiry, the Petitioner was not

given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the

Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and basing on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner

workman was dismissed from service vide order No. P/MM/7/2/01/1391 dated 22.3.2001. It is stated that during the

course of the enquiry the Petitioner workman has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties regularly

during the year 1998, as it was only on account of his ill-health. But without considering any of his submissions, the

Petitioner workman was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondent management in

dismissing the Petitioner workman from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner workman has rendered 4 years of continuous service in the Respondent’s management till the date of his

dismissal. The Petitioner workman approached the Respondents to consider his case sympathetically, but the

management did not pay any heed to it. Therefore, the Petitioner workman was constrained to approach this Tribunal to

declare the impugned order No. P/MM/7/2/01/1391 dated 22.3.2001 issued by the Respondent’s is illegal and arbitrary

and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner workman into service duly

granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, back wages etc..

The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, with the averments in

brief which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner workman

was appointed in the Respondent’s company on 28.2.1997 as a Badli Filler. He was dismissed from service on proved

charges of absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The

Petitioner workman has attended the dates fixed for the enquiry and had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given

full, fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted purely following the

principles of natural justice. It is stated that basing on the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

499

Officer submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner workman was proved. A copy of the

enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the Petitioner workman by way of show cause notice giving him

an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the

Petitioner workman is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment warranted was dismissal from service. The

Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past record and found that there was no

extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondent was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner

workman from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner workman was irregular to his duties and he did not improve

his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause notice. It is further stated that

the punishment imposed on the Petitioner workman is justified and legal and as such the claim petition is liable to be

dismissed in limini.

The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent is held as legal and valid vide order dated 14.7.2017.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments U/s.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in support of their

claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Nookala Srinivas is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submitted that due to illness and family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even in

his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above facts but it has not been considered during the course of the

enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner.

When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness, and other family problems he could not be able to attend his

duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while imposing capital punishment.

But the authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has imposed capital punishment to the

Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that when the

Petitioner was a chronic absentee and was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by

the Respondent’s company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to ill

health and other family problems of the Petitioner workman, he could not be able to regular in his duty, remained absent

in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by an enquiry. In the enquiry, the

charges levelled against the Petitioner workman were proved. For this, capital punishment was imposed on the Petitioner

workman. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner workman has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to

his family members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 45 years, he is

now aged about 50 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. The

Petitioner workman being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to

the court at the age of 45 years to work under the Respondent. In such a circumstances, atleast one chance should be

given to him for reinstatement into service in order to save his family members. Admittedly several modes of

punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. In the case at hand the Petitioner is a first offender and has

worked under the Respondent for a period of four years. While imposing capital punishment to his employees, the

management should think of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment

imposed by the Respondent for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken

by the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Nookala Srinivas is not legal and

justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri Nookala Srinivas is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner

workman has already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he

should be given a chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner workman has become

jobless and he being the sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In

such a circumstances atleast the Petitioner workman should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work

under the Respondent’ management. But in this case, the Petitioner workman has not come to the court soon after his

dismissal of service. In the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner workman is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed

in his claim petition. But he is only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’ management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

RESULT:

In the result, the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri

Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Nookala Srinivas, Ex-Badli Filler, Kasipeta Mine,

SCCo. Ltd., Mandamarri Area, w.e.f. 23.3.2001 is not legal and justified and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the

workman be taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and

continuity of service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation

for a period of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman

at the time of his posting.

The Workman can not claim for his posting in the same place, where he was last employed. The workman

shall have to maintain either minimum mandatory 20 musters every month or 190 musters in a year and the management

shall have the right to review the work of the workman in every three months. In the event of any short fall of

attendance during the period of the three months, the service of the workman shall not be terminated and he will be

cautioned to improve his performance by issuing him a warning letter. However, in the event of any shortfall of

attendance during one year of service of the workman, he will be terminated from service without any further notice and

enquiry and in the event of completion of one year of probation satisfactorily, the workman is to continue in service till

the age of attaining superannuation. The management shall consider any forced absenteeism on account of Mine

accidents/ Natural disasters, taking treatment in the company’s hospital, as attendance. All other usual terms and

conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e., transfer, hours of work, day of rest, holidays etc.. to the workman for

appointment afresh.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 1^st day of

October, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई द ली, 8 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 132

132

132.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

flaxkjsuh dksfy;jht daiuh fyfeVsM 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 & lg&Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn] ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 62/2013½ dks izdkf’kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-12-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[Lka- ,y&22012@29@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 8^th January, 2019

S.O. 132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2013)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 31.12.2018.

[No. L-22012/29/2013 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

501

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 16^th day of November, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 62/2013

Between:

The General Secretary (Sri Riaz Ahmed),

Singareni Mines & Engg. Workers Union(HMS),

Ar.No.C-34, Sector-I, Godavarikhani -505209.

Karimnagar District.

… Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri (P.O.)

Adilabad district – 504231.

…Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. K. Vasudeva Reddy & A. Sarojana, Advocates

For the Respondent

: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide

order No.L-22012/29/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 1.5.2013 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute i.e.,

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District., in terminating the services of Sri Bandari Narasaiah, Badli Filler, KK-5A Inc.,

SCCL, Mandamarri Area, with effect from 28.9.1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is

entitled for?

After receiving the above said reference this Tribunal registered the case with I D No. 62/2013 and issued

notices to both the parties and secured their presence.

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

It is submitted that the Workman was initially appointed as an employee in the year 1994. Since the date of his

appointment the concerned workman was regular to his duties and performing his duties upto the satisfaction of all his

superiors. But during the year 1997, the Workman could not be regular to his duties due to his ill health and other

family problems and he took treatment at MGM hospital, Warangal for quite long time. While the matters stood thus,

one charge sheet was issued to him by the Respondent alleging that the Workman absented for duty during the year,

which amounts to misconduct under company’s Standing Order No.25.25. Subsequently, one inquiry was conducted

and during the time of enquiry, the Workman was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature to put forth his

grievances. Basing on such lopsided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved, and basing on the

erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.9.1998. It is

stated that during the course of the enquiry the Petitioner has categorically stated about his inability to perform his duties

regularly during the year 1997, was only on account of his ill-health and his wife’s ill-health. But without considering

any of his submissions, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. It is also stated that the action of the Respondent’s

management in dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural

justice. The Petitioner has rendered 4 years of continuous service in the Respondent’s management. The Petitioner

approached the Respondent to consider his case sympathetically, but the management did not pay any heed to it.

Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Tribunal to declare the impugned order dated 20.9.1998 issued

by the Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the Respondent to reinstate

the Petitioner into service duly granting all other attendant benefits such as continuity of service, and back wages etc..

The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, with the averments in

brief which runs as follows:

In the counter the Respondent while admitting some of the factual aspects to be true, stated that the Petitioner was

appointed in the Respondent’s company on 21.5.1993. He was dismissed from service on proved charges of

absenteeism, after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner

had participated in the enquiry which was conducted purely following the principles of natural justice. It is stated that

basing on the evidence available before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges

502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 19, 2019/PAUSA 29, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

levelled against the Petitioner was proved. A copy of the enquiry report and the enquiry proceeding was sent to the

Petitioner by way of show cause notice giving him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the

enquiry report; since the charge levelled against the Petitioner is proved and it was serious in nature, punishment

warranted was dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority has gone through the enquiry proceeding and his past

record and found that there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view and lastly, the Respondent

management constrained to dismiss the Petitioner from service. It is stated that in fact the Petitioner was irregular to his

duties and he did not improve his attendance even after issuing charge sheet to him, and after receiving the show cause

notice. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is justified and legal and as such the claim

petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

In view of the memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner conceding the legality and validity of the domestic

enquiry conducted in the present case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent management is held as legal

and valid vide order dated 7.1.2016.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

In view of the above facts, the points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Bandari Narsaiah is legal and justified?

II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

Point No.I: During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner argued

that due to his ill-health as well as his wife’s ill-health the Petitioner could not be able to attend his duty sincerely. Even

in his show cause the Petitioner has mentioned the above fact, but it has not been considered during the course of the

enquiry and on account of absenteeism capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner.

When the Petitioner has taken a stand that due to his illness and his wife’s ill-health, and other family problems he could

not be able to attend his duties regularly and remained absent, the authority should have considered his case while

imposing capital punishment. The authority has not considered any of the submissions of the Petitioner, and has given

capital punishment to the Petitioner when several modes of punishment are enumerated in the company’s Standing

Orders.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that when the Petitioner

was a chronic absentee and was found guilty in the charges levelled against him, the punishment imposed by the

Respondent’s company is legal and proper. When the Petitioner was not sincere in his duty and failed to maintain

minimum musters in a year he is not entitled to be reinstated in service.

Admittedly, working in the Mines is hazardous and remaining absent is not unusual. In this case, due to his

illness, undergoing surgeries, and other family problems, the Petitioner could not be able to be regular in his duty, the

Petitioner has remained absent in his duties and a proceeding was initiated against him for his absenteeism followed by

an enquiry. In the enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved. For this, capital punishment was

imposed. After dismissal of service, the Petitioner has become jobless and unable to provide a square meal to his family

members. He has already realised his mistake and has taken shelter in the court at the age of 41 years, he is now aged

about 46 years and is searching ways and means to provide bread and butter to his family members. When the

Petitioner being an able bodied and energetic man has already realised his mistake and is coming forward to work under

the Respondent, atleast one chance should be given to him for reinstatement into service. Admittedly several modes of

punishment are enumerated in company’s Standing Orders. Though the Petitioner is a first offender and has worked for

about 4 years under the Respondent, while imposing capital punishment to his employees, the management should think

of the condition of the workers as well as his family members. In this case, the punishment imposed by the

Respondent’s for dismissal of service is too harsh. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the action taken by the

management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service to Sri Bandari Narsaiah is not legal and justified.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point Nos. II & III: In Point No.I, it has already been discussed that the punishment of dismissal from service

to Sri Bandari Narsaiah is not legal and justified. After dismissal of service as stated earlier, when the Petitioner has

already realised his mistake and has come to the court with a prayer for reinstatement into service he should be given a

chance to serve for his family members. After dismissal of service the Petitioner has become jobless and he being the

sole bread earner of his family, is unable to provide a square meal to his family members. In such a circumstances

atleast the Petitioner should be given a chance to maintain his livelihood and to work under the Respondent’s

management. But in this case, the Petitioner has not come to the court soon after his dismissal of service. Therefore, in

the opinion of this Tribunal the Petitioner is not entitled to get all the relief as claimed in his claim petition. But he is

only entitled to be given a chance to work in the Respondent’s management.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 19] 2019@ikS"k 29] 1940

503

RESULT:

In the result, the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Bandari Narsaiah, Badli Filler, KK-5A Incline, SCCL,

Mandamarri Area, w.e.f. 28.9.1998 is not legal and justified and is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the workman be

taken into service as a fresh employee i.e., Badli filler in Cat.I, on initial basic pay without back wages and continuity of

service, subject to medical fitness by the company Medical Board and the workman be kept under probation for a period

of one year. The management is also directed to take an undertaking of good behaviour from the workman at the time of

his posting.