739 GI/2019

(795)

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- 7]

ubZ fnYyh] iQjojh 10—iQjojh 16] 2019] 'kfuokj@ek?k 21—ek?k 27] 1940

No. 7]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 10—FEBRUARY 16, 2019, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 21— MAGHA 27, 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)

अंतर िवभाग

बगलू, 25 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 229

229

229.—रा पित संिवधान क धारा 309 के परंतुक ारा द त शिय के योग म अंत#र$ िवभाग

कम&चारी (वग*करण, िनयं,ण तथा अपील) िनयम, 1976 के संशोधन म िन/ निलिखत िनयम बनाते ह2, अथा&त्

1) ये िनयम अंत#र$ िवभाग कम&चारी (वग*करण, िनयं,ण तथा अपील) संशोधन िनयम, 2019 कहे जाएंगे।

2) ये सरकारी राजप, म अपने काशन के 5दनांक से वृ त हगे।

िव7मान ‘अंत#र$ िवभाग के अधीन िसिवल पद के वग*करण’ िन/ नानुसार ित8 थािपत 5कए जाएंगे:

. सं.

पद का िववरण

पद का वग करण

(1)

(2)

(3)

तर 10 से 18 म वेतन मै स के धारत वेतन वाला एक पद

समूह ‘क’

तर 6 से 9 म वेतन मै स के धारत वेतन वाला एक पद

समूह ‘ख’

तर 1 से 5 म वेतन मै स के धारत वेतन वाला एक पद

समूह ‘ग’

796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

प

प टी

टी

टीकरण

करण

करण – इस वग*करण के उ<े= य हेतु, पद के संबंध म ‘8 तर’ का अथ& है –क ?ीय िसिवल सेवा (संशोिधत वेतन) िनयम,

2016 क अनुसूची के भाग-क क तीसरी पंि म िविन@द& ट 8 तर, और –

साथ ही, भारतीय सुदूर संवेदन सं8 थान (आई.आई.आर.एस.) के संबंध म अंत#र$ िवभाग कम&चारी (वग*करण,

िनयं,ण तथा अपील) िनयम, 1976 म संलE न िव7मान अनुसूची म, जहाँ भारतीय सुदूर संवेदन सं8 थान म समूह धान का

पद मौजूद है, वह धान, काGम&क एवं सामाH य शासन / धान लेखा एवं आंत#रक िव त सलाहकार के Jप म ित8 थािपत

5कया जाएगा।

[सं. ई.14015/1/2012-IV]

एस. कुमारा8 वामी, संयुL त सिचव

नोट:

नोट: धान िनयम 5दनांक 01.04.1976 के भारत के राजप, (असाधारण) भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) म 5दनांक

01.04.1976 के सं. एस.ओ. 270(8 था.) म कािशत थे और तदुपरांत िन/ निलिखत ारा संशोिधत 5कए गए ह2:-

Sl.

No.

Notification No.

Date

S.O. No.

Date

2/10(32)/76-I

10.02.1977

780

12.03.1977

2/10(32)/76-I

16.05.1977

2127

25.06.1977

2/10(27)/76-I

01.08.1977

2709

27.08.1977

2/7(5)/77-I

15.02.1978

585

25.02.1978

2/7(5)/77-I

27.05.1978

1780

17.06.1978

2/9(12)/74-III

16.03.1979

1178

07.04.1979

9/4(1)/80-III

26.05.1980

1684

21.06.1980

9/4(1)/80-III

05.09.1980

2586

27.09.1980

9/4(1)/80-III

13.10.1980

3299

29.11.1980

10.

9/4(1)/80-III

13.10.1980

3300

29.11.1980

11.

9/4(1)/80-III

20.12.1980

215

17.01.1981

12.

2/8(1)/81-I

28.08.1981

2592

03.10.1981

13.

2/8(1)/81-I

16.07.1982

3113

04.09.1982

14.

2/9(1)/83-I(V)

29.07.1985

4280

14.09.1985

15.

2/5(1)/85-V

02.01.1986

510

08.02.1986

16.

2/9(1)/83-I(V)

02.01.1986

511

08.02.1986

17.

2/5(1)/86-V

17.03.1986

1309

29.03.1986

18.

2/5(2)/86-V

20.10.1986

3874

15.11.1986

19.

2/5(1)/90-VI

01.01.1991

09.02.1991

20.

2/5(2)/86-V(VI)(Vol.III)

15.11.1991

334

01.02.1992

21.

2/5(1)/91-VI

23.10.1992

2891

21.11.1992

22.

2/5(1)/95-V

24.03.1995

1029

15.04.1995

23.

2/5(1)/91-V

12.10.1995

2856

28.10.1995

24.

2/5(1)/91-V

27.03.1996

1241

20.04.1996

25.

2/5(1)/95-V

23.12.1997

10.01.1998

26.

2/5(1)/98-V

30.06.2000

1763

05.08.2000

27.

2/5(1)/98-V

27.12.2000

13.01.2001

28.

2/5(1)/98-V

24.01.2001

254

10.02.2001

29.

2/5(1)/98-V

18.03.2004

804

28.03.2004

30.

4/5/1/2004-V

22.06.2005

2489

16.07.2005

31.

4/5/1/2004-V

31.01.2006

544

11.02.2006

32.

4/5/1/2004-V

20.11.2007

3434

08.12.2007

33.

4/5/1/2004-V

01.09.2008

2760

04.10.2008

34.

4/5/1/2004-V

21.05.2009

1538(E)

23.06.2009

35.

E.14015/1/2012-IV

06.03.2013

830(E)

26.03.2013

36.

E.14015/1/2012-IV

04.10.2017

424(E)

30.01.2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

797

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore, the 25^th January, 2019

S.O. 229.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the President

hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1976, namely:-

1) These rules may be called the Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Amendment Rules, 2019.

2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

The existing ‘Classification of Civil Posts under Department of Space’ shall be substituted as under:

S.No.

Description of posts

Classification of posts

(1)

(2)

(3)

A Post carrying the pay in the Pay Matrix at the Level from 10 to

Group A

A Post carrying the pay in the Pay Matrix at the Level from 6 to 9

Group B

A Post carrying the pay in the Pay Matrix at the Level from 1 to 5

Group C

Explanation – For the purpose of this classification, ‘Level’ in relation to a post means, the Level specified in third row

of Part-A of the Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, and -

Further, in the existing Schedule appended to the Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1976 in respect of Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS), where the designation of Group Head exists

under Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, it shall be substituted by “Head, Personnel & General Administration / Head,

Accounts & IFA”.

[No. E. 14015/1/2012-IV]

S. KUMARASWAMY, Jt. Secy.

Note: The Principal rules were published vide No.S.O.270(E) dated 01.04.1976 in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary)

Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section(ii) dated 01.04.1976 and have been subsequently amended by:-

Sl. No.

Notification No.

Date

S.O. No.

Date

2/10(32)/76-I

10.02.1977

780

12.03.1977

2/10(32)/76-I

16.05.1977

2127

25.06.1977

2/10(27)/76-I

01.08.1977

2709

27.08.1977

2/7(5)/77-I

15.02.1978

585

25.02.1978

2/7(5)/77-I

27.05.1978

1780

17.06.1978

2/9(12)/74-III

16.03.1979

1178

07.04.1979

9/4(1)/80-III

26.05.1980

1684

21.06.1980

9/4(1)/80-III

05.09.1980

2586

27.09.1980

9/4(1)/80-III

13.10.1980

3299

29.11.1980

10.

9/4(1)/80-III

13.10.1980

3300

29.11.1980

11.

9/4(1)/80-III

20.12.1980

215

17.01.1981

12.

2/8(1)/81-I

28.08.1981

2592

03.10.1981

13.

2/8(1)/81-I

16.07.1982

3113

04.09.1982

14.

2/9(1)/83-I(V)

29.07.1985

4280

14.09.1985

15.

2/5(1)/85-V

02.01.1986

510

08.02.1986

16.

2/9(1)/83-I(V)

02.01.1986

511

08.02.1986

17.

2/5(1)/86-V

17.03.1986

1309

29.03.1986

18.

2/5(2)/86-V

20.10.1986

3874

15.11.1986

19.

2/5(1)/90-VI

01.01.1991

09.02.1991

20.

2/5(2)/86-V(VI)(Vol.III)

15.111991

334

01.02.1992

21.

2/5(1)/91-VI

23.10.1992

2891

21.11.1992

798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22.

2/5(1)/95-V

24.03.1995

1029

15.04.1995

23.

2/5(1)/91-V

12.10.1995

2856

28.10.1995

24.

2/5(1)/91-V

27.03.1996

1241

20.04.1996

25.

2/5(1)/95-V

23.12.1997

10.01.1998

26.

2/5(1)/98-V

30.06.2000

1763

05.08.2000

27.

2/5(1)/98-V

27.12.2000

13.01.2001

28.

2/5(1)/98-V

24.01.2001

254

10.02.2001

29.

2/5(1)/98-V

18.03.2004

804

28.03.2004

30.

4/5/1/2004-V

22.06.2005

2489

16.07.2005

31.

4/5/1/2004-V

31.01.2006

544

11.02.2006

32.

4/5/1/2004-V

20.11.2007

3434

08.12.2007

33.

4/5/1/2004-V

01.09.2008

2760

04.10.2008

34.

4/5/1/2004-V

21.05.2009

1538(E)

23.06.2009

35.

E.14015/1/2012-IV

06.03.2013

830(E)

26.03.2013

36.

E.14015/1/2012-IV

04.10.2017

424(E)

30.01.2018

बगलूर, 8 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 230

230

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

उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म एतXारा अंत#र$ िवभाग के िन/ निलिखत काया&लय, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक कम&चा#रय

ने Zहंदी का काय&साधक [ान ा\ त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है।

$े,ीय सुदूर संवेदन क? – पि]म (आर.आर.एस.सी.-प.)

बाई पास रोड़, सेLटर – 9,

कुड़ी भगतासनी हाउZसंग बोड&,

जोधपुर (राज8थान) - 342 005

[सं. 8/1/10/2011-Zहं.]

के.वी. रमणा बाबू, अवर सिचव

Bangalore, the 8th February, 2019

S.O. 230.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following Office of the Department of Space, whereof

more than 80 percent staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

Regional Remote Sensing Centre – West (RRSC-W)

Bypass Road, Sector-9,

Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board,

Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342 005

[No. 8/1/10/2011-H.]

K.V. RAMANA BABU, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

799

इ पात मंालय

नई 5द`ली, 1 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 231

231

231.—साव&जिनक प#रसर (अनािधकृत Jप से रहने वाले लोग क बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971 का

40) क धारा 3 ारा दb शिय का योग करते cए और भारत सरकार के इ8पात मं,ालय क अिधसूचना संdयांक एस.

ओ. 1483 5दनांक 14 जून, 2001 जो भारत के राजप, म 5दनांक 30 जून, 2001 को कािशत है, को अिधgिमत करते cए,

उन बात के िसवाय िजHह ऐसे अिधgमण से पहले 5कया गया है या करने का लोप 5कया गया है, क ? सरकार, नीचे दी गई

सारणी के 8त/भ (I) म वGण&त अिधकारी, जो भारत सरकार के राजपि,त अिधकारी के समतु`य iेणी के अिधकारी ह2, को

उ अिधिनयम के योजन के िलए स/पदा अिधकारी िनयु करती है, जो सारणी के 8त/भ (2) म िविन@द&j सरकारी 8थान

के स/बHध म अपने अिधकार $े, क 8थानीय सीमाk म उ अिधिनयम के तहत या उसके ारा दb शिय का योग

करते cए स/पदा काया&लय को सlपे गए कत&m का पालन करगे:-

सारणी

.सं.

अिधकारी का पदनाम

अिधकारी का पदनाम सरकारी थान क ेिणयां और अिधकार े क सीमाएं

सरकारी थान क ेिणयां और अिधकार े क सीमाएं

1. सहायक महाबंधक, उपमहाबंधक, नगर

शासन िवभाग, मैसस& राnीय इ8पात

िनगम िलिमटेड का सामाHय शासन

िवभाग और िविध िवभाग

मैसस& राnीय इ8पात िनगम िलिमटेड, िजला िवशाखापoनम, आHp

देश से संबंिधत प#रसर या उनके शासिनक िनयं,णाधीन आने वाले

प#रसर।

2. सहायक

महाबंधक

(खान),

उप-

महाबंधक (खान), खान िवभाग।

मैसस& राnीय इ8पात िनगम िलिमटेड से संबंिधत या उसके शासिनक

िनयं,णाधीन आने वाले प#रसर जो इन qाम म ि8थत है:-

(क) आंp-देश के कृ णा िजले म ि8थत बुदवाड़ा, कोटवारी, अqहारम,

मुेrरपुरम; और

(ख) तेलंगाना राtय के ख/मम िजला ि8थत माधाराम, कारेप`ली और

महबूबाबाद िजला ि8थत पोचाराम, िस#रपुरम।

[फा. सं. 10(13)/2018-वीएसपी]

नीरज अqवाल, िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF STEEL

New Delhi, the 1^st February, 2019

S.O. 231.—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 of Government of India in the then Ministry

of Steel number S.O.1483, dated the 14^th June, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, dated the 30^th June,2001, except

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

officers mentioned in column (1) of the table below, being officers of the corporate authority equivalent to the rank of

gazetted officer of the Government of India to be estate officers for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the

powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate offices by or under the said Act within the local limits of

his jurisdiction and in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column(2) of the said table:-

TABLE

Sl.No.

Designation of officers

Categories of Public premises and local limits

(1)

(2)

Assistant General Manager, Deputy General

Manager in Town Administration Department,

General Administration Department and Law

Department of M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam

Limited.

Premises belonging to and under the administrative

control of M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, situated in

Visakhapatnam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Assistant General Manager(Mines), Deputy

General Manager(Mines) of Mines Department

Premises belonging to and under the administrative

control of M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, situated in

villages of :-

(a) Budawada, Kothavari Agraharam, Mukteswarpuram in

800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh; and

(b) Madharam, Karepalli in Khammam District and

Pocharam,Siripuram in Mahabubabad District in the

State of Telangana.

[F. No. 10(13)/2018-VSP]

NEERAJ AGRAWAL, Director

पे%ोिलयम और 'ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई 5द` ली, 8 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 232

232

232.—क ?ीय सरकार, तेल उ7ोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) क धारा 3 क उपधारा

(3) (घ) ारा द त शिय का योग करते cए, iी बेH ? कुमार, महासिचव, iिमक िवकास प#रषद, बरौनी #रफाइनरी,

आईओसीएल को 5दनांक 20.01.2019 से 19.01.2021 तक या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उ7ोग िवकास

बोड& का सद8 य िनयुL त करती है।

[फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िव त-I]

पे#रन देवी, िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2019

S.O. 232.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(d) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Prabendra Kumar, General

Secretary, Shramik Vikas Parishad, Barauni Refinery, IOCL as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f.

20.01.2019 to 19.01.2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.-I)]

PERIN DEVI, Director

नई 5द` ली, 8 फरवरी, 2019

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 233

233

233.—क ?ीय सरकार, तेल उ7ोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) क धारा 3 क उपधारा

(3) (घ) ारा द त शिय का योग करते cए एतXारा डा.एस. एस. वी. रामकुमार, िनदेशक (आरएंडडी), आईओसीएल

को 01.02.2019 से 31.01.2021 तक या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उ7ोग िवकास बोड& का सद8य

िनयुL त करती है।

[फा. सं.जी-38011/41/2016-िव त-I]

पे#रन देवी, िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 8^th February, 2019

S.O. 233.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(d) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry

(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. SSV Ramakumar, Director (R&D),

IOCL as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 01.02.2019 to 31.01.2021 or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin.-I]

PERIN DEVI, Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

801

नई 5द` ली, 8 फरवरी, 2019

का

का. आ. 234

234

234.—केH?ीय सरकार को ऐसा तीत होता है 5क लोक िहत म यह आव=यक 5क कwे तेल के प#रवहन के

िलए एक पाइपलाइन, हि`दया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस8ट/स प#रयोजना के तहत, , , , पि]म बंगाल राtय म हि`दया से िबहार

राtय म बरौनी तक, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपzरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और केH?ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आव=यक तीत होता है 5क उस भूिम म िजसके

भीतर उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 8ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से संल| अनुसूची मे वGण&त है, उपयोग के

अिधकार का अज&न 5कया जाए ;

अतः अब, केH?ीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज&न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 5क उप धारा (1) ारा दत शिय का योग करते cए, उस भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का

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

कोई mि, जो उ अनुसूची म वGण&त भूिम म िहतब~ है, उस तारीख से िजसको, भारत के राजप, म यथा कािशत इस

अिधसूचना क ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलध करा दी जाती है, इ€स 5दन के अHदर, भूिम के भीतर पाइपलाइन

िबछाये जाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार के अज&न के िलए, iी अजय Zसंह बड़ाईक (झा. . से.), , , , स$म ािधकारी, , , , इंिडयन

ऑयल कॉपzरेशन िलिमटेड, , , , हि`दया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस8टम ोजेLट, , , , देवघर पैलेस, , , , तीसरा तल, , , , वी.आई.पी चौक, , , ,

देवघर -814112 (झारखंड) ) ) ) ।

अनुसू

अनुसूची

ची

िजला :

िजला : देवघर

देवघर

रा*य : झारखंड

अंचल

गाँव

सव/

सव/ न0बर

न0बर

ेफल

हे4टेयर

एयर

वग5 मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

देवघर

सरसा - 226

823

822

821

824

825

351

1208

1176

1175

918

942

1168

943

944

946

947

802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

देवघर

सरसा - 226

948

949

950

951

1042

1043

1045

1044

1046

1034

1033

1032

1031

1023

1022

1021

1020

1019

1409

1408

1407

1018

1008

देवघर

कुशमाहा - 222

890

893

892

853

858

859

860

952

833

934

935

824

825

983

826

822

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

803

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

देवघर

कुशमाहा - 222

827

798

796

781

797

800

931

780

779

753

778

751

754

755

748

750

728

देवघर

बंधा केHदुआ – 216

598

597

596

595

594

593

540

563

562

566

567

569

570

571

573

583

576

579

578

577

511

604

804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

देवघर

बंधा केHदुआ – 216

510

513

514

393

394

395

366

364

365

350

351

349

620

299

327

304

301

300

295

294

305

608

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

805

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

देवघर

बंधा केHदुआ – 216

618

देवघर

गड़जोरा- 06

1176

1171

1170

1172

1177

1155

1150

1229

1228

देवघर

केननकाठी- 06

मोहनपुर

हरकटा - 678

806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

मोहनपुर

हरकटा - 678

13/656

मोहनपुर

कुसमा #ट`हा - 680

मोहनपुर

घोड़मारा - 422

250

मोहनपुर

मेदनी डीह - 681

493

492

528

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/21/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27764]

नोवस 5कHडो, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 8^th February, 2019

S. O. 234.—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).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

807

SCHEDULE

District : DEOGHAR State : JHARKHAND

Anchal

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Sarsa - 226

823

822

821

824

825

351

1208

1176

1175

918

942

1168

943

944

946

947

948

949

950

951

1042

1043

1045

1044

1046

1034

1033

1032

1031

1023

1022

1021

1020

1019

1409

1408

808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Sarsa - 226

1407

1018

1008

Deoghar

Kusmaha -222

890

893

892

853

858

859

860

952

833

934

935

824

825

983

826

822

827

798

796

781

797

800

931

780

779

753

778

751

754

755

748

750

728

Deoghar

Bandh Kendua -216

598

597

596

595

594

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

809

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Bandh Kendua -216

593

540

563

562

566

567

569

570

571

573

583

576

579

578

577

511

604

510

513

514

393

394

395

366

364

365

350

351

349

620

299

327

304

301

300

295

294

305

810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Bandh Kendua -216

608

618

Deoghar

Garjora-6

1176

1171

1170

1172

1177

1155

1150

1229

1228

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

811

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Garjora-6

Deoghar

Kenankathi - 7

Mohanpur

Harkata - 678

13/656

Mohanpur

Kusma Tilha - 680

Mohanpur

Ghormara - 422

250

Mohanpur

Mednidih - 681

493

492

528

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

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई 5द` ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 235

235

235.—औ7ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केH ?ीय सरकार

मेसस& बंधन, सल पिलक वL स& कोलकाता, और अH य एवं उनके कम&चारी के बंधतं, के संब~ िनयोजक और उनके

कम&कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन@द& ट औ7ोिगक िववाद म केH ?ीय सरकार औ7ोिगक अिधकरण एवं iम H यायालय, कोलकाता

के पंचाट (संदभ& संd या 25/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केH ?ीय सरकार को 3.12.18 को ा\ त cए थे।

[सं. एल-42011/167/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज? जोशी, उप िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 10^th January, 2019

S.O. 235.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribuanl cum-Labour

Court Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Indsustrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Management of Central Public Works Kolkata, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 3.12.18.

[No. L-42011/167/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 25 of 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Central Public Works Department

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management : None

On behalf of the Workmen : Mr. R. Das, learned counsel with Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel

Dated: 27^th November, 2018

Industry: CPWD

AWARD

By Order No.L-42011/167/2013-IR(DU) dated 28.02.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether decision of CPWD EZ-I and CPWD EZ-III in not making reimbursement of Bonus to the

Contractors for which contract labourers are deprived for payment of bonus and as such payment of bonus to

the workmen of contractors as demanded by the union is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the

contract labourers are entitled to?”

Brief facts as it appear from the statement of claims filed by the union are that the workmen were deprived of

the benefit of bonus since long though they were working in perennial nature of work in the department of CPWD.

According to the union contractors changed, but the workmen remained unchanged and were performing same and

similar work at par with the permanent workmen of the establishment over a long period of time. A demand was raised

regarding payment of bonus to the workmen of contractors, but the department did not accept reimbursement of bonus to

the contractors for which contract labourers were deprived of. Therefore, at the behest of the union an industrial dispute

cropt up and referred by the Government of India to this Tribunal for decision in above terms. The union has claimed

that there is employer an employee relationship between the workmen and the management of Central Public Workers

Department. Therefore, the action of the management in denying reimbursement of bonus to the contractors for which

contract labourers were deprived of is not justified and relief has been claimed for an Award in favour of the concerned

workmen.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

813

None appeared on behalf of the management though the union had already filed list of documents and list of

witnesses alongwith statement of claims. As management did not appear despite sufficient service, case proceeded

exparte, but the union also did not appear on the date of hearing and adduced evidence to substantiate the claims made in

the statement of claims.

Since the union at whose instance present reference has been made could not prove the case of the workmen,

reference is liable to be answered in the affirmative that the decision of the department in not making reimbursement of

bonus is legal and justified.

In the above circumstances, Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 27^th November, 2018

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई 5द` ली, 10 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 236

236

236.—औ7ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केH ?ीय सरकार

मेसस& िसL यो#रटी इंटेिलजस सGव&स िलिमटेड कोलकाता (इंिडया), और अH य एवं उनके कम&चारी के बंधतं, के संब~

िनयोजक और उनके कम&कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन@द& ट औ7ोिगक िववाद म केH ?ीय सरकार औ7ोिगक अिधकरण एवं iम

H यायालय, के कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभ& संd या 29/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केH ?ीय सरकार को 3.01.19 को ा\ त

cए थे।

[सं. एल-42012/108/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज? जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 10^th January, 2019

S.O. 236—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court

Kolkata, as shown in the Annexure, in the Insustrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Security

Intelligence Service (India) Ltd. Kolkata, and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 3.01.19.

[No. L-42012/108/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy, Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 29 of 2015

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Security Intelligence Service (India) Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present : Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management : Mr. Arnab Mukherjee, learned counsel

On behalf of the Workmen : None

Dated: 24^th December, 2018

Industry: IIT

AWARD

By Order No.L-42012/108/2015-IR(DU) dated 10.06.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of

its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Security Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. in terminating the

services of Shri Dinanath Mishra is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25F of ID Act, 1947? If yes,

to what relief the workman is entitled?’’

814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Brief facts in the background of which the above reference has come up for decision are that the workman was

working as Security Guard in the Company since 14.12.2015, but all of a sudden Company dismissed him from service

without any enquiry by refusing him employment.

When the case is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for M/s. Security Intelligence Services (India) Ltd.

appeared but none appears either for workman or Indian Institute of Technology. It transpires from record that statement

of claim has been filed by the workman for his reinstatement with full back wages. M/s. Security Intelligence Services

(India) Ltd. has also filed written statement pleading inter alia that the workman was negligent in his duty. Therefore, he

was transferred from IIT, Kharagpur where he again committed mistakes. It is also pleaded that he resigned from service

on 07.11.2016 as per tripartite settlement. No rejoinder has been filed by the workman in rebuttal of written statement of

the Company. Alongwith the written statement M/s. Security Intelligence Services (India) Ltd. has filed photo copy of

memorandum of settlement, resignation letter of the workman and a draft for lumpsum amout paid to the workman.

Workman is not appearing in the Tribunal for the last two dates inspite of sufficient service to dispute these documents.

Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the resignation letter as well as the memorandum of settlement.

In the circumstances of the case, it appears that the matter has been settled between the parties after taking

lumpsum amount by the workman. Hence no dispute exists.

An Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 24^th December, 2018

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

शुि9प

नई 5द` ली, 5 फरवरी, 2019

का.

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 237

237

237.—इस मं,ालय क पूव& समसंd यक अिधसूचना 5दनांक 26.6.2018 के gम म केH ?ीय सरकार भारतीय

पुरात व सव‚$ण के बंधतं, के संब~ िनयोजक और उनके कम&कार के बीच, अनुबंध म िन@द& ट औ7ोिगक िववाद म केH ?ीय

सरकार औ7ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-iम H यायालय, कानपुर के संशोिधत पंचाट (संदभ& संd या 59/2006) को कािशत करती

है, जो केH ?ीय सरकार को 4/2/2019 को ा\ त cआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/206/2005-आईआर (सीएम-II)]

राजेH ? Zसंह, अनुभाग अिधकारी

पाद ट; प

पाद ट; पणी :

णी :

णी : मूल अिधसूचना भारत के राजप, म, औ7ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के

अनुसरण म, 5दनांक 26.6.2018 के का.आ. 1012 ारा कािशत क गई थी।

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 5^th February, 2019

S.O. 237.—In Continuation of this Ministry’s earlier Notification of even number dated 26.06.2018, the

Central Government hereby publishes the amended Award (Ref. No. 59/2006) dated 21.01.2019 of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Archaeological Survey of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.

[No. L-42012/206/2005 – IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

Foot Note : The principal Notification, in pursuance of the Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947(14 of 1947),

was published in the Gazette of India vide Notification No. S.O. 1012 dated 26.06.2018.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

815

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

ID. No. 59/2006

Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Vice President,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress(INTUC),

80, Lauries Complex,

Namner Chauraha,

AGRA(U.P)

Vs.

The Dy. Superintending Horticulturist,

Archeological Survey of India,

East Gate, Taj Mahal,

AGRA (U.P.)-

AWARD

Central Government, MOL & Emp., New Delhi, vide notification no.L-42012/206/2005-IR (CM-II) dated

08/08/2006 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in refusing to employ and regularize

to Shri Devendra and 5 others w.e.f their respective date of termination as per the list enclosed, is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

List of Workmen

S.No.

NAME OF THE WORKMAN

DATE OF TERMINATION

SHRI DEVENDRA

01.04.2001

SHRI SIRAJUDDIN

20.08.2004

SHRI NARESH KUMAR

20.03.2003

SHRI SURESH SINGH

20.03.2003

SHRI PRAVENDRA KUMAR

20.03.2003

SHRI SURESH CHANDRA

29.07.2004

Name Sri Suresh Kumar appearing at serial no.4 has been corrected as Suresh Singh vide order dated

27.11.2018 passed by PO, CGIT, Kanpur.

The case of union as setup on behalf of above named workers is that all the above workers were engaged in the

month of June 1998, January 1999, April 1999, February 2000 and January 2001 as causal labor at monument at

Fetehpur Sikri to maintain the gardens where they continuously worked for more than 240 days in each year and thus

they have attained a right to be regularized in the service of the management. The worker named in the list of employees

as above were terminated from the dates given against their names but at the time of their termination provisions of

section 25F of the act were not followed . Management has also breached provisions of 25H and 25G. It is also alleged

that hundreds of employees junior to the workman where appointed by the management who are still in the service at

different gardens of the management but their workers involved in the present dispute have been deprived from their

work. It is further pleaded that from the year 1996 till date about 200 gardeners and chowkidars were given appointments

through direct recruitment but workers have not been offered employment by the management. All the workers along

with their family members are facing difficulty on account of their being jobless.

On the basis of above it is prayed by union that the concerned workers are entitled for their reinstatement in the

service of the management as well as they are also entitled to be regularize in the service in the manner their colleagues

were regularize in the service. It is also prayed that workers may also be granted wages for the period they remained out

of employment.

Management has filed a very lengthy w/s but only such pleading will be detailed as are necessary for deciding

present dispute.

By way of preliminary objection it is pleaded by the management that the case of workers is neither entertain

able being beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; that the claim of the worker is beyond the scope of reference order;

that the office of the ASI , Horticulture division no. 1 Taj Mahal , Agra are responsible for maintenance and development

of gardens around the National Protected Monument for improvement of Environment; that the present dispute is not

Industrial dispute and suffer from the mis joinder of the parties as well as non-joinder of the parties; that as the workers

816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are not a workmen under the provision of section 2(s); that the present case is not a case of retrenchment hence provision

of section 25F are not applicable.

On merit the management has pleaded that the person’s name in the annexure of reference order had never been

employed by the management as casual labor and they have never work on permanent and regular post of daily paid

agricultural mazdoors. Daily paid mazdoors are engaged as per requirement in casual and seasonal work and the nature

of work alleged to be performed by these workers are occasional and intermittent. It is admitted by management that

daily paid casual mazdoors when required are engaged through open market for shorter period and their engagement

comes to an end automatically on completion of work. That the claim of the workers are totally vague, concocted and

without any basis. Management has also denied the continuous working of 240 days in any calendar year. On the basis of

above the management has stated that the claim of the union with regard to the alleged worker is liable to be rejected

being devoid of merit.

Union has not filed any rejoinder.

Worker Devendra has examined as WW1 and in his support WW2 Sirajudin has been examined. On behalf of

management Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta has been examined as MW1.

10.

Worker has filed several documents along with claim petition which are order of CAT passed in OA No. 425 of

2004,2/4-9 and regarding other documents he has filed copy of judgment of Hon’ble High Court and CAT in other cases.

He has also filed list of candidates who have been appointed from 1986 till date, paper no. 2/23-27 and copies of

advertisement issued by the management for different post.

11.

Management has not filed any documentary evidence.

12.

I have heard the parties and perused the record.

13.

On the perusal of record it is found that the worker has moved an application for summoning original muster

rolls from 1998 to August 2004 and has also summoned original payment vouchers for the same period which was

allowed by my predecessor, but management failed to file summoned documents.

14.

Authorized Representative of worker has contended that two witnesses were examined on behalf of worker and

list of workers who were appointed w.e.f 1986 has also been filed where in at serial no. 120 it is mentioned that Shri

Shiv Ram s/o Gajendra Singh has been appointed directly on 16.07.2004. It is also alleged that the witness examined by

the management is of no use who in his cross examination has not replied the questions but he has simply stated that he

has no knowledge of most of the facts of the case on which cross examination is made. Secondly muster roll and

payment vouchers are not filed despite summoning from this Tribunal and for this the management witness has also

stated that he has no knowledge why records are not filed. Under these circumstances the Tribunal is bound to take

adverse inference against the management that had these documents being filed by the management it would prove the

case of the worker therefore testimony of this witness cannot be believed as these witness has not answered questions put

before him in his cross examination and he was totally ignorant about the facts of the case as also he has no knowledge

about the facts of this case.

15.

Now it is to be seen whether worker have proved their case; whether management have employed junior to

these workers after respective date of termination and whether management has given any opportunity of re employment

to these workers and lastly whether the management has followed the provisions of section 25F of the Act.

16.

It is the specific case of the union that the workers named in the annexure to the reference order have been

engaged by the management during the period 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 and almost all of them have completed 240

days in each calendar months preceding the date of their respective termination of service, their services have been

terminated without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation and also that hundreds of workers have been

engaged by the management and these workers have not been given any opportunity of their reemployment in the service

of the management. On the contrary management have stated that these workers have never been engaged by the

management; there exists no dispute with regard to their engagement or disengagement; that these workers have never

been paid any wages by the management etc. etc.and lastly when the management had never disengaged the workers

from the service in such circumstances question of complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, does not

arise at all.

17.

W.W.2 Sri Devender in his examination in chief has categorically stated that all the workers were engaged by

the management during the period 01.06.98 to 19.08.04 as casual laborers at Fatehpur Sikri, Agra, and they were

engaged by Sri Radhey Shyam Foreman and that they have been disengaged by said Sri Radhey Shyam. Witness has

also stated the nature of work performed by them. All of them were paid their wages month wise and their attendance

was recorded on the muster rolls and at the time of their disengagement no notice, notice pay or retrenchment

compensation was paid by the management. In his cross examination the witness has denied the suggestion of the

management that they have not worked with the management and it is also wrong to suggest that all of them have not

worked against regular and permanent post under the management. Witness has also stated that the works on which all of

them have been engaged remains in existence for whole year.

18.

W.W.1 Sirazuddin has also supported the version of w.w.2 and has specifically stated in his examination in

chief that after his disengagement, management engaged by name Sonu and Ashok but this witness has not been cross

examined on this point by the authorized representative for the management.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

817

19.

As the management witness has expressed his ignorance about the facts of this case in his evidence, therefore,

his evidence has got no evidentiary value and as such cannot be believed.

20.

The evidence adduced by the worker remains uncontroverted on the point that the management has not given

any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation at the time of their disengagement which was necessary as the

worker witness has proved the fact that they have been in continuous employment of the management, it has also been

proved that the management after their disengagement have engaged new faces as is very much clear from paper no.

2/23-27, which is a list of candidate who were appointed by the management from 1986 till 06.04.05 and at serial no.

120 one Sri Shiv Ram son of Gajendra is mentioned who has been appointed by the management on 16.07.04 by way of

direct recruitment.

21.

The union therefore, has successfully established their case that these workers have been engaged by the

management as casual labor, that they have not been given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation at the

time of their respective disengagement, that fresh hands were appointed by the management without providing any

opportunity to re-employee these workers and that juniors to these workers have been made regular and permanent by

the management at the posts from where they have been disengaged.

22.

Therefore, the tribunal is of the view that the disengagements of the worker by the management is in breach of

provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and all of them are held entitled for their

reinstatement in the service of the management from the date of their respective disengagement with continuity of

service and with consequential benefits attached with the post.

23.

So far back wages is concerned although the worker in their evidence has stated that they are facing serious

financial crisis but has not stated even a single word that they are not gainfully employed anywhere else, hence

considering this aspect of the matter the tribunal is not inclined to award any back wages to the workers.

24.

Lastly question of regularization of the concerned workers in the service of the management is concerned, no

doubt it has come in evidence of the worker that several persons have been made permanent and regularized in service

who are alleged to have been engaged after the termination of their services, but the tribunal after giving its anxious

consideration on this point is of the view that the tribunal should refrain in granting regularization of service of a worker

as it is the sole responsibility of the management who after considering the medical fitness, suitability etc., takes decision

as to whether he is fit to be regularized in the service or not. No doubt several new hands have been appointed by the

worker and they were regularized by the management in the service, therefore, management is directed to consider the

regularization of these workers within six months from the date of the publication of this award subject to fulfillment of

the conditions required under rules.

25.

Reference is answered accordingly in favor of the Union and against the management in the above terms.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Note : Page No. 1 of the award amended vide order dated 27.11.2018. Let the amended award be sent to the Ministry

for Notification accordingly.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 Qjojh] 2019

dk-vk- 238-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

ts ,aM ds feujyl 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–सह-Je U;k;ky; uacj] 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 51/2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-02-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012@97@2016-vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-II)]

jktsUnz flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6^th February, 2019

S.O. 238.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. J & K Minerals

Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 4.02.2019.

[No. L-22012/97/2016-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH. AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, GOVERNMENT

PRESS EXTENSION BUILDING, SECTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH-160018

ID No. 51/2017

Sh. Bal Krishan and others, C/o Moghal/Metka Coal Mines Kalakote,

Rajouri Jammu (J&K).

… Workman

Versus

The Managing Director, J&K Minerals Limited,

Bahu Plaza, Jammu (J&K).

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter No.

L-22012/97/2016-IR(CM-II) dated 26.02.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of J&K Minerals Limited representing through its Managing

Director in denying (i) jobs to next kin who has died during the years 2002 to 2006, (ii) HRA to all

workers, (iii) DPC benefits to all workers (iv) previous COLA arrears and (v) non-implementation of 6^th

Pay Commission is justified or not? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled to and from which

date?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of

receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved

in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that

postal services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour

of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to

abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the

claimant is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the claimant has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim Award’.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

Place: Chandigarh

Dated: 19.11.2018

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 239-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

lhbZ,ybZchvkbZ & ,u,,l ,vjiksVZ lfoZlsl izkbosV 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@Je U;k;ky; u- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2017½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-01-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@24@2017–vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7^th February, 2019

S.O. 239.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2,

Mumbai (Ref. No. 35/2017) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. CELEBI-NAS Airport services India Private Limited and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 31.01.2019.

[No. L-11012/24/2017-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

819

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO .CGIT-2/35 of 2017

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. CELEBI-NAS AIRPORT SERVICES

INDIA PVT. LTD.

The Director,

M/s. CELEBI-nas Airport Services India P. Ltd.,

E8-3016, Level 3, New T2, Chhatrapati

Shivaji International Airport, Sahar,

Andheri [E], Mumbai – 400 099.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Sachin Arjun Apte,

Emp Code: CN 01300,

1/16, Vilas Patkar Buildg., Opp. Apurva Hospital,

Kopar Road, Dombivali [W], Thane,

Thane – 421 202.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Shri Sanjay Dhulapkar Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. Anees Kazi Representative

Mumbai, dated the 3^rd January, 2019

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-11012/24/2017 – IR (CM-I) dated 06.11.2018. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether Shri Sachin Arjun Apte, Team Leader with M/s. CELEBI-nas Airport Services India Private Ltd. are

workman under section 2 (s) of the ID Act, 1947 keeping in view their nature of duties performed by them ?’’

2. If so, whether the action of the management of M/s. CELEBI-nas Airport Services India Private Ltd. in

terminating the services of the workman concerned under ID Act, 1947 w.e.f. 20.11.2012 on the plea of

reduction in the flight operation at their domestic locations, is just and proper ?

3. If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? ”

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

In view of this application, it appears that by giving separate order dt. 16.11.18 the matter is referred by giving

separate reference number and therefore the present reference is to be disposed of.

Hence the reference is disposed of with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Reference is disposed of with no order as to costs.

Date: 03.01.2019

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2019

dk- vk- 240-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

,vj bafM;k 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] मु बई ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2008½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-1-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@63@2006&vkbZvkj ¼lhe-1½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7^th February, 2019

S.O. 240.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Mumbai

(Ref. No. 43/2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Air India Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

31.01.2019.

[No. L-11012/63/2006-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/43 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AIR INDIA LIMITED

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Air India Limited,

Air India Building,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Vindo Ramachandran Keshavan,

C/o. Bipin Auto Mobile, Juhu Scheme,

5^th Road, Nehru Nagar,

Vile Parle [West],

Mumbai – 400 056.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Shri L. L. D’Souza Representative

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 16^th January, 2019

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-11012/63/2006 – IR (CM-I) dated 08.08.2008. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the Management of Mandvi Electric Works, Contractor of Air India Limited [now

NACIL], Mumbai in dismissing the services of Shri Vinod Ramchandra Keshavan w.e.f. 10.08.1999 is justified

and legal ? ii) To what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?’’

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

821

In view of pursis Ex.15, it is stated that the present reference be disposed of since second party workman

expired and legal heirs are not interested in prosecuting the case.

In view of this pursis, the reference is disposed of for want of evidence and since the legal heirs of the deceased

second party workman are not interested in prosecuting the case with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Reference is disposed of for want of evidence and since the legal heirs of the deceased second party workman are

not interested in prosecuting the case with no order as to costs.

Date: 16.01.2019

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई 5द` ली, 11 फरवरी, 2019

का. आ.

का. आ. 241

241

241.—औ7ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केH?ीय सरकार

मेसस& काƒडला पोट& 8ट के बंधतं, के संब~ िनयोजक और उनके कम&कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन@द&j औ7ोिगक िववाद म

केH?ीय सरकार औ7ोिगक अिधकरण एवं iम Hयायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ& संdया 1026/2004) को कािशत

करती है जो केH?ीय सरकार को 11.02.2019 को ा„ cआ था।

[सं. एल-37012/3/1996-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 241.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1026/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Kandla Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

11.02.2019.

[No. L-37012/3/1996-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 28^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No- 1026/2004

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Administration, Post Box No. 50, Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201

…First Party

V/s

The General Secretary,

Transport and Dock Workers Union,

Room No. 21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No. 586, Ward No. 12, Gandhidham,

Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party : Shri N.H. Rathod

822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37012/3/96–IR(M)

dated 14.10.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Transport and Dock Workers Union, Gandhidham against the management of Kandla

Port Trust that the benefit of the Kandla Port Trust Employees House Building Advance Special Family Benefit

Fund Scheme 1992 published in the Gazette of India on 30.04.1992 be made applicable to Smt. Nandita Paul,

widow of late Shri G.S. Paul, Ex-peon expired in the month of June 1992 and further that no recovery towards

H.B.A. be made from his final dues is justified? If so, to what relief, the widow is entitled for and what

directions are necessary in the matter?”

The reference dates back to 14.10.1996 and received on 19.10.1996 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After issuing notices to both the parties, the second party workwoman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4

alleging that her husband was working as peon in Kandla Port Trust who was sanctioned a house loan of Rs.99450/- on

25.02.1991 and her husband died on 05.06.1992 while serving as Peon. The said loan is to be deducted within two years

but could not be recovered due to sudden death of her husband. She has further alleged that on 29.04.1992, a government

notification was published providing that in case of the death of a workman, the remaining amount of the loan shall be

waived but the first party Kandla Port Trust refused to waive the said loan despite the fact that some other workmen’s

loan have been waived in the similar circumstances.

The first party Kandla Port Trust submitted the written statement submitting that it is true that the Kandla Port

Employees House Building Advance Special Family Benefit Fund Scheme, 1992 was published on 30.04.1992 but was

given into effect in December, 1992. It is incorrect to say that the aforesaid scheme was applicable automatically in all

cases because only those employees were eligible for the benefit of the said scheme where the subscription of the scheme

has been commenced or paid by the employees under regulation 7 of the said scheme. It is true that the workman G.S.

Paul was working as peon in Kandla Port Trust and took house building advance but he expired in the month of June,

1992. Therefore, he was not eligible for the benefit of said scheme as it was implemented from December, 1992.

The provisions of regulation 7 of the scheme are reproduced as under:

“Payment in the event of death while in service: In the case of an employee dying while in service, the entire

amount due from him i.e. the principal and interest towards repayment of H.B.A. due thereon up to the date of

his death, in full shall be reimbursed to the Port Trust Board by meeting the same from the fund provided the

subscription to the scheme has been commenced and continued till the month of his death.”

The allegation of the second party that the scheme was implemented on 30.04.1992 is incorrect. The husband of the

second party Shri G.S. Paul expired in June, 1992 immediately after disbursement of loan and no recovery was made

from his salary, therefore, the regulation 7 of the scheme is not applicable in her case. Therefore, the reference has no

force and liable to be dismissed.

On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

Whether the demand of Transport and Dock Workers Union, Gandhidham against the management of

Kandla Port Trust that the benefit of the Kandla Port Trust Employees House Building Advance Special

Family Benefit Fund Scheme 1992 published in the Gazette of India on 30.04.1992 be made applicable

to Smt. Nandita Paul, widow of late Shri G.S. Paul, Ex-peon expired in the month of June 1992 and

further that no recovery towards H.B.A. be made from his final dues is justified?

ii.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workwoman is entitled?

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 workwoman who was examined (Ex.11) wherein she in her examination-in-chief

reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim. In her cross-examination, she has stated that after the death of

her husband, she was appointed on compassionate ground in the month of July or August, 1993. She does not recall the

case of any other workmen wherein in the similar circumstances; the advance would have been waived.

I heard and considered the evidence oral and documentary of the parties. I also considered the regulation 7 of

Scheme wherein in the case of death of a workman, the House Building Allowance ought to have been reimbursed by the

Kandla Port Trust but said regulation is applicable only when it was made effective at the time when her husband died.

In this case, firstly, the second party union has not submitted the death certificate of G.S. Paul, husband of Smt. Nandita

Paul. Secondly, the regulation was published in the gazette on 30.04.1992 but as alleged by the first party; it was being

made effective from December, 1992 by the Kandla Port Trust Board. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot decide the

reference in favour of the second party i.e. Smt. Nandita Paul, the wife of deceased workman Late Shri G.S. Paul. But

the scheme was published on 30.04.1992 which ought to have been made effective at the earliest being the social welfare

scheme. However, it was implemented from the month of December, 1992 and in the mean time, the workman G.S. Paul

died, therefore, it would not be appropriate and justified to deprive the family of the deceased workman of the said social

welfare scheme for no fault of his own and it was a God’s act.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

823

Thus the reference is finally disposed of with a direction to the first party Kandla Port Trust to reconsider the

present case favourably by way of reasoned order within two (2) months from the date of publication of award.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई 5द` ली, 11 फरवरी, 2019

का. आ.

का. आ. 242

242

242.—औ7ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केH?ीय सरकार

मैसस& ओ.एन.जी.सी. िलिमटेड एवं अHय के बंधतं, के संब~ िनयोजक और उनके कम&कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन@द&j

औ7ोिगक िववाद म केH?ीय सरकार औ7ोिगक अिधकरण एवं iम Hयायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ& संdया

69/2012) को कािशत करती है जो केH?ीय सरकार को 11.02.2019 को ा„ cआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/42/2011-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 242.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management

M/s. ONGC Limited and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-30012/42/2011-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 17^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 69/2012

1. The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Project,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat)

2. The Director,

M/s. Central Investigation & Security Services,

F/10, Narmada Arcade, Old N.H. Highway,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat) – 393001

…First Party

V/s

Mr. Jignesh Shashikant Sevak,

2, Vrindawan Bunglows, Behind GEB Office,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat) – 393001

…Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri C.S. Naidu

For the Second Party : Shri M.H. Sanghrayat

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/42/2011–IR(M)

dated 11.04.2012 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:

824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Central Investigation & Security Services, Ankleshwar, a

contractor of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar in terminating of Shri Jignesh Shashikant Sevak w.e.f. 19.01.2011 is

legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 11.04.2012 and received on 01.05.2012 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After service of notice to the parties, the second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 alleging

that he joined the services of ONGC as contract employee of contractors I.F.F., C.I.S.S., Top Security and lastly C.I.S.F.

without any vague. He served the aforesaid contractors for more than 240 days in each and every calendar year. On

08.01.2011, he suffered illness of swelling of liver but despite informing the contractors, his services were terminated

without giving notice or notice pay. Thus he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.

The first party ONGC submitted his written statement Ex. 8 alleging that the second party workman was a

contract employee and ONGC has no liability with respect to the claim made by him.

The first party No. 2 M/s. Central Investigation & Security Services did not prefer to submit the written

statement despite service therefore, the reference was ordered to proceed ex-parte against it.

The second party, on 03.10.2017 and 28.08.2018, requested adjournment vide application Ex. 9 and 10

respectively but even after granting adjournment twice, the second party workman did not prefer to lead evidence on

16.10.2018, 04.12.2018 and 20.12.2018 despite the fact that on 20.12.2018, the advocate for the second party sought 15

days time for leading evidence.

Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the

observation as under: “the action of the management of M/s. Central Investigation & Security Services, Ankleshwar, a

contractor of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar in terminating of Shri Jignesh Shashikant Sevak w.e.f. 19.01.2011 is legal and

justified.”

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई 5द` ली, 11 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 243

243

243.—औ7ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केH?ीय सरकार

मेसस& दी Hयू इिƒडया ए=योरस क/पनी िलिमटेड के बंधतं, के संब~ िनयोजक और उनके कम&कार के बीच अनुबंध म

िन@द&j औ7ोिगक िववाद म केH?ीय सरकार औ7ोिगक अिधकरण एवं iम Hयायालय-2, चƒडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ& संdया

536/2005) को कािशत करती है जो केH?ीय सरकार को 08.02.2019 को ा„ cआ था।

[सं. एल-17012/30/2004-आईआर(बी-I)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 243.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 536/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.02.2019.

[No. L-17012/30/2004-IR(B-I)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

825

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No.536/2005

Registered on 22.08.2005

Sh. Jagdev Singh, S/o Sh. Kesar Singh, C/o Sh. K.S. Malhotra, 107,

Sough Model Gram, Ludhiana.

…Workman

Versus

The management of The New India Assurance Company Limited,

Regional Office Surya Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana

(through its Regional Manager/Senior Divisional Manager).

… Management

AWARD

Passed on : 23.01.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-17012/30/2004-IR(B-I) Dated 15.03.2005, under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ludhiana in terminating the

services of Shri Jagdev Singh, Ex-Peon, w.e.f. 23.09.2003 without complying with the provisions of Section

25-F, G and H of the I.D. Act 1947 is just and legal? If not, so what relief the said workman is entitled to?”

The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Jagdev Singh, workman had joined the services of the management in the month

of October, 1996 as Peon in the Branch Office, Campa Cola Chowk, Gill Road, Ludhiana and had been performing

continuously duties of the subordinate staff and was entitled to the regular pay scale. But the management had illegally

paid on daily rate basis at Rs.75/- and the work, for which the workman was employed, was of permanent nature. The

service of the workman was terminated by the management on 23.09.2003. The services of the workman were

terminated without issuing any show cause notice, charge-sheet and without any enquiry and without any notice pay. The

workman had worked continuously from October, 1996 to 23.09.2003 i.e. till the date of termination. It is also alleged

that even after the termination of the services of the workman, other persons were employed for the same job. It is

further alleged that the payments used to be paid to the workman through vouchers on daily rate basis and sometimes

wrong names were mentioned on vouchers and the petitioner was forced to sign the vouchers as filled up by the

management. It is also alleged that juniors to the workman were retained in service and the management has violated the

provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the workman is entitled to be

reinstated in service with full back wages.

Respondent-management filed written statement, denying the facts alleged in the claim petition except

claimant’s demand notice before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandigarh and the case reference to the Hon’ble

Court. It is pleaded that claimant has never been engaged as regular Peon by the respondent-management at any point of

time. It is also alleged that neither any appointment letter nor any termination letter was issued by the respondent-

management as claimant was not a regular employee of the management has his services were availed accordingly

necessity and needs on a specific dates on the basis of daily wages. Respondent-management has pleaded that claimant

used to supply of tea, cold drinks, snacks etc. to the staff members of the management-management by putting the tea

stall at a space near staircase provided by the management in its office. It is further submitted that there did not existence

relationship of employer and employee between the parties so question of issuance of notice under the Act before the

termination is not required and claim petition of the workman is liable to be rejected.

In support of his case, the workman examined himself and filed his affidavit Ex.WW1, reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand, respondent-management has examined Sh. Satnam Singh, Branch Manager who filed his

affidavit Ex.R1 reiterating the case as set out in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. R.P. Rana, Ld. Counsel for the workman and Sh. Kumar Nikshep, Ld. Counsel for the

management and perused the file carefully. Sh. R.P. Rana, learned counsel for the claimant strongly urged that workman

has done service regularly with the management, who has not followed the principle of natural justice before terminating

his service. It is also submitted that relationship of employer and employee existed between the two and burden lies on

the management for adducing documents that claimant was not in the employment of the management since October,

1996. The learned counsel for the management has submitted that there existed no relationship of employer and

employee or master and servant as claimant was daily-wager according to needs of management. It is also submitted by

the learned counsel for the management that initially burden lies on the claimant to prove that he was employee even on

daily-wages of the respondent-management and worked as Peon regularly for the aforesaid period.

826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The proposition of Law regarding the relation between workman and management is settled in catena of cases

decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder

Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while

interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of “workman”has observed as

under:-

“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/contract of

service, the quantum of wages/pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

made any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis.

There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(S) from which it can be inferred that only person

employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one

employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty

for fixed hours is not a workman.”

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract

basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person

would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. In these circumstances, the

arguments advanced by the management-counsel has no force in the eye of law subject to proving that claimant was a

daily-wager and rendered his services between 1996 to 2003 till his retrenchment or termination by the management.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of

management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his

employment with the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of

his appointment or engagement for that period to show that he has worked with the respondent-management for 240 days

or more in a calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran

Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai

Meghajibhai Gavda(2012) 1 SCC 47.

Question remains to be seen whether claimant has proved that he was engaged under management in the year

October 1996 and regularly continued till his termination. This fact has to be proved by the documentary evidence as

well as the oral evidence and certainly documentary evidence has better importance for the just decision of the case. At

the very outset, it may be mentioned that there is only one document i.e. voucher dated 31.03.1999(Ex.R3)on record

which has been proved by the claimant through his oral evidence. It could not be infer from this document alone that

claimant was regular employee of the respondent-management from the year 1996 as alleged in the claim petition as well

as affidavit filed by the claimant. In this connection, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that all the documents

are in the possession of the respondent-management, who is duty bound to produce during the course of evidence before

the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent-management had drawn my attention towards the order of the Tribunal

dated 14.05.2007, in which it is ordered by the Tribunal on the application moved by the claimant that looking the

bundles of files of vouchers, claimant and his counsel are directed to visit the office of the respondent-management at

Ludhiana and examined the record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the management that in spite of the specific

order by the Tribunal, claimant and his counsel did not bother to visit the office of the respondent-management for the

perusal of the relevant record. So, in the light of the above order, claimant’s-counsel argument has no force because

Tribunal has given him opportunity to visit and perused the record, if any at Ludhiana in the head-office of the

respondent-management, but this opportunity is not availed by the claimant. To my opinion, the argument of the learned

counsel for the claimant has no force to the extent that respondent-management has not produced the documents of its

custody.

Claimant Jagdev Singh has submitted his affidavit as evidence, who has been cross-examined by the

management counsel at length. Claimant has accepted in his cross-examination that the post of Peon had not been

advertised by the respondent-management. The evidence recorded during the course of cross-examination does not

inspire the confidence of the Tribunal regarding the regular posting of the claimant from October 1996 till the

termination. The affidavit, submitted by the claimant bears date 08.06.2006, in which he has mentioned himself as 29

years old, meaning thereby he should be about 19 years old at the time of the joining the service of the respondent-

management as per his own assertion in the affidavit. The facts alleged in the claim petition reveals that he was

appointed in the month of October 1996 while he has accepted in his cross-examination that appointment letter was

issued by the respondent-management in the month of July 1997. He has specifically denied the suggestion of the

management-counsel that no appointment letter was issued by the management for his regular appointment. Thus,

accordingly, claimant’s appointment letter has been issued by the respondent-management, but that is not produced by

the claimant in the Tribunal, the reason best known to him for its non-production in spite of the statement given on Oath

regarding the issuance of the appointment letter. It is also pertinent to mention that claimant has accepted during his

cross-examination that termination letter was issued by the management but it is in the custody of the company. This

statement is also not reliable as if any termination letter is issued by the respondent-management then it should be in the

custody of the claimant.

10.

Perusal of the cross-examination of the claimant emphasise that he was floating like anything during the cross-

examination to the extent to make his evidence reliable regarding the service in the establishment of the respondent-

management. He has stated in his cross-examination that he was registered in the Employment Exchange and his

registration is renewed 6-7 times in the employment and ultimately his name was sponsored by the Employment-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

827

Exchange. Question remains to be seen how he came in the contact of the management if, he was neither sponsored by

the employment-exchange for the hob nor he was tea fitter in the vicinity of the management-office as alleged by

management. It is also relevant that if he renewed his name in the Employment-Exchange 6-7 times, further attaining

majority then he should not be in the service of the respondent-management up to 24-25 years pertaining to the age

mentioned in the affidavit. Thus, the evidence adduced by the claimant does not inspire confidence and it is either in

contradiction of the facts alleged in the claim petition or affidavit or new evidence regarding the issuance of appointment

letter or termination letter has been brought during the cross-examination to prove his version at any cost. Thus, oral

evidence adduced by the claimant on Oath is not satisfactory and nothing has come during the course of cross-

examination to prove the facts alleged in the claim petition.

11.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, [2002] 3 SCC 25 wherein it

has held as follows:-

“In our opinion, the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining

on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more that 240 days in the year preceding his

termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but his claim was so denied by the appellant. It was

then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his

termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient

evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a

year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for his

period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.”

12.

Thus, on the basis of the above discussion, it is crystal-clear that the claim of the workman is unable to prove

that he was engaged by the respondent-management in the month of October 1996 and remained in service till his

termination. On the other hand, it is different case of the management that workman was engaged on daily-wage basis as

per exigencies and his services were not of continuous. In the absence of the record available for regarding the

appointment letter or termination letter as stated by the workman during the course of cross-examination, the stand taken

by the management is correct and it cannot be said that workman worked continuously from October 1996 to till his

termination. Since the workman was engaged from time to time on purely on temporary basis, it cannot be said that he

continuously worked for the period in question and since there is no violation of any provisions of law, as stated in

reference, the workman is not entitled to any relief as be claimed.

13.

In result, there is no merit in the reference and the same is decided accordingly, holding that the action of the

respondent-management in terminating the services of the workman is legal and valid and he is not entitled to any relief

and the reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the this award be sent to Central Government for publication as

required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947.

A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 11 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 244

244

244.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय

सरकार मेसस ओ.एन.जी.सी. िलिमटेड के !बंधतं% के संब& िनयोजक( और उनके कमकार( के बीच अनुबंध म

िन+द, औोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं .म यायालय-2, मुंबई के पंचाट

(संदभ सं0या 84/2009) को !कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 05.02.2019 को !ा4 5आ था।

[सं. एल-30011/28/2009-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O.244.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management

M/s. O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05.02.2019.

[No. L-30011/28/2009-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 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-2/84 of 2009

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF O. N. G. C. LTD.

The Group General Manager [HR/ER],

O.N.G.C. Ltd.,

Western Offshore, 4^th Floor, Exchange Plaza,

NSE Bldg., Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra [E], Mumbai – 400 051.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Vice President,

Nhava Seva Port & General Workers’ Union,

2^nd floor, Port Trust Kamgar Sadan,

Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon,

Mumbai – 400 010.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Shri R. V. Paranjpe Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN : No Appearance

Mumbai, dated the 18^th January, 2019

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-30011/28/2009 – IR (M) dated 10.11.2009. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Mumbai in not sanctioning the

applications submitted by 35 workmen [named in the list enclosed] for retirement under the Goodwill Package

Scheme – 2007 as announced by ONGC for contract labourers as per the Notice dated 12.11.2007 and thus

depriving them of the benefits of the scheme is legal and justified ? To what relief these 35 workmen are

entitled?’’

LIST OF WORKMEN

Sr. No.

Name

V. Raja

P. Sukumar

E. Mani

K. Ravichandran

R. Annamalia

Gangaram Ramkula Sing

A. William

M. Muthusamy

P. Vettuperumal

10.

E. Raj

11.

A. Mariasusai

12.

Namdev Mokal

13.

K. P. Thakur

14.

Thivayanathan

15.

Phudhiram Douje Rajbhar

16.

Harichand Jakudu Rajbhar

17.

P. Chinnathambi

18.

Rangal Beerpal Rajbhar

19.

Bhirijbhan Thraylokya Rajbhar

20.

Subhash Harmathari Rajbhar

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

829

21.

Chandrapal Arjun Rajbhar

22.

Chunnilal Ramker Rajbhar

23.

Dilipkumar Murali Rajbhar

24.

Radheshyam Chandey Rajbhar

25.

Shudhiram Douje Rajbhar

26.

Kamla Manja Rajbhar

27.

Santalal Sankar Rajbhar

28.

Pathiram Soorejbali Rajbhar

29.

Rajaram Parmeshwar Rajbhar

30.

Madhuri Parmeshwar Rajbhar

31.

Sanjay Buarka Rajbhar

32.

Vasant Minku Rajbhar

33.

Govind Rajbhar

34.

Lohar Ramprith Rajbhar

35.

Hariram Banchraj Rajbhar

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

As per Ex. 18, 31 workers on whose behalf the demand was raised and the reference has been pending

adjudication have resigned from the membership of the union and have joined Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena.

Thereafter Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena has not appeared nor impleaded as party to the reference on behalf of

the concerned workmen.

On going through the Roznama, it appears that the union is absent since long. As such there is no evidence to

substantiate the statement of claim. For want of evidence the reference is liable to be rejected. Hence it is rejected.

ORDER

For want of evidence the reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 18.01.2019

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

नई 5द` ली, 11 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 245

245

245.—औ7ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केH?ीय सरकार

मेसस& एयरपोट& अथॉ#रटी ऑफ इिƒडया के बंधतं, के संब~ िनयोजक और उनके कम&कार के बीच अनुबंध म िन@द&j

औ7ोिगक िववाद म केH?ीय सरकार औ7ोिगक अिधकरण एवं iम Hयायालय-2, मुंबई के पंचाट के (संदभ& संdया 03/2018)

को कािशत करती है जो केH?ीय सरकार को 08.02.2019 को ा„ cआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/7/2004-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th February, 2019

S.O. 245.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management

M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08.02.2019.

[No. L-11012/7/2004-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 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/ 03 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

The Airport Director,

Airport Authority of India [IA]

Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport,

Mumbai – 400 099,

MUMBAI.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri V.B. Tiwari, Sr. Auto Mechanics [SG],

502, Rahul Apartment, Behind Mukund Nagar,

Kadamwadi, Andheri [E],

Mumbai – 400 059,

MUMBAI.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mrs. Geeta Raju i/b. M/s. Kini & Co. Advocates

FOR THE WORKMEN : In Person

Mumbai, dated the 30^th January, 2019

AWARD PART – I 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-11012/7/2004 – IR (M) dated 11.06.2004. The terms of reference given in

the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of Airport Director, Airports Authority of India (IAD), Mumbai in

dismissing Shri V.B. Tiwari, Sr. Auto Mechanics [SG] from services with immediate effect vide Memorandum

dated 10.12.2003, is justified, proper and in proportionate to the alleged charges of misconduct ? If not, to what

relief the workman Shri Tiwari is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the

matter ?’’

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives.

The concerned workman has filed statement of claim. According to the concerned workman, he was employed

by the management of Airport Authority of India, Mumbai w.e.f. 31.12.1975 in the capacity of Auto Electrician Gr. I. He

was further promoted to the post of Auto Mechanic in 1978, Sr. Auto Mechanic in 1990 and Auto Mechanic [SG] Sr.

grade w.e.f. 12.7.98.

It is his case that the management issued show case notice dt. 27.5.96 to him alleging therein that he was

running private garage at AAI land near airport. The garage was located in Survey No. 35 of Village Marole at Marole

Technical area, Marole Pipeline. This private garage was on the land belonging to AAI, Mumbai airport and he had

unauthorisedly encroached the same. The garage was run by the concerned workman in the name of his wife and the

said act amounted to gross misconduct u/s. 5 (i)(v)(x) of IAAI Employees [Conduct, Discipline & Appeal] Regulations,

1987.

According to him, he was issued charge sheet on 11.10.96. He replied the said charge sheet on 28.10.96 and

denied the charges. Management conducted departmental enquiry against him. Enquiry officer submitted his report to

the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority by order dt. 1.2.2000 imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal of

service of AAI with immediate effect. He preferred appeal dt. 30.6.2000 to the Appellate Authority against the dismissal

order. The Appellate Authority by its order dt. 29.3.01 set aside the dismissal order and ordered second enquiry by

issuing fresh charge sheet. However, the Appellate Authority placed him under suspension w.e.f. 1.2.2000 by way of

victimization.

It is then case of the concerned workman that he was issued fresh charge sheet vide Memorandum dt. 7.1.01 on

same charges and allegations as were leveled earlier. It was alleged that he encroached the management’s land i.e.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

831

Kondivita Village, Survey No. 104 situated at Marole Pipeline and motor garage in the name of his wife Smt. Sushila

Tiwari was in existence. He denied the charges. The disciplinary authority ordered departmental enquiry. The

departmental proceedings were conducted. E.O. submitted his report on 14.10.02. The disciplinary authority on the basis

of findings given by E.O. by his order dt. 10.12.03 imposed upon the workman the penalty of dismissal from the services

of AAI with immediate effect treating the period from 1.2.2000 to 9.12.03 as not treated as a period spent on duty. The

concerned workman preferred an appeal dt. 30.12.03 to the Appellate Authority.

It is the case of the concerned workman that it was irregular and illegal on the part of management to initiate

second enquiry on same & similar charges of the first enquiry which was set aside by the Appellate Authority. It was

illegal to place him under suspension w.e.f. 1.2.2000. E.O. did not conduct disciplinary proceedings in accordance with

the principles of natural justice. E.O. did not cause production of original documents which was exhibited by the E.O. as

Ex. 2 C document dt. 12.2.03 and relied upon the same though it was not duly proved. Findings of the E.O. to the effect

that the land in question i.e. land at Survey No. 104 belongs to the management is perverse. Findings of the E.O. are

perverse since document Ex. 2 C i.e. Kami Jastic Patrak pertaining to land Survey No. 34 was a forged document and as

such the E.O. did not give any clear finding as to the ownership of land in question. The E.O. ignored to consider the

document produced by the concerned workman to establish that the land in question does not belong to management. As

such the charges as against him are not proved. Findings of the E.O. are not based on the evidence and therefore the

action of the management in dismissing him from the services w.e.f. 10.12.03 is illegal and unjustified.

The workman is therefore asking for reinstatement in service w.e.f. 10.12.03 with full back wages,

consequential benefits treating the period of suspension as period on duty for all the purposes, costs & compensation.

The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement. It is contended that this Industrial dispute

has not been sponsored by the union of the workman or the authority or by the substantial number of workmen employed

by it. As such industrial dispute does not exist in order to invoke the provisions of section 2 (k) of I.D. Act, 1947.

10.

It is then contented that the workman has raised industrial dispute over his demand for reinstatement in service

vide his letter dt. 4.2.04. The industrial dispute was raised much before expiry of period of 3 months of date of appeal

required by the Appellate Authority to pass the appropriate order. The workman thereafter during the pendency of

reference moved the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay by filing writ petition in which he had prayed for relief of

reinstatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefits etc. The Hon’ble High Court directed the

appellate authority to decide the appeal dt. 27.12.03 within one month from the date of receipt of order. In that

circumstances the order of reference dt. 11.6.04 is pre-mature as the same was obtained by him during the pendency of

appeal.

11.

According to the first party management, show cause notice was issued to the workman under the signature of

Assistant Manager with approval of Airport Director. The workman replied the said show cause notice by explanation

dt. 4.6.96. The workman was issued the charge sheet by Memorandum dt. 11.10.96 along with statement of imputation

of misconduct in support of article of charges framed against him vide Annexure – I, list of documents Annexure – II,

list of witnesses Annexure – III. He was issued memo dt. 17.10.97 fixing the preliminary enquiry on 13.11.97. The

domestic enquiry was held against him. He was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined on

behalf of the Airport authority and to meet the charges leveled against him. E.O. submitted his report to the management

on 8/10-10-99. Airport Director being the disciplinary authority by order dt. 1.2.2000 imposed upon the workman the

penalty of dismissal from services of AAI with immediate effect. The workman submitted his appeal addressed to the

Chairman of the authority against the dismissal order. The appellate authority set aside the penalty of dismissal order dt.

1.2.2000 and ordered re-enquiry by issuing the fresh charge sheet as the appellate authority observed that proper records

were not produced during the enquiry to establish the ownership of the land. It was further observed by the appellate

authority that the workman also did not produce original relevant and proper records during the enquiry proceedings to

dis-prove the allegations though City Civil Court in order dt. 1.9.98 in Suit No. 5439 / 1987 referred the statement of his

wife that the land in question belong to authority. His suspension was therefore continued with retrospective effect from

the date of his dismissal by order dt. 1.2.2000 till the case was decided by the disciplinary authority.

12.

It is then case of the first party that 2^nd charge sheet was issued by Memorandum dt. 7.8.2001 adding two

charges.

committing fraud and dishonesty in connection with the property of AAI and causing damage to the said

property and

II) refusing to surrender PIC No. N16256M in the department thereby willfully disobeying the lawful and

reasonable orders of superiors and breach of security.

The charge sheet was including the statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents, list of witnesses. The

workman by his reply denied the charges. The departmental enquiry was held into the charges leveled against him by

memo dt. 7.8.2001 and was concluded on 20.6.02. Mr. Y. K. Goyal, Dy. G.M. [Cargo] was appointed as E.O. to conduct

the enquiry. During the course of enquiry proceedings, originals of all the management documents were shown to the

workman for his perusal and verification. He was given opportunity to admit or deny each article of charges of

misconduct. He denied the charges leveled against him. Seven witnesses on behalf of the management were produced at

the enquiry by the Presenting Officer. After evidence on behalf of the management both oral and documentary was over,

the workman was asked to submit the list of defence witnesses and the documents in support of the case to which he

replied in the negative. But thereafter he produced the documents in support of his defence. It is thus denied by the first

party that the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.

832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

According to the first party management, the EO submitted enquiry report to the management on 16.10.02.

Thereafter by order dt. 10.12.03, the concerned workman was dismissed from services by Airport Director in exercise of

the powers conferred by Regulation 27 of the Regulations. Airport Director perused the enquiry proceedings recorded by

the E.O. as well as enquiry report and agreed with the conclusion arrived by E.O. The copy of enquiry report was given

to the concerned workman. It is thus denied by the first party that the findings of the E.O. are perverse and based on no

evidence. The workman thereafter filed appeal before the Appellate Authority praying to set aside & quash the dismissal

order. The appeal was not decided by the Appellate Authority since during the pendency of appeal, the concerned

workman initiated the conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer. The conciliation officer recorded the

failure of conciliation and failure report dt. 19.4.04 was sent by him to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi

for adjudication of industrial dispute.

14.

It is thus contention of the first party that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman

from the services w.e.f. 10.12.03 is fair, proper, bonafide & legal and the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in

service w.e.f. 10.12.03 with full back wages, consequential reliefs etc. It has thus sought dismissal of reference.

15.

By filing rejoinder the concerned workman reiterated that the land in question belongs to Central Govt. and not

to AAI. Land Survey No. 104 has been now merged into CTS No. 272 which belongs to Central Govt. and therefore the

findings of the E.O. are totally perverse and no disciplinary action can be taken against him on the basis of perverse

findings. The Estate Officer appointed under Public Premises Act has also closed the proceedings initiated against the

wife of concerned workman in the year 1998 knowingly fully well that the land in question does not belong to AAI.

16.

This tribunal has passed the Award Part – I dated 17.10.2018 and held that the enquiry against the concerned

workman is fair & proper and findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. Parties are directed to argue and lead

evidence on the point of quantum of punishment. In view of that the concerned workman has filed his affidavit on the

quantum of punishment and he was cross examined by the management’s advocate. On behalf of the management Smt.

Alka Alve, A.M [HR] has filed affidavit and she has been cross examined by the concerned workman.

17.

Considering the evidence and submissions on behalf of the concerned workman and the management, following

issues arise for my determination and accordingly I reproduce the Issue Nos.3 to 6 vide order dated 24.4.2006 along with

my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr.

No.

Issues

Findings

Does the management prove that the punishment of dismissal from services of the

workman w.e.f. 10.12.2003 imposed upon him by the Airport Director of the Authority,

Mumbai by the order dated 10.12.2003 is justified, legal and proportionate to the

gravity of alleged charges of misconduct ?

Yes

Whether the reference dated 11.6.2004 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi under Section 2 (k) of the Act is valid and legal; when the dispute

challenging the dismissal order dated 10.12.2003 was taken up by the workman himself

alone ?

Yes

Does the Management prove that the appeal dated 27.12.2003 preferred by the

workman suffers from the infirmities, being not in accordance with the provisions of

I.A.A.I. Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 ?

Whether the order of reference dated 11.6.2004 is premature and hence bad in law; as

the same was obtained by the workman during the pendency of appeal dated 27.12.2003

before the Appellate Authority ?

Reasons

Issue No.3.

18.

In view of order in WP No. 3011 of 2018 it is clear that this tribunal has concluded preliminary issues which is

required to be framed in cases where punishment is founded on domestic enquiry which is conducted against the

workman. Hence what remains now is passing the final orders as regards the quantum of punishment. Therefore this

tribunal is directed to decide the issue latest by 31.01.2019 by the Hon’ble High Court as per order in this writ petition.

19.

Even then the concerned workman in his affidavit has stated that the errors in Award Part – I can be corrected at

any stage of proceedings by this tribunal on perusal of material on record. In view of that in his affidavit the concerned

workman has reiterated the factual position which was already considered at the time of passing the award Part – I.

20.

At the cost of repetition it will have to be said that this tribunal while deciding these issues have already

considered the documents relied upon by the E.O. during the enquiry conducted by the E.O. and has come to the

conclusion that the enquiry is fair & proper and findings of the E.O. are not perverse.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

833

21.

It is necessary therefore to refer to the decision in case of Tata Infomedia Ltd. [erstwhile Tata Press Ltd.] V/S.

Tata Press Employees’ Union & Anr. – 2006 (108) – FLR 890 wherein fundamental principles that govern the conduct

of disciplinary enquiries are given and as per the principle No.3 it has been held that once a finding of the disciplinary

authority is based on some evidence the sufficiency of evidence in proof of finding lies beyond the scope of scrutiny of

the reviewing court. The finding must, however, be supported by legal evidence. The test of perversity is that a finding

is not supported by legal evidence or where the finding is such as no reasonable body of the persons would have arrived

at on the basis of material on record.

22.

In view of this legal position in each case where the findings that has been arrived at the disciplinary

proceedings is sought to be questioned. The essential question is to be taken is whether the findings of the misconduct is

based on some evidence or no evidence at all. A finding which is based on no evidence is liable to be interfered with

because it is susceptible to the inference of arbitrariness and perversity. But once the finding is based on some evidence

the sufficiency of evidence in proof of finding lies beyond the scope of scrutiny of reviewing court. Here in the instant

matter also this tribunal has already concluded that the finding is based on evidence and therefore sufficiency of evidence

in proof of finding lies beyond scope of scrutiny. Once the issue as regards the sufficiency of evidence, fairness of

enquiry and perversity of findings are decided to the effect that the findings are based on evidence and that the enquiry is

fair & proper then there is no scope for the concerned workman to say that there are errors in award Part – I which can be

corrected at any stage of proceedings by this tribunal.

23.

Even as regards the scope of jurisdiction of the labour court u/s. 11 (a) of I.D. Act is concerned, as per the

fundamental principles recapitulated in the decision cited above, it is clear that the jurisdiction of labour court u/s. 11 (a)

of I.D. Act is not unlimited. Section 11A does not confer the arbitrary power on the industrial tribunal or labour court.

The jurisdiction is supervisory in nature to be exercised where the finding on disciplinary enquiry is based on no

evidence. Where there has been a transgression of principles of natural justice or where the finding is perverse in the

sense that no reasonable body of the persons would have arrived at such a finding.

24.

Here in the instant case the competent authority vide order dt. 10.12.03 considered the charges leveled against

the workman as grave and serious and confirmed the penalty of dismissal from services. The concerned workman

preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 27.12.03 as provided under the provisions of Industrial Airport

Authority of India Employees [Conduct, Discipline & Appeal] Regulations, 1987. The appellate authority also held as

follows:

“After going through the various issues raised by the workman in his appeals dated 23.12.03 & 14.12.05, all other case

related documents, facts & circumstances of the case have come to the conclusion that there is no justification to alter the

penalty of dismissal of Shri V.B. Tiwari from the services of AAI issued by the disciplinary authority vide order dated

10.12.03 and rejected the appeal submitted by him.”

The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 23.2.06.

25.

Precisely, it is the submission of the first party management that the concerned workman committed

encroachment on AAI land and was running garage on the encroached land of AAI in the name of his wife and as such

he committed fraud and dishonesty in connection with the property of AAI and caused damage to the property.

Therefore he does not deserve any leniency with respect to punishment of dismissal awarded to him for grave & serious

employment misconduct committed by him.

26.

So far as legal position is concerned, the court would not interfere with the administrative decision unless it was

illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or irrational in the sense it was outrageous, defiance of logic or moral

standards. It is held in the decision in case of Domoh PannaSagar Rural Rational Bank &Ors V/S. Munnalal Jain

CA No. 8258 of 2004 [SC] that

“Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience

of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional

and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal

course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the

Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.”

27.

In this respect hand can be laid on the decision in case of LIC of India &Ors. V/s. S. Vasanti, Civil Appeal No.

7717 of 2014 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court with reference to decision in case of LucknowKshetriyaGramin Bank

(Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) &Anr. V/S. Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC 372 has held;

“a)

when charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry, the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a

particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.

The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary / departmental authorities and to decide the

quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the

jurisdiction of the competent authority.

Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.

Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of

charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter

834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2019/MAGHA 27, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of

penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.”

28.

In his evidence, the concerned workman has admitted in his cross examination that he has not even made efforts

to get any other job after his dismissal from service. Even it appears from his cross examination that he wanted to show

that there was structure on the land which has been regularized and then he claims that the said structure was regularized

in the name of society namely Sushila Complex Welfare Society but he has not produced any document to that effect.

29.

Even then the concerned workman submitted that in show cause notice Ex M-24 it is stated that the concerned

workman is running private garage on AAI land near Airport. The said garage is located at Survey No. 35 of village

Marol at Marol technical area moral pipe line. Accordingly Charge Sheet Ex-M-25 was issued alleging that the

concerned workman committed misconduct by encroachment on AAI Land for the purpose of running motor garage in

the name of his wife. In the first inquiry it is alleged that the concerned workman is running garage in Survey No 35 of

village Marol. The submission is to the effect that in the second Charge Sheet it is alleged that the concerned workman is

running private garage on AAI land Survey No. 104 of village Kondivita. In view of this, submission is that this is

impossible to change the location of alleged encroachment as per allegations in the first Charge Sheet and second Charge

Sheet from survey No. 35 of village Marol to Survey No. 104 of Village Kondivita.

30.

In this respect it will have to be said that the order of the Appellate Authority has made it clear that proper

record and documents were not produced during the first inquiry to establish the ownership of the land. The Appellate

Authority had made it clear that this procedural flaw does not absolve Shri V.B. Tiwari from the charges leveled against

him & Shri Tiwari has not produced original and relevant documents, proper record during the proceedings and hence

the allegations against him exists and not disproved. From the order of Appellate Authority it appears that he had gone

through the representation made by the concerned workman dated 22.11.1999 where he has stated that the court

document is in favour of his wife and enclosed order dated 19.1.1988 from City Civil Judge Mumbai in Suit No 5439/87

in the court proceedings wherein his wife has stated that the land belong to AAI and the same is quoted in court order. In

view of that the Appellate Authority in respect of the first inquiry was pleased to order fresh inquiry by issuing fresh

Charge Sheet taking into account all relevant documents required in the case and the order of the first inquiry was set

aside. It is in that circumstances the relevant documents were taken into considerations at the time of issuing fresh

Charge Sheet, wherein it is alleged that concerned workman encroached AAI land of Kondivita village Survey No. 104

situated at Marol pipe line and the motor garage in the name of his wife is in existence. Even in Cross examination of the

management witness Mrs. Alka Alave it has come on record that during the fresh inquiry corrigendum was issued though

it has been pointed out by the concerned workman that the said corrigendum was not produced on record. The fact

remains that the Appellate Authority set aside the earlier order and ordered fresh inquiry by issuing fresh Charge Sheet

by taking into account all the documents and therefore in the subsequent chargesheet there is mention of Survey No. 104

& City Survey No. 272 with the allegations that concerned workman encroached AAI land i.e. Kondivita Village Survey

No 104 and running motor garage in the name of his wife is in existence.

31.

Next submission of concerned workman is that the show-cause notice Ex-M-34 is issued to the workman under

Repealed Act, since International Airport Authority and National Airport Authority constituted under aforesaid Act shall

stand repealed. This submission is also not acceptable. This contention is without pleadings in Statement of Claim. It

appears from Ex- M-29 that the inquiry was proposed against the concerned workman under Rules & Regulations 28 of

AAI Employees Conduct Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1987. During the inquiry the concerned workman did not

raise such objection though in his submission the concerned workman submitted that he submitted letters dated

17.9.1988 to the management pointing out that show cause notice is issued to him under Repealed Act. The other

submissions of the concerned workman during the course of argument or his written notes of argument are decided in

Part-I Award dated 17.10.2018.

32.

In view of that the ld. Counsel for the first party submitted that the issue to be considered is whether the

quantum of punishment awarded by the management was proportionate to the gravity of offence committed by the

workman. Submission is to the effect that in this case there is nothing to suggest that the punishment was harsh and

shockingly disproportionate in any manner. She seeks to rely on the decision in case of State of UP V/s. Sheo Shanker

Lal Srivastava & Ors 2006 (3) SCC 276 to submit that “the doctrine of proportionality can be invoked only under the

certain situations and the court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment, unless it is found too

shocking to one’s conscience”. The reliance is also placed on the decision in case of Hombe Gowda Educational trust

and Anr. V/s. State of Karanatka & Ors 2005 (1) SCC 430.

33.

As regards the plea of victimization Ld. Counsel for the first party submitted that alleged act of victimization

has to be pleaded and proved. In the absence of evidence that case falls she seeks to rely in the context on the decision in

case of Bharat Forge V/s. Uttam Manohar Nakate 2005 (1) CLR 533 to submit that the victimization has to be proved

on the basis of cogent evidence.

34.

Considering the evidence and the legal position cited above I find that punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority on account of misconduct of the concerned workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate.

Considering the gravity of charges and scope of interference with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority I

find that the punishment imposed upon him is adequate to the misconduct. Hence Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly in

the affirmative.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 16] 2019@ek?k 27] 1940

835

Issues Nos. 4 & 5.

35.

Management has come out a case that there is nothing on record to show that the dispute raised by the workman

was espoused by the appreciable number of workmen employed by the authority. It is thus case of the management that

the order of reference dated 11.6.04 shows that the Central Government was of the opinion that the industrial dispute

exists between the employers in relationship to management of AAI and their workmen in respect of matters specified in

the schedule. Thus the order of reference was made by the Govt. of India under 2 (k) of the Act though the industrial

dispute was not espoused by appreciable number of workmen in his clause employed in the establishment and therefore

the reference is not valid and legal.

36.

In this context it is necessary to refer section 2 (k) of I.D. Act which reads as under:

“Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers & employers or employers and

workmen or between workmen & workmen which is connected with the employment or non-employment or

the terms of employment or that the conditions of labour or any persons.”

The above definition of I.D. Act envisages the collective dispute as an industrial dispute. I.D. Act was

amended in 1965 and section 2 (a) was added making individual dispute of a workman as an industrial dispute,

if the dispute related to dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination of the individual workman. Thus

section 2 (a) covered out an exception to the definition of individual dispute as given in section 2 (k) of I.D.

Act.

37.

It is thus well settled that the forum for resolving the industrial dispute in respect of dismissal / removal from

service of the workman is the industrial tribunal.

38.

There is absolutely no irregularity, infirmity or any illegality in the order of reference on any count. It is well

settled that it is the duty of the industrial tribunal to find out from the material before it as to what are points of difference

which are discernible from the material before the tribunal and not to find out technical defects in the wording of order of

reference. The first party has not adduced any evidence to point out that the appeal dated 27.12.03 preferred by the

workman suffers from infirmity as the same is not in accordance with the provisions of I.A.A.I. Employees (Conduct,

Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1987. For want of evidence Issue No.5 will have to be answered in negative. It will

have to be said therefore that the reference is legal and valid in view of section 2 (a) of the act. The above issues are

therefore answered accordingly as indicated against it.

Issue No. 6.

39.

It is also the contention of the first party that the industrial dispute was raised by the concerned workman much

before the expiry of 3 months of the date of appeal required by the appellate authority to pass the appropriate order, by

sending the demand letter dated 4.2.04 and by obtaining the impugned order of reference dated 11.6.04. It is contention

of the first party that the workman during the pendency of reference moved to the Hon’ble H.C. Bombay by filing WP

No. 2646 / 2005 for relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages, consequential benefits etc. and the Hon’ble

H.C. was pleased to pass the order dated 23.11.05 directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal dated 27.12.03

within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The order of reference dated 11.6.04 is premature as the same

was obtained by the concerned workman during the pendency of appeal.

40.

This submission of the first party is not acceptable since the concerned workman has raised the dispute in

respect of his dismissal from service and accordingly the order of reference was issued. It was not necessary for the

authority to wait till the decision of appeal. Hence I find that the order of reference is not premature. This issue is

therefore answered accordingly in the negative.

41.

Considering all these facts and in view of my findings to the above issues for the reasons stated above, I find

that the order of dismissal of the service of the concerned workman is proportionate to the misconduct. In view of award

part – I, the enquiry is fair & proper and findings of the E.O. are not perverse. So in view of that the reference is liable to

be rejected with no order as to costs. Hence order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 30.01.2019

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed

by ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2019.02.27

10:58:28 +05'30'