1413 GI/2019

(1115)

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- 11]

ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 10—ekpZ 16] 2019] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 19—iQkYxqu 25] 1940

No. 11]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 10—MARCH 16, 2019, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 19— PHALGUNA 25, 1940

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई द ली, 18 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 366

366

366—यत: दनांक 22.1.2014 क अिधसूचना के ारा ी के. वीरा ाजी राव को कायभार हण करने

क तारीख से पांच वष क अविध के िलए या अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब नैशनल ब क म" कायपालक िनदेशक

के पद पर िनयु& कया गया था:

और यत: ी के. वीरा ाजी राव को रा'ीयकृत ब क (*बंध और *कण उपबंध) ,कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-

पैरा (4) के उपबंध के अनुसार दनांक 3.7.2018 के प. के तहत कारण बताओ नो0टस देकर उनसे यह पूछा गया था क 3य

न उ4ह" कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर रहते 5ए पंजाब नैशनल ब क के कायकरण पर समुिचत िनयं.ण रखने म" असफल रहने

के िलए पद से हटा दया जाए, िजसके कारण ब क क ैडी हाऊस शाखा, मु9बई म" एसड:यूआईएफटी (ि,व=ट) का दु>पयोग

करके धोखाधड़ी क गई, िजसका कई वष@ तक पता नहA चल सका, िजससे बड़ी रािश क धोखाधड़ी 5ई:

और यत: पंजाब नैशनल ब क के बोड से भी उ& उप-पैरा (4) के उपबंध के संदभ म" परामश कया गया था:

1116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और यत: कारण बताओ नो0टस के जवाब म" ी के. वीरा ाजी राव के उBर और पंजाब नैशनल ब क के बोड क

0टCपिणय सिहत इस मामले पर िवचार करते 5ए और पंजाब नैशनल ब क के कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर ी के. वीरा

ाजी राव के बने रहने पर िवचार पंजाब नैशनल ब क म" उनके उ& पद (शीष *बंधन) क असफलता के संदभ म" करते 5ए,

के4Dीय सरकार इससे संतुE है क उ4ह" उ& पद से हटाना पंजाब नैशनल ब क के िहत म" समयोिचत है:

अत: अब ब ककारी कंपनी (उपFम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 के अंतगत *दB शि&य

का *योग करते 5ए के4Dीय सरकार ारा बनाई गई रा'ीयकृत ब क (*बंध और *कण उपबंध) ,कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के

उप-पैरा (4) के उपबंध के अंतगत *दB शि&य का *योग करते 5ए, के4Dीय सरकार, इससे संतुE होने पर क ी के. वीरा

ाजी राव को पंजाब नैशनल ब क के कायपालक िनदेशक के पद से हटाना पंजाब नैशनल ब क के िहत म" समयोिचत है, उ4ह",

एतHारा, इस पद से तIकाल हटाती है।

यह उJ 4यायालय, नई दली म" के. वी. ाजी राव बनाम भारत संघ के मामले म" 0रट यािचका (सी)

14014/2018 के प0रणाम के अKयधीन है।

[फा. सं. 16/13/2018-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार, िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 18^th January, 2019

S.O. 366.— Whereas Shri K. Veera Brahmaji Rao was appointed as Executive Director, Punjab National Bank,

vide notification dated 22.1.2014, for a period of five years from the date of his taking over the charge of the post or,

until further orders, whichever is earlier:

And whereas, Shri K. Veera Brahmaji Rao, was given opportunity in terms of the provisions of sub-paragraph (4)

of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, to show cause

vide letter dated 3.7.2018 why he should not be removed from office for having failed in exercising proper control over

the functioning of Punjab National Bank while serving as its Executive Director, which enabled the fraud in the bank

through misuse of SWIFT at the bank’s Brady House, Mumbai Branch to persist undetected for several years,

snowballing into a large amount:

And whereas, the Board of Punjab National Bank was also consulted in terms of the provisions of sub-paragraph

(4) ibid.:

And whereas, after considering the matter, including Shri Rao’s reply to the show cause notice and the comments

of the Board of Punjab National Bank, and considering that Shri K. Veera Brahmaji Rao’s continuation in office as

Executive Director, Punjab National Bank needs to be viewed in the context of his failure in like [top management]

capacity in Punjab National Bank, the Central Government is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of Punjab

National Bank to remove him from the said office:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provision) Scheme, 1970, made by the Central Government in

exercise of powers under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970,

the Central Government hereby removes Shri K. Veera Brahmaji Rao from the office of Executive Director of Punjab

National Bank, with immediate effect, for the reason that it is satisfied that it is expedient in the interest of Punjab

National Bank to so remove.

This is subject to outcome of the W.P. (C)14014/2018 in the matter of K. V. Brahmaji Rao V/s Union of India,

in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

[F. No. 16/13/2018-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR, Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1117

नई द ली, 18 जनवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 367

367

367.—यत: दनांक 15.9.2016 क अिधसूचना के ारा ी संजीव शरण को कायभार हण करने क

तारीख से, दनांक 31.5.2019 अथात् उनक अिधवNषता क तारीख तक या अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब

नैशनल ब क म" कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु& कया गया था:

और यत: ी संजीव शरण को रा'ीयकृत ब क (*बंध और *कण उपबंध) ,कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (4) के

उपबंध के अनुसार दनांक 3.7.2018 के प. के तहत कारण बताओ नो0टस देकर उनसे यह पूछा गया था क 3य न उ4ह"

कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर रहते 5ए पंजाब नैशनल ब क के कायकरण पर समुिचत िनयं.ण रखने म" असफल रहने के िलए

पद से हटा दया जाए, िजसके कारण ब क क ैडी हाऊस शाखा, मु9बई म" एसड:यूआईएफटी (ि,व=ट) का दु>पयोग करके

धोखाधड़ी क गई, िजसका कई वष@ तक पता नहA चल सका, िजससे बड़ी रािश क धोखाधड़ी 5ई:

और यत: कारण बताओ नो0टस के जवाब म" ी संजीव शरण के उBर और पंजाब नैशनल ब क के बोड क 0टCपिणय

सिहत इस मामले पर िवचार करते 5ए और पंजाब नैशनल ब क के कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर ी संजीव शरण के बने रहने

पर िवचार पंजाब नैशनल ब क म" उनके उ& पद (शीष *बंधन) क असफलता के संदभ म" करते 5ए, के4Dीय सरकार इससे

संतुE है क उ4ह" उ& पद से हटाना पंजाब नैशनल ब क के िहत म" समयोिचत है:

अत: अब ब ककारी कंपनी (उपFम का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 के अंतगत *दB शि&य

उप-पैरा (4) के उपबंध के अंतगत *दB शि&य का *योग करते 5ए, के4Dीय सरकार, इससे संतुE होने पर क ी संजीव

शरण को पंजाब नैशनल ब क के कायपालक िनदेशक के पद से हटाना पंजाब नैशनल ब क के िहत म" समयोिचत है, उ4ह",

एतHारा, इस पद से तIकाल हटाती है।

[फा. सं. 16/13/2018-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार, िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2019

S.O. 367.—Whereas Shri Sanjiv Sharan was appointed as Executive Director, Punjab National Bank, vide

notification dated 15.9.2016, with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post, and up to 31.5.2019, i.e.,

the date of his superannuation, or until further orders, whichever is earlier:

And whereas, Shri Sanjiv Sharan, was given opportunity in terms of the provisions of sub-paragraph (4) of

paragraph 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, to show cause vide

letter dated 3.7.2018 why he should not be removed from office for having failed in exercising proper control over the

functioning of Punjab National Bank while serving as its Executive Director, which enabled the fraud in the bank

through misuse of SWIFT at the bank’s Brady House, Mumbai Branch to persist undetected for several years,

snowballing into a large amount:

And whereas, the Board of Punjab National Bank was also consulted in terms of the provisions of sub-paragraph

(4) ibid.:

And whereas, after considering the matter, including Shri Sharan’s reply to the show cause notice and the

comments of the Board of Punjab National Bank, and considering that Shri Sanjiv Sharan’s continuation in office as

Executive Director, Punjab National Bank needs to be viewed in the context of his failure in like [top management]

capacity in Punjab National Bank, the Central Government is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of Punjab

National Bank to remove him from the said office:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provision) Scheme, 1970, made by the Central Government in

exercise of powers under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the

Central Government hereby removes Shri Sanjiv Sharan from the office of Executive Director of Punjab National Bank,

with immediate effect, for the reason that it is satisfied that it is expedient in the interest of Punjab National Bank to so

remove.

[F. No. 16/13/2018-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR, Director

1118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 6 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 368

368

368.—भारतीय ,टेट ब क अिधिनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) क धारा 20 क उप-धारा (3क) के साथ

प0ठत धारा 19 के खQड (घ) ारा *दB शि&य का *योग करते 5ए, के4Dीय सरकार, एतHारा, ी िगरीश कुमार आ5जा

(ज4 म ितिथ: 29.5.1946) को इस अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी

पहले हो, भारतीय ,टेट ब क के के4Dीय िनदेशक मQडल म" अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/31/2018-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार िम, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2019

S.O. 368.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section 19, read with sub-section (3A) of

section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), Central Government, hereby re-nominates Shri Girish

Kumar Ahuja (DOB: 29.5.1946) as part-time non-official director on the Central Board of Directors of State Bank of

India, for a period of one year from the date of this notification, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/31/2018-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 6 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 369

369

369.—भारतीय ,टेट ब क अिधिनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) क धारा 20 क उप-धारा (3क) के साथ

प0ठत धारा 19 के खQड (घ) ारा *दB शि&य का *योग करते 5ए, के4Dीय सरकार, एतHारा, डॉ. पुRपे4D राय (ज4 म

ितिथ: 2.6.1953) को इस अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो,

भारतीय ,टेट ब क के के4Dीय िनदेशक मQडल म" अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार िम, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2019

S.O. 369.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section 19, read with sub-section (3A) of

section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), Central Government, hereby re-nominates Dr Pushpendra

Rai (DOB: 2.6.1953) as part-time non-official director on the Central Board of Directors of State Bank of India, for a

period of one year from the date of this notification, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 11 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 370

370

370.—राR Sीयकृत ब क (*बंध और *कण उपबंध) , कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प0ठत

ब ककारी कंपनी (उपFम का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) ारा *दI त

शि&य का *योग करते 5ए, क" Dीय सरकार, एतHारा, िवजया ब क क महा*बंधक, सुी मिणमेखलई ए. (ज4 म ितिथ

4.3.1966) को उनके कायभार हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए, अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले

हो, केनरा ब क के कायपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयु3 त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार िम, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1119

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2019

S.O. 370.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

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

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

Ms Manimekhalai A. (DOB: 4.3.1966), General Manager, Vijaya Bank as Executive Director, Canara Bank, for a period

of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further order, whichever is earlier.

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

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

काम क

काम क, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िशण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 6 माच, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 371

371

371.—के4 D सरकार एतHारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस , थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

सं^ या 25) क धारा 3 ारा *दB शि&य का *योग करते 5ए िनaिलिखत अपराध को उन अपराध के bप म" िविनcदE

करती है िजनक जांच भी दली िवशेष पुिलस ,थापना ारा क जानी है।

(क)

eEाचार उ4मूलन (संशोधन) अिधिनयम, 2018 (2018 का अिधिनयम सं^या 16) के अंतगत दंडनीय

अपराध तथा

(ख)

उ& मामले से स9बi या *ासंिगक *यास, दुR*ेरणाj और षड़यं. तथा उसी संlवहार म" कए गए या

उ4हA तmय से उIपn कसी अ4य अपराध या अपराध के िलए।

[फा. सं. 228/03/2019-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. ि. पाठी, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2019

S.O. 371.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences to be investigated by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:-

(a) Offences punishable under The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 16 of 2018)

and

(b)

Attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned

offences and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising

out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/03/2019-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

1120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मानव संसाधन िवकास मं

मानव संसाधन िवकास मंालय

ालय

(उ च

(उ चतर िशा िवभाग)

तर िशा िवभाग)

नई द ली, 2 माच , 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 372

372

372.—के4D सरकार, इस मं.ालय क दनांक 23 नवंबर, 2016 और 29 जून, 2017 तथा 13 दसंबर

2018 क समसं^ यक अिधसूचनाj के अनुसरण और ओरोिवले *ितR ठान अिधिनयम 1988 (1988 का 54) क धारा 12 के

साथ प0ठत धारा 11 के ारा *दI त शि&य का *योग करते 5ए एतHारा ी एम. मदन गोपाल, आईएएस(सेवािनवृB), पूव

अपर मु^ य सिचव, वन, पयावरण और पा0रि,थितक िवभाग, कनाटक सरकार, मqु कुटीर, सी – 6, 1- बी - मेन, आईएएस

कॉलोनी, एचएसआर लेआउट, से3टर – 6, ब गलोर – 560 102, को इस अिधसूचना के *भावी होने क ितिथ से और दनांक

23 नवंबर, 2016 क समसं^ यक अिधसूचना के माK यम से अिधसूिचत ओरोिवले *ितR ठान के शासी बोड के आरंिभक गठन के

कायकाल तक ओरोिवले *ितR ठान के शासी बोड का सद,य मनोनीत करती है।

[फा.सं. 27-9/2012-यूयू]

डॉ. एन. सरवण कुमार, संयु3 त सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2019

S.O. 372.—In continuation of this Ministry’s Notifications of even number dated 23^rd November, 2016 and

29^th June, 2017, 13^th December, 2018 and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11 read with section 12, of the

Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 (54 of 1988), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri M. Madan Gopal, IAS

(Retired), Former Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Ecology, Government of

Karnataka, Mathru Kutir, C-6, 1^st B-Main, IAS Colony, HSR Layout, Sector-6, Bangalore - 560102, as member of the

Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation for a period effective from the date of notification and up to the term of

the initial constitution of the Governing Board of Auroville Foundation, notified vide Notification of even number dated

23^rd November, 2016.

[F. No. 27-9/2012-UU]

Dr. N. SARAVANA KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

कोयला मं ालय

नई द ली, 8 माच, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 373

373

373.—के4Dीय सरकार को यह *तीत होता है क इससे उपाबi अनुसूची म" उिलिखत प0रrे. क भूिम से

कोयला अिभ*ाs कए जाने क संभावना है ।

और, उ& अनुसूची म" उिलिखत भूिम के rे. के :यौरो को अंतNवE करने वाली रेखांक सं^या

एमसीएल/एचए/अिधसूचना/2018-19/01, तारीख 5 दस9बर, 2018 का िनरीrण, िनदेशक तकनीक (संचालन), महानदी

कोलफuस िलिमटेड, जागृित िवहार, डाकघर बुला, िजला स9बलपुर-768018, ओिडशा के कायालय म" या मु^य

महा*बंधक(खोज *भाग), क" Dीय खान योजना और िडजाइन सं,थान िलिमटेड, गडवाना Cलेस, कांके रोड, रांची (झारखंड) के

कायालय म" या कोयला िनयं.क, 1, काउंिसल हाउस ,Sीट, कोलकाता -700001 के कायालय म" या िजला कले3टर, िजला

अंगुल, ओिडशा के कायालय म" कया जा सकता है ;

अतः, अब, के4Dीय सरकार कोयला धारक rे.(अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957(1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम"

इसके पxात उ& अिधिनयम कहा गया है।) क धारा 4 क उप-धारा (1) ारा *दB शि&य का *योग करते 5ए, उ&

अनुसूची म" उिलिखत भूिम से कोयले का पूवyrण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ।

उ& अनुसूची म" वNणत भूिम म" िहतबi कोई lि&, -

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1121

(i)

संपूण भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या उ& भूिम म" या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अजन पर आrेप कर

सकेगा; या

(ii)

उसक धारा 4 क उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क गई कसी कायवाही से 5ई या होने वाली संभािवत कसी rित

के िलए उ& अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन *ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या

(iii)

अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन समाs हो गई पूवyrण अनु{िsय के संबंध म" या

अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (4) के अधीन समाs हो गये खनन प|े के िलए *ितकर का दावा कर

सकेगा और उ& अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के खQड (i) से खंड (iv) म" िविनcदE मद के

संबंध म" उपगत lय को उपदNशत करने के िलए पूव}& भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिच., चाट@ और अ4य

द,तावेज को,

इस अिधसूचना के राजप. म" *काशन क तारीख से न:बे दन के भीतर िनदेशक तकनीक(संचालन), महानदी कोलफuस

िलिमटेड, जागृित िवहार पर ि,थत, डाक-बुला, िजला-संबलपुर, ओिडशा -768018 के कायालय म" भेज"गे।

अनुसूची

बलभ कोयला लॉक

िजला अंगुल

िजला अंगुल, , , , रा

रारा

राय

य

य - ओिड़शा

ओिड़शा

(रेखांक सं^या एमसीएल/एचए/अिधसूचना/2018-19/01, तारीख 5 दस9बर, 2018 )

Fमांक

सं.

ाम का नाम पटवारी सक ल

सं^या/थाना

सं^या

तहसील

िजला

एकड़ म" rे.

(लगभग)

0टCपिणयां

कुमुंडा

119

तालचेर(259)

अंगुल

1174.498

संपूण

िचतलपुर

120

तालचेर(258)

अंगुल

529.830

संपूण

पारबेडा

121

तालचेर(257)

अंगुल

133.368

संपूण

बनबासपुर

तालचेर(255)

अंगुल

188.030

भाग

मरडहरह0रपुर

118

तालचेर(167)

अंगुल

649.100

संपूण

बडका0ठआ

आरिrत वन

तालचेर

अंगुल

213.640

भाग

कुल rे. : 2888.466 एकड़ (लगभग)

या 1168.946 हे3टर (लगभग)

अिधसूिचत कए जाने वाले लाट संयांक:

(1)

!ाम कुमुंडा (पूण'):

1 से 5954, 100/5932, 101/5883, 101/6029, 101/6030, 101/6031, 101/6032, 101/6033, 101/6076,

1022/5792, 103/5988, 1037/6317, 1038/6466, 1038/6467, 1038/6469, 1038/6542, 1042/6476,

1067/5812, 1076/6475, 1078/5819, 1081/5961, 1081/5962, 1084/6567, 1084/6629, 1085/6572,

1089/6391, 1089/6420, 1089/6544, 1090/6185, 1090/6233, 1090/6531, 1090/6532, 1090/6533,

1090/6534, 1090/6535, 1090/6536, 1090/6537, 1113/5794, 1113/6006, 1139/5791, 1143/6023,

1122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1143/6065, 1143/6145, 1143/6220, 1143/6499, 1146/6188, 1146/6209, 1164/6384, 1164/6385,

1164/6433, 1167/6051, 1167/6083, 1167/6213, 1167/6278, 1167/6304, 1167/6506, 1168/6570,

1169/6571, 1219/5952, 1221/5953, 127/6639, 1275/5805, 1296/5811, 1299/6580, 1305/6179,

1306/5919, 133/5972, 133/5973, 1333/6610, 1333/6611, 1333/6627, 1338/6449, 1354/6424,

1365/6418, 1365/6419, 1397/5976, 1403/5784, 1403/5986, 1404/5785, 1406/6480, 1408/5928,

1408/5929, 1410/6220, 1438/5955, 1439/6299, 1440/5956, 1440/5957, 1441/6091, 1442/6379,

1443/6380, 1446/6092, 1448/6093, 1448/6644 , 1449/6094 , 1452/6095 , 1453/5829 , 1454/5830 ,

1454/6096 , 1456/6021 , 1456/6057 , 1456/6319 , 1457/6318 , 1467/6541 , 1524/5832 , 1528/6137,

1528/6514 , 1557/5898 , 156/5810 , 1567/6525 , 159/6235 , 159/6236 , 159/6430 , 1613/6086 ,

1613/6087 , 1613/6088 , 1613/6375 , 1613/6425 , 1613/6428 , 1622/6680 , 1623/5944 , 1626/6558,

1636/5921 , 1636/5930 , 1657/5859 , 1664/6515 , 1688/5878 , 1698/5931 , 1700/6247 , 173/6557 ,

1742/6581 , 1750/6062 , 1788/5963 , 1795/5902 , 1796/6116 , 1800/6300 , 1805/6050 , 1829/6298,

1841/6259 , 1841/6261 , 1841/6262 , 1841/6263 , 1847/6260 , 1848/6258 , 1902/5993 , 1909/5871,

1909/5872 , 191/6573 , 1916/5994 , 1916/5995 , 1928/6244 , 1937/6019 , 1942/5891 , 1943/5890 ,

1961/5861 , 199/5818 , 1997/5901 , 1998/6504 , 2037/6310 , 2042/6270 , 2043/6190 , 2044/6195 ,

2048/6193 , 2049/6191 , 205/5822 , 2050/6192 , 2054/6516 , 2055/6526 , 2058/6026 , 2071/6048 ,

2078/6009 , 2087/6186 , 2087/6485 , 2089/6239 , 2094/6154 , 2097/5934 , 2102/5797 , 2104/6361,

2113/6427 , 2113/6429 , 2114/5852 , 2116/538 , 2116/6426 , 2183/6519 , 2183/6520 , 2183/6521 ,

2184/5903 , 2184/5904 , 2184/5905 , 2194/5967 , 2194/5968 , 2194/5969 , 2197/5966 , 221/5817 ,

2212/5958 , 2215/5907 , 2232/5915 , 2247/5796 , 2247/5867 , 2254/5814 , 2255/6198 , 2255/6524,

2257/5997 , 2268/6489 , 2268/6491 , 2268/6500 , 2268/6501 , 2268/6502 , 2269/5916 , 2281/6376,

2286/5879 , 2286/6377 , 2286/6397 , 2286/6650 , 2288/6456 , 2311/6005 , 2321/5880 , 2321/5881,

2331/5996 , 2341/5795 , 2341/5900 , 2405/5885 , 2417/6465 , 2445/5854 , 2473/6362 ,2475/5998 ,

2476/6522 , 2485/6156 , 2489/6157 , 2497/6582 , 250/6295 , 2503/5982 , 2505/6248 , 2505/6249 ,

2519/6559 , 2519/6560 , 2535/6413 , 2536/5892 , 2536/5893 ,2536/5894 , 2536/6272 , 2536/6275 ,

2536/6276 , 2537/5895 , 2537/6527 , 2541/6414 , 2541/6415 , 2541/6416 , 2541/6649 , 2547/6105,

2553/6182 , 2567/5964 , 257/6268 , 257/6269 , 2596/6225 , 2596/6561 , 2596/6562 , 2602/8574 ,

2629/6049 , 2636/6638 , 2641/6342 ,2641/6457 , 2642/6232 , 2657/5917 , 2657/5918 , 2661/5875 ,

2664/5943 , 2712/6484 , 2720/5815 , 2730/5778 , 2757/5889 , 2760/5888 , 2797/5882 , 2811/5835,

2814/5908 , 2814/5909 , 2829/6382 , 2832/6211 , 2842/5910 ,2842/5911 , 2844/6445 , 2850/6452 ,

2850/6453 , 2850/6454 , 2851/5946 , 2852/5858 , 2857/5863 , 2858/5864 ,2878/6633 , 2910/6002 ,

2910/6598 , 2923/6264 , 2924/5833 , 2924/6474 , 293/5816 , 2958/6553 , 2971/6146 ,2974/6440 ,

2976/6443,

2976/6444,

2976/6648,

2977/6042,

2987/6464,

2995/6634,

3/5925,

3005/6635,3011/5802 , 3017/5787 , 302/5980 , 302/5981 , 302/6481 , 302/6607 , 302/6630 ,

3085/5949 , 3087/6043 , 3094/6044 ,3094/6059 , 3096/6451 , 3096/6455 , 3096/6468 , 3096/6492 ,

3105/6583 , 3111/6243 , 3117/6530 , 3124/5798 ,3124/5799 , 3126/6024 , 3126/6529 , 3135/5897 ,

3138/5924 , 3164/6517 , 3169/6599 , 3177/6034 , 3178/6035 ,3195/5983 , 3196/59843199/5985 ,

320/6114 , 321/6115 , 321/6639 , 322/6640 , 3222/5843 , 3230/5912 , 3231/5913 ,3300/6273 ,

3321/5920 , 3321/6077 , 3360/6538 , 3385/6008 , 3410/5941 , 3412/6477 , 3412/6490 , 3415/6147,

342/6365 , 342/6381 , 3428/5806 , 3429/5807 , 3430/5808 , 3433/5809 , 3438/5774 , 3438/5775 ,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1123

3441/5951 , 3446/6109 , 3446/6498 , 3447/5820 , 3470/6306 , 3471/6117 , 3471/6119 , 3471/6120,

3471/6153 , 3471/6450 , 3471/6472 , 3473/6112 , 3473/6118 , 3473/6267 , 3473/6316 , 3477/6307,

348/6099 , 3486/6027 , 3486/6090 , 3488/6028 , 3528/6296 , 3528/6364 , 3529/6174 , 3529/6175 ,

3529/6417 , 3530/6340 , 3576/6279 , 3576/6280 , 3580/6372 , 3639/6054 , 3649/5941 , 3669/6055,

3672/6056 , 3688/6111 , 3732/6110 , 374/6036 , 374/6037 , 374/6038 , 374/6039 , 374/6040 ,

374/6041 , 3747/5804 , 376/5974 , 3869/6357 , 3871/5947 , 3894/5789 , 394/5824 , 395/5825 ,

395/5826 , 3955/5945 , 3964/5834 , 3980/5906 , 3982/5959 , 3995/5896 , 4/5926 , 405/6395 ,

4096/5862 , 4096/6245 , 4096/6246 , 4152/5837 , 4152/5838 , 4161/6250 , 4161/6252 , 4165/6196,

4167/6150 , 4167/6251 , 4167/6345 , 4169/5970 , 4171/5977 , 4172/5845 , 4173/5844 , 4183/6539,

4222/6302 , 4222/6303 , 4229/6227 , 4231/6144 , 4231/6200 , 4231/6320 , 4231/6321 , 4231/6322,

4231/6470 , 4231/6631 , 4231/6636 , 4231/6637 , 4232/6169 , 4232/6170 , 4232/6171 , 4233/5857,

4235/6584 , 424/5975 , 425/5868 , 4253/6569 , 426/6614 , 426/6615 , 4278/5965 , 4279/6181 ,

4365/6646 , 4366/6647 , 4375/6493 ,4381/6399 , 4389/6241 , 4415/5780 , 4434/6124 , 444/6546 ,

444/6547 , 444/6548 , 444/6555 , 4452/6177 , 446/6545 , 446/6549 , 446/6556 , 446/6564 ,

4461/6007 , 449/6565 , 450/6277 , 450/6281 , 450/6282 , 450/6283 , 450/6284 , 450/6285 ,

450/6289 , 450/6290 , 450/6291 , 450/6292 , 450/6293 , 450/6294 , 450/6305 , 450/6313 ,

450/6314 , 450/6315, 450/6323 , 450/6324 , 450/6336 , 450/6337 , 450/6338 , 450/6339 ,

450/6373, 450/6374 , 450/6383 , 450/6396 , 450/6421 , 450/6437 , 450/6543 , 451/6073 ,

452/6309, 4526/5999 , 4546/5781 , 4550/5821457/6084 , 4585/5823 , 4588/5851 , 4598/6652 ,

4598/6653 , 4598/6654 , 4601/6010 , 4609/6003 , 4625/6641 , 4625/6642 , 4625/6643 , 4649/6566,

4651/6265 , 4652/6254 , 4653/6255 , 4657/5887 , 4684/5886 , 4705/6585 , 4712/5855 , 472/5978 ,

472/5979 , 4722/5856 , 475/6436 , 4752/5786 , 4757/6068 , 4776/6001 , 4780/6224 , 4788/5776 ,

4788/6586 , 4790/6587 , 4795/5779 , 4805/5899 , 4807/6164 , 4827/6000 , 4844/6588 , 485/5773 ,

4857/6022 , 4857/6237 , 4857/6528 , 4871/6589 , 4873/6590 , 4873/6591 , 4873/6592 , 4873/6593,

4873/6594 , 4873/6595 , 4880/6132 , 4880/6134 , 4880/6134 , 4880/6461 , 4880/6463 , 4887/6133,

4887/6135 , 4887/6462 , 49/5923 , 4905/6012 , 491/6616 , 4915/6596 , 492/6617 , 492/6618 ,

492/6619 , 4927/6079 , 4947/5241 , 4947/5842 , 4947/6011 , 4947/6129 , 4948/5989 , 4960/6204 ,

4961/6004 , 4977/6628 , 4982/6047 , 4983/6155 , 4987/5847 , 506/5827 , 5120/5790 , 5129/6550 ,

5129/6551 , 5154/6609 , 5155/6363 , 5174/5870 , 5197/6651 , 520/5828 , 5233/6163 , 5233/6206 ,

5233/6207 , 5236/5848 , 5240/6148 , 5251/5777 , 5252/6301 , 5274/6214 , 5274/6215 , 5274/6234,

5276/6216 , 5278/5950 , 5278/6346 , 5294/5850 , 5295/5849 , 5301/6347 , 5301/6349 , 5308/5869,

5318/5922 , 5358/6411 , 5358/6435 , 5358/6446 , 5358/6447 , 5358/6448 , 5360/6486 , 5360/6495,

5362/5942 , 5371/6441 , 5371/6442 , 5371/6488 , 5393/5801, 5394/5938 , 5398/6348 , 5398/6350 ,

54/5990 , 540/6612 , 5400/6410 , 5400/6601 , 5401/6398 , 5401/6412 , 541/6613 , 5410/5939 ,

5410/5940 , 5420/5937 , 544/6626 , 5456/5831 , 5471/5813 , 5494/5800 , 5496/5936 , 55/5991 ,

55/5992 , 550/6620 , 550/6621 , 5503/6431 , 5503/6432 , 551/6622 , 551/6623 , 552/6624 ,

555/66255550/5873 , 5563/6600 , 5575/6597 , 5584/5884 , 5591/6152 , 5602/6311 , 5602/6312 ,

5609/6020 , 5609/6286 , 5611/6266 , 5611/6343 , 5611/6344 , 5618/6197 , 5618/6202 , 5618/6203,

5618/6238 , 5618/6568 , 5619/6158 , 5619/6159 , 5619/61765619/6230 , 5619/6351 , 5623/6183 ,

5640/5933 , 5641/6217 , 5655/6072 , 5669/6403 , 5670/6404 , 5671/6405 , 5672/6400 , 5673/6401,

1124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5674/6402 , 5674/6406 , 5675/6352 , 5675/6507 , 5676/6025 , 5676/6080 , 5676/6081 ,

5676/6082 , 5676/6089 , 5676/6113 , 5676/6212 , 5676/6242 , 5676/6253 , 5676/6256 ,

5676/6325 , 5676/6341 , 5676/6353 , 5676/6359 , 5676/6407 , 5676/6408 , 5676/6508 , 5676/6510,

5676/6512 , 5677/6509 , 5677/6511 , 5691/6100 , 5691/6101 , 5691/6102 , 5691/6103 , 5691/6104,

5691/6106 , 5691/6107 , 5691/6108 , 5691/6121 , 5691/6128 , 5691/6149 , 5691/6151 , 5691/6210,

5691/6518 , 5691/6552 , 5710/5860 , 5723/6360 , 5723/6386 , 5723/6473 , 5723/6483 , 5748/6138,

5748/6139 , 5748/6140 , 5748/6141 , 5748/6142 , 5748/6161 , 5748/6162 , 5751/6124 , 5751/6125,

5751/6126 , 5752/6143 , 5752/6205 , 5752/6223 , 5753/6178 , 5757/6052 , 5757/6053 , 5757/6060,

5757/6069 , 5757/6070 , 5757/6071 , 5757/6074 , 5757/6075 , 5757/6122 , 5757/6127 , 5757/6165,

5757/6172 , 5757/6173 , 5757/6184 , 5757/6221 , 5757/6222 , 5757/6240 , 5757/6271 , 5757/6287,

5757/6288 , 5757/6496 , 5757/6497 , 576/6018 , 5762/6063 , 5762/6160 , 5762/6166 , 5762/6168 ,

5762/6180 , 5762/6189 , 5762/6231 , 5762/6267 , 605/5839 , 605/5840 , 605/6187 , 605/6354 ,

605/6355 , 605/6356 , 605/6513 , 6066/6199 , 614/6378 , 630/6066 , 641/6602 , 641/6603 ,

641/6604 , 641/6605 , 641/6606 , 659/6392 , 659/6422 , 661/6368661/6370 , 661/6393.661/6431 ,

661/6439 , 661/6487 , 661/6494 , 661/6503 , 661/6523 , 673/6130 , 680/5935 , 680/6061 ,

681/6409 , 682/6058 , 682/6505 , 684/6358 , 685/6208 , 685/6471 , 692/6257 , 692/6332 ,

692/6478 , 693/6333 , 693/6479 , 696/6085 , 696/6131 , 696/6389 , 697/6308 , 697/6334 ,

697/6335 , 698/6136 , 698/6387 , 698/6388 , 698/6390 , 7/5927 , 701/6366 , 701/6367 , 702/6226 ,

702/6327 , 702/6328 , 702/6329 , 702/6330 , 702/6331 , 706/6218 , 706/6229 , 707/6228 ,

708/6219 , 710/5846 , 713/6554716/5836 , 717/6434 , 727/6045 , 727/6122 , 728/6046 , 741/6297 ,

755/6482 , 764/6064 , 764/6201 , 813/5793 , 818/5865 , 819/5866 , 823/5788 , 828/6574 ,

832/5876 , 832/5877 , 87/6540 , 896/5948 , 902/5960 , 923/6458 , 923/6459 , 923/6460 ,

9258/6226 , 937/5971 , 937/6017 , 937/6394 , 942/6369 , 942/6371 , 956/6013 , 956/6014 ,

956/6015 , 959/6575 , 963/6576 , 964/6577 , 978/5782 , 979/5783 , 98/5987 , 984/5803 , 985/6578,

991/6579 , 997/6016.

(2)

!ाम िचतलपुर (संपूण') :

1 से 1298 , 1431 , 1028/2019 , 1028/2020 , 1028/2021 , 1028/2022 , 1028/2023 , 1028/2024 ,

1031/1667 , 1031/1736 , 1031/2059 , 1035/1692 , 1035/1693 , 1037/1500 , 1037/1626 , 1038/1499,

1038/1633 , 1039/1522 , 1039/1719 , 104/1413 , 105/1414 , 106/1645 , 1071/1895 , 1071/1896 ,

1071/1897 , 1071/1898 , 1071/1899 , 1071/1900 , 1071/1901 , 1072/2007 , 1072/2008 , 1072/2009,

1072/2010 , 1076/1931 , 1076/1932 , 1076/1937 , 1076/1938 , 1076/1996 , 1077/1999 , 1077/2000,

1077/2001 , 1077/2002 , 1077/2003 , 1077/2084 , 1081/2004 , 1081/2005 , 1082/1742 , 1082/1751,

1082/1752 , 1082/1753 , 1082/1764 , 1085/1743 , 1085/1744 , 1085/1745 , 1085/1746 , 1085/1747,

1085/1748 , 1085/1761 , 1085/1857 , 1085/1907 , 1085/1998 , 1086/1906 , 1086/1908 , 1087/1690,

1087/1805 , 1088/1540 , 1088/1541 , 1088/1542 , 1091/1740 , 1091/1864 , 1091/2097 , 1092/1648,

1092/2050 , 1094/1698 , 1095/1354 , 1096/1329 , 1096/1699 , 1097/2039 , 11/1701 , 1100/1432 ,

1100/1433 , 1113/1968 , 1113/1969 , 1113/1970 , 1113/1971 , 1113/1972 , 1113/1973 , 1113/1974,

1113/1975 , 1113/1976 , 1113/1977 , 1113/1978 , 1114/1801 , 1114/1802 , 1118/1995 , 1118/2063,

1118/2064 , 1119/1664 , 1121/1785 , 1121/1787 , 1121/1788 , 1121/1819 , 1121/1856 , 1121/1922,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1125

1121/1923 , 1121/1933 , 1121/2037 , 1121/2057 , 1121/2058 , 1122/1546 , 1122/1713 , 1124/1800,

1125/1987 , 1125/1988 , 1125/1989 , 1125/1990 , 1125/1991 , 1125/1992 , 1126/1627 , 1126/1636,

113/1415 , 1137/1863 , 1141/1380 , 1141/1473 , 1141/1474 , 1152/1979 , 1152/1980 , 1152/1981 ,

1152/1983 , 1155/1884 , 1156/1512 , 1156/1523 , 1156/1524 , 1158/1714 , 1159/1715 , 1162/1644,

1165/1518 , 1165/1519 , 1165/1520 , 1166/1716 , 1173/1793 , 1173/1794 , 1179/1434 , 1180/1995,

1186/1517 , 1189/1547 , 119/1865 , 1190/1668 , 1197/1397 , 1207/2034 , 1217/1818 , 1217/1820 ,

1218/1767 , 1219/1887 , 1219/1888 , 1219/1889 , 1223/1890 , 1224/1852 , 1224/1853 , 1224/1854,

1225/1791 , 1225/1827 , 1225/1844 , 1225/1855 , 1226/1817 , 1226/1838 , 1226/1885 , 1229/1628,

1229/1635 , 1230/1816 , 1236/1848 , 1239/1355 , 1239/1388 , 1239/1389 , 1239/1390 , 125/1703 ,

1256/1386 , 1256/1387 , 1261/1867 , 1262/1391 , 1262/1891 , 1263/1726 , 1263/1728 , 1263/1729,

1263/1730 , 1264/1727 , 1264/1731 , 1264/1732 , 1264/1733 , 1264/1734 , 1264/1735 , 1264/1929,

1265/1868 , 1273/1501 , 1280/2016 , 129/1704 , 1292/1454 , 1292/1455 , 1292/1456 , 1292/1457 ,

1292/1458 , 1292/1459 , 1292/1460 , 1292/1461 , 1292/1463 , 1292/1465 , 1292/1466 , 1292/1467,

1292/1468 , 1292/1469 , 1292/1470 , 1292/1471 , 1292/1472 , 1292/1657 , 1292/1814 , 1292/1815,

1292/2006 , 1292/2025 , 1292/2047 , 1292/462 , 1296/1655 , 1297/1656 , 130/1705 , 139/1521 ,

145/1707 , 1471/1647 , 149/1943 , 149/1944 , 149/1945 , 149/1946 , 149/1947 , 149/1948 ,

149/1949 , 149/1950 , 149/1951 , 149/1952 , 149/1952/2095 , 149/1953 , 149/2096 , 150/1502 ,

150/1926 , 150/1927 , 150/2074 , 150/2076 , 150/2077 , 150/2078 , 150/2079 , 150/2080 ,

150/2081 , 150/2082 , 150/2083 , 152/1305 , 161/1557 , 163/1558 , 163/1559 , 163/1708 , 18/1332,

195/1828 , 1992/1464 , 21/1331 , 21/1368 , 21/1771 , 21/1772 , 21/1773 , 21/1774 , 21/1775 ,

21/1776 , 21/1777 , 21/1778 , 21/1779 , 21/1780 , 21/1781 , 21/1786 , 21/1843 , 21/1904 , 21/1905,

21/2098 , 21/2099 , 21/2100 , 212/1318 , 212/1629 , 212/1785 , 213/1319 , 216/1309 , 223/1709 ,

224/1560 , 225/1561 , 232/2049 , 232/2049/2090 , 24/1568 , 24/1573 , 24/1576 , 24/1581 ,

24/1582, 24/1583 , 24/1584 , 24/1585 , 24/1586 , 24/1587 , 24/1588 , 24/1591 , 24/1593 , 24/1594 ,

24/1606 , 24/1608 , 24/1620 , 24/1669 , 24/1670 , 24/1671 , 24/1672 , 24/1673 , 24/1674 , 24/1675,

24/1676 , 24/1677 , 24/1678 , 24/1679 , 24/1680 , 24/1681 , 24/1682 , 24/1683 , 24/1684 , 24/1685,

24/1686 , 24/1687 , 24/607 , 245/1396 , 249/1658 , 249/1724 , 250/1374 , 250/1378 , 250/1739 ,

252/1476 , 252/1483 , 252/1484 , 252/1485 , 252/1486 , 252/1487 , 252/1940 , 252/2085 ,

252/2086 , 255/1317 , 255/1984 , 255/1985 , 255/1986 , 259/1488 , 259/1763 , 267/1994 ,

269/1489 , 269/1939 , 270/1322 , 270/1652 , 270/1653 , 270/1738 , 270/1809 , 272/1529 ,

273/1528 , 273/1866 , 275/1666 , 281/1527 , 282/1543 , 282/1544 , 282/1545 , 285/1303 ,

285/1306 , 285/1530 , 285/1531 , 285/1532 , 289/1649 , 289/1688 , 289/1689 , 289/2048 ,

290/1954 , 292/1379 , 292/1562 , 304/1655 , 305/1423 , 305/1424 , 305/1425 , 305/1426 ,

305/1427 , 305/1428 , 305/1429 , 315/1493 , 315/1631 , 317/1492 , 319/1526 , 32/1308 , 32/1356 ,

32/1357 , 32/1358 , 32/1360 , 32/1361 , 32/1370 , 32/1638 , 32/1640 , 32/1641 , 32/1643 , 32/1807,

32/2014 , 32/2026 , 32/2027 , 32/2028 , 32/2056 , 33/1337 , 33/1338 , 33/1344 , 33/1345 , 33/1346,

330/1304 , 333/1623 , 333/1634 , 335/1725 , 337/1551 , 337/1552 , 337/1553 , 337/1662 ,

338/1554 , 338/1555 , 338/1556 , 341/1384 , 342/1385 , 345/1435 , 345/1993 , 346/1660 ,

346/1955 , 349/1624 , 349/1630 , 350/1398 , 351/1399 , 351/1697 , 351/2055 , 359/1382 ,

360/1381 , 360/1717 , 360/2060 , 361/2069 , 364/1494 , 364/1495 , 364/1538 , 37/1928 , 37/2091 ,

1126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

372/1496 , 375/1394 , 394/1533 , 4/1333 , 4/1334 , 4/1335 , 4/1336 , 4/1339 , 4/1340 , 4/1341 ,

4/1342 , 4/1343 , 4/1347 , 4/1348 , 4/1362 , 4/1372 , 4/1375 , 4/1376 , 4/1377 , 4/1696 , 4/2029 ,

4/2030 , 4/2033 , 4/2035 , 4/2041 , 4/2042 , 4/2043 , 4/2044 , 4/2045 , 4/2046 , 4/2070 , 4/2071 ,

4/2075 , 40/1328 , 40/1720 , 40/1754 , 40/1755 , 40/1756 , 40/1757 , 40/1758 , 412/1659 ,

412/1956 , 412/1957 , 412/1958 , 412/1959 , 413/1821 , 414/1563 , 430/1651 , 431/1383 ,

432/1332 , 433/1497 , 433/1497/1564 , 446/1324 , 446/1325 , 448/1710 , 46/1353 , 46/1366 ,

46/1367 , 46/1371 , 46/1373 , 46/1565 , 46/1622 , 46/1749 , 46/1750 , 46/1759 , 46/1760 , 46/1770,

46/1790 , 46/1795 , 46/1804 , 46/1824 , 46/1825 , 46/1826 , 46/1829 , 46/1830 , 46/1831 , 46/1832,

46/1834 , 46/1835 , 46/1836 , 46/1837 , 46/1845 , 46/1849 , 46/1850 , 46/1851 , 46/1858 , 46/1859,

46/1860 , 46/1903 , 46/1910 , 46/1911 , 46/1912 , 46/1913 , 46/1914 , 46/1915 , 46/1916 , 46/1917,

46/1918 , 46/1920 , 46/1930 , 46/1934 , 46/1935 , 46/1936 , 46/2038 , 46/2051 , 46/2067 ,

463/1871 , 467/1765 , 467/1766 , 47/1307 , 471/1797 , 471/1803 , 471/1808 , 471/1833 , 471/1872,

471/1924 , 471/2031 , 473/1847 , 473/2052 , 475/1548 , 475/1549 , 475/1550 , 476/1711 ,

483/1960 , 483/1961 , 483/1962 , 483/1963 , 483/1964 , 483/1965 , 483/1966 , 483/1967 ,

494/1534 , 494/1535 , 494/1536 , 51/1504 , 51/1505 , 51/1506 , 51/1507 , 51/1508 , 51/1509 ,

51/1510 , 51/1718 , 51/1869 , 52/1359 , 52/1392 , 52/1393 , 522/1873 , 53/1511 , 53/1512 ,

53/1514 , 53/1515 , 53/1516 , 53/1870 , 53/513 , 535/1712 , 54/1491 , 545/1430 , 55/1323 ,

56/1503 , 56/1503/2087 , 56/1503/2088 , 56/1503/2089 , 56/1737 , 56/1925 , 564/1537 , 564/1539 ,

570/1625 , 575/1874 , 577/1349 , 577/1875 , 579/1299 , 586/1439 , 587/1498 , 59/1326 , 59/1694 ,

59/2061 , 61/1327 , 61/1352 , 61/1702 , 627/1941 , 628/1846 , 632/1363 , 632/2015 , 632/2017 ,

632/2068 , 632/2092 , 632/2093 , 636/1876 , 638/1877 , 639/1300 , 639/1403 , 639/1404 ,

639/1405 , 639/1406 , 639/1407 , 639/1408 , 639/1409 , 643/1482 , 646/1475 , 646/1477 ,

646/1478 , 646/1479 , 646/1480 , 646/1481 , 653/1416 , 653/1417 , 653/1418 , 654/1419 ,

654/1420 , 654/1421 , 654/1422 , 663/1310 , 665/2062 , 67/1706 , 685/1637 , 687/1642 , 688/1806,

692/1639 , 693/1566 , 694/1792 , 696/1320 , 696/1862 , 696/1921 , 696/1997 , 696/2018 ,

702/1301 , 722/1798 , 724/1842 , 728/1799 , 731/2040 , 732/1321 , 734/1663 , 734/1909 , 74/1401,

74/1402 , 74/1444 , 740/1609 , 740/1610 , 740/1612 , 740/1613 , 742/1722 , 743/1723 , 745/1614 ,

745/1615 , 745/1616 , 745/1617 , 745/1618 , 745/1619 , 756/1364 , 76/1312 , 76/1313 , 76/1314 ,

76/1315 , 76/1316 , 764/1365 , 764/1796 , 766/1762 , 766/1782 , 766/1783 , 766/1784 , 79/1311 ,

792/1691 , 80/1395 , 801/1661 , 804/1453 , 804/1650 , 804/1665 , 805/1450 , 805/1451 , 805/1452,

806/1443 , 806/1444 , 806/1445 , 806/1446 , 806/1447 , 806/1448 , 806/1449 , 809/1369 ,

810/1654 , 820/1441 , 821/1442 , 823/1700 , 823/1721 , 828/1440 , 828/2036 , 828/2065 ,

828/2066 , 829/1902 , 829/1919 , 830/1412 , 853/1410 , 853/1411 , 856/1810 , 856/1888 ,

856/1892 , 856/1893 , 856/1894 , 858/1768 , 858/1769 , 858/1822 , 858/1823 , 858/1861 ,

859/1436 , 859/1437 , 859/1438 , 883/1886 , 892/1646 , 892/2053 , 901/1878 , 905/1879 ,

906/1942 , 907/1880 , 908/1812 , 908/1881 , 908/2011 , 908/2013 , 908/2054 , 91/1302 , 913/2094,

916/1351 , 932/1813 , 932/1882 , 932/2012 , 941/1839 , 941/1840 , 941/1841 , 964/1350 ,

970/1602 , 971/1601 , 994/1883.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1127

(3)

(3) !ाम पारबेडा

!ाम पारबेडा

!ाम पारबेडा (संपूण'

संपूण'

संपूण' ):

1 to 285 , 1/339 , 1/494 , 1/495 , 1/500 , 1/501 , 1/502 , 1/517 , 1/519 , 1/520 , 1/521 , 1/522 , 1/523,

1/524 , 1/525 , 1/526 , 1/527 , 100/326 , 103/288 , 106/350 , 107/305 , 113/309 , 114/294 , 115/337,

128/308128/466 , 128/467 , 128/468 , 130/469 , 130/470 , 130/471 , 132/313 , 135/426 , 135/474 ,

135/483 , 135/513 , 135/514 , 135/515 , 136/316 , 138/314 , 144/382 , 144/441 , 145/443 , 145/450,

145/558 , 146/423 , 149/408 , 150/447 , 151/407 , 151/409 , 151/410 , 152/439 , 153/392 , 153/393,

154/448 , 154/449 , 154/452 , 154/453 , 155/479 , 155/496 , 155/497 , 155/498 , 156/437 , 156/438,

157/431 , 157/433 , 157/435 , 158/424 , 159/302 , 159/454 , 160/317 , 160/411 , 160/432 , 160/434,

160/436 , 161/343 , 161/344 , 162/429 , 162/451 , 162/475 , 162/476 , 162/477 , 162/478 , 162/489,

162/493 , 163/353 , 163/455 , 163/456 , 163/457 , 163/458 , 163/459 , 163/460 , 163/480 , 163/481,

167/345 , 172/290 , 180/300 , 180/301 , 180/490 , 181/386 , 181/399 , 181/400 , 182/346 , 182/347,

182/348 , 182/349 , 183/306 , 184/341 , 184/342 , 184/362 , 184/363 , 184/364 , 184/367 , 184/371,

184/372 , 184/375 , 184/376 , 184/389184/404 , 184/419 , 184/427 , 184/428 , 184/445 , 184/484 ,

184/492 , 184/499 , 185/289 , 186/287 , 186/351 , 186/383 , 186/384 , 186/385 , 186/387 , 186/388,

186/390 , 186/391 , 186/394 , 186/395 , 186/398 , 186/401 , 186/402 , 186/405 , 186/406 , 186/412,

186/413 , 186/414 , 186/415 , 186/416 , 186/417 , 186/418 , 186/425 , 186/430 , 186/442 , 186/482,

188/299 , 190/297 , 192/298 , 192/312 , 194/311 , 195/396 , 195/397 , 195/403 , 195/446 , 2/440 ,

2/528 , 2/529 , 2/530 , 2/531 , 2/532 , 2/533 , 2/534 , 2/535 , 2/536 , 2/537 , 2/538 , 2/539 , 2/540 ,

2/541 , 200/295 , 204/330 , 206/331 , 210/332 , 214/333 , 215/328 , 233/420 , 233/421 , 233/422 ,

233/472 , 233/473 , 233/487 , 234/485 , 234/486 , 234/488 , 245/464 , 245/465 , 245/491 , 27/511 ,

281/296 , 3/291 , 3/292 , 3/368 , 3/369 , 3/542 , 3/543 , 3/544 , 3/545 , 3/546 , 3/547 , 30/503 ,

31/504 , 31/505 , 31/506 , 34/370 , 34/512 , 34/557 , 341/374 , 39/293 , 39/554 , 4/509 , 44/329 ,

48/336 , 48/462 , 49/379 , 53/318 , 57/307 , 59/303 , 59/304 , 6/548 , 6/549 , 6/550 , 6/551 , 6/552 ,

6/553 , 62/327 , 63/377 , 63/380 , 69/510 , 7/507 , 7/508 , 74/463 , 75/352 , 75/354 , 75/444 ,

78/338 , 8/286 , 81/322 , 81/324 , 81/365 , 81/366 , 81/461 , 85/335 , 86/378 , 86/381, 88/323 ,

90/340 , 92/334.

(4)

(4) !ाम बनबासपुर (भाग) :

!ाम बनबासपुर (भाग) :

1 से 61 , 624 to 650 , 2/1095 , 37/1255 , 38/1100 , 51/1090 , 51/1091 , 51/1151 , 60/1258 ,

629/1150, 632/1146 , 632/1147 , 650/1148.

(5)

(5) !ाम मरडहरह,रपुर ( संपूण') :

!ाम मरडहरह,रपुर ( संपूण') :

1 से 815 , 113/906 , 118/1013 , 118/1014 , 118/855 , 119/1015 , 119/1016 , 119/1017 , 120/1092 ,

120/1105 , 120/1106 , 121/1014 , 121/853 , 128/1021 , 128/1022 , 128/1042 , 128/1043 , 141/859 ,

144/837 , 147/860 , 149/844 , 151/858 , 17/1158 , 17/1194 , 17/995 , 17/997 , 172/1091 , 172/1172,

179/923 , 18/851 , 19/1161 , 234/1127 , 234/1128 , 234/1129 , 234/1130 , 234/1131 , 234/1132 ,

234/1133 , 234/1168 , 236/1002 , 236/1004 , 236/1005 , 236/1006 , 236/1007 , 236/942 , 236/943 ,

236/944 , 236/945 , 236/946 , 236/947 , 237/948 , 237/949 , 237/950 , 237/951 , 238/1008 ,

238/1009 , 238/1010 , 238/1011 , 238/1012 , 238/952 , 238/953 , 238/954 , 318/1195 , 318/838 ,

322/872 , 324/852 , 329/826 , 331/931 , 331/938 , 332/873 , 332/874 , 332/875 , 332/876 , 332/877,

1128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

332/878 , 332/879 , 332/925 , 332/926 , 332/927 , 332/974 , 333/914 , 333/915 , 333/916 ,

334/1086 , 334/1179 , 334/1180 , 334/1182 , 334/880 , 334/881 , 334/882 , 334/883 , 334/884 ,

375/980 , 375/982 , 375/983 , 376/1107 , 376/1113 , 376/1174 , 376/1175 , 376/1184 , 376/1188 ,

376/890 , 376/891 , 376/900 , 376/901 , 376/902 , 376/903 , 384/888 , 385/1035 , 385/960 ,

385/984 , 386/968 , 386/986 , 399/1102 , 399/893 , 399/1187 , 400/894 , 402/1033 , 402/895 ,

402/981 , 407/896 , 407/897 , 409/898 , 436/824 , 449/1206 , 449/1207 , 449/1208 , 449/1209 ,

453/917 , 455/905 , 466/818 , 467/868 , 468/731 , 468/832 , 468/835 , 468/836 , 469/846 , 469/847,

469/848 , 469/849 , 472/1120 , 472/1121 , 472/1122 , 472/1123 , 472/1124 , 473/1173 , 477/1199 ,

477/1199/1220 , 477/1199/1219 , 477/1199/1221 , 477/1199/1222 , 479/1189 , 479/1190 ,

479/1191 , 506/974 , 506/975 , 506/976 , 506/977 , 506/978 , 506/979 , 511/988 , 512/989 ,

512/990 , 512/991 , 512/992 , 514/1097 , 516/1098 , 517/1099 , 523/887 , 525/1020 , 525/1038 ,

525/1039 , 525/962 , 526/963 , 527/964 , 528/1103 , 536/1210 , 536/1211 , 556/1203 , 557/1162 ,

557/1164 , 557/1165 , 561/1160 , 561/1185 , 564/1163 , 196/857 , 206/1100 , 21/1159 , 21/816 ,

21/907 , 21/996 , 21/998 , 210/1085 , 210/966 , 211/965 , 213/856 , 215/870 , 234/1125 , 234/1126,

610/1095 , 610/1166 , 618/1116 , 618/1117 , 618/1118 , 618/1119 , 618/1167 , 618/819 , 625/830 ,

644/1134 , 644/829 , 645/1030 , 646/1178 , 646/1181 , 646/1183 , 610 , 238/955 , 238/956 ,

238/957 , 241/1001 , 241/1003 , 246/845 , 255/871 , 263/1096 , 269/1186 , 269/1200 , 269/1201 ,

269/1202 , 277/817 , 288/869 , 656/820 , 660/1154 , 668/1031 , 67/861 , 672/1146 , 672/1147 ,

672/1148 , 672/1149 , 672/1150 , 672/1151 , 672/1152 , 677/904 , 68/862 , 689/827 , 69/863 ,

610/1094 , 334/885 , 334/886 , 334/941 , 337/821 , 345/892 , 352/841 , 355/825 , 357/889 ,

359/1032 , 375/1033 , 375/1034 , 375/1037 , 375/1112 , 375/959 , 70/864 , 707/839 , 71/866 ,

718/1171 , 718/1196 , 718/1197 , 718/1198 , 718/1204 , 718/1213 , 72/867 , 720/834 , 721/840 ,

729/833 , 73/865 , 730/958 , 409/899 , 410/822 , 413/1140 , 413/1141 , 413/842 , 416/1155 ,

416/1157 , 417/1043 , 419/1044 , 420/1045 , 421/1046 , 422/1047 , 432/1205 , 436/823 , 731/843 ,

741/1135 , 742/1136 , 744/1067 , 744/1138 , 745/1023 , 745/1064 , 745/1066 , 745/1137 ,

745/1139 , 749/1025 , 749/1026 , 749/1028 , 75/854 , 755/1024 , 479/1192 , 479/1193 , 479/908 ,

479/909 , 479/910 , 479/911 , 479/912 , 479/913 , 496/993 , 506/969 , 506/970 , 506/971 , 506/972,

506/973 , 755/1027 , 758/1156 , 758/1169 , 765/1115 , 765/1170 , 772/1065 , 779/1143 , 779/1144,

780/1145 , 785/1108 , 785/1110 , 785/994 , 786/1109 , 786/1111 , 793/985 , 565/1018 , 565/1153 ,

565/1227 , 566/1087 , 566/1088 , 566/1089 , 566/1090 , 566/1093 , 570/961 , 575/921 , 576/922 ,

584/1000 , 584/1019 , 584/1029 , 801/940 , 808/920 , 808/987 , 809/819 , 810/1216 , 810/818 ,

812/1101 , 813/1104 , 813/967 , 880/929 , 880/939 , 881/930 , 881/931 , 881/936 , 881/937.

(6) बडका0ठआ आरिrत वन (आरएफ) (

) (

) (भाग) :

) :

) : rे. – 213.640 एकड़ ।

सीमा

सीमा-वण'न:

वण'न:

क-ख: रेखा िब4दु ''क'' से *ारंभ होती है जो ाम मरडह0रहरपुर, जयपुर(आर.एफ.) और बडका0ठआ (आर.एफ.) के ि.-

जं3शन िपलर पर ि,थत है । फर यह बड़का0ठआ (आर.एफ.) के rे. क पूव€ दशा क तरफ बढती है, जो मरड़ह0रहरपुर

और बड़का0ठआ (आर.एफ.) को छुती 5ई सामा4य सीमा तक चलती है और िब4दु ‘ख’ पर राज,व िपलर पर ,पश होती है,

जोक मरडह0रहरपुर Cलाट सं^या 332 उBर दशा मे अवि,थत है ।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1129

ख-ग : यह रेखा िब4दु “ख” से *ारंभ होती है और पूव दशा क ओर होते 5ए बडका0ठआ (आर.एफ.) से िब4दु “ग” से िमलती है

( बडका0ठआ आर.एफ., मरडह0रहरपुर और बडहार सं^या-117 का ि.- जं3शन िब4दु है )। ि. -जं3शन के िब4दु Cलॉट सं^या-

902 मरडह0रहरपुर के उBरी दशा पर ि,थत है, जो क बड़हार सं^या-117 और बडका0ठआ (आर.एफ.) क सामा4य सीमा

भी है ।

ग-घ : यह रेखा िब4दु “ग” से *ारंभ होती है और पूव दशा क ओर होते 5ए मरडह0रहरपुर और बडहार सं^या-117/ उBरी

दशा के Cलॉट सं-902,900,876 और 981 जोक सामा4य सीमा से जाकर राज,व िपलर के िब4दु “घ” पर िमलती है ।

घ-ड. : यह रेखा िब4दु “घ” से *ारंभ होती है और पूव दशा क ओर होते 5ए मरडह0रहरपुर और बडहार सं^या-117/ उBरी

दशा मरडह0रहरपुर के Cलॉट सं. 382 के िब4दु “ड.” पर िमलती है ।

ड.-च : यह रेखा िब4दु ”ड.’ से *ारंभ होती है और ाम मरडहह0रपुर के 382 उBर के कोने पर ि,थत है और Cलाट सं^या

382 क पूव€ सीमा के साथ दिrण क ओर बढ़ती है और फर बड़हार सं^या 117, िचBपुर और मरडहह0रहरपुर के सामा4य

ि.-जं3शन के िब4दु ‘च’ क पूव€ सीमा से िमलती है

च-छ : रेखा िब4दु “च” जोक ि.-जं3शन िब4दु बडहार सं^या 117 , िचतलपुर ओर मरडहरह0रपुर से *ार9भ होकर पूव€

दशा क ओर मुड़ती 5ई िब4दु “छ” पर िमलती है, जोक समा4य रेखा दिrणी बडहार सं^या 117 क ओर उBरी िचतलपुर

पर ि,थत है ।

छ-ज : यह रेखा िब4दु “छ” से *ारंभ होती है और पूव दशा के िब4दु “ज” को ,पश करते 5ए समा4य रेखा दिrणी बडहार

सं^या 117 क ओर उBरी िचतलपुर अथात् Cलॉट सं-04 क उBरी सीमा पर ि,थत है ।

ज-झ : यह रेखा िब4दु “ज” से *ारंभ होती है और पूव दशा के िब4दु “झ” को छुते 5ए समा4य रेखा दिrणी बडहार सं 117

क ओर उBरी िचतलपुर अथात् Cलॉट सं-47 क उBरी सीमा पर ि,थत है ।

झ- ञ : यह रेखा िब4दु “झ” से *ारंभ होती है और पूव दशा क ओर िब4दु “ञ” को छुते 5ए समा4य रेखा दिrणी बडहार

सं^या 117 क ओर उBरी िचतलपुर अथात् Cलॉट सं-47 क उBरी सीमा पर ि,थत है ।

ञ-ट: यह रेखा िब4दु “ञ ” से *ारंभ होती 5ई पूव दशा क ओर से िब4दु “ट” पर िमलती है जो क समा4य रेखा ि.-जं3शन

,त9भ बडहार सं^या 117 िचतलपुर क ओर बनबाशपुर अथात् दिrणी बडहार सं. 117 िचतलपुर क ओर उBर-पूव दशा

क ओर बनबाशपुर क उBरी-पिxम पर ि,थत है ।

ट-ठ: यह रेखा िब4दु “ट” से *ारंभ होती है और पूव दशा क ओर िब4दु “ठ” को छुते 5ए समा4य रेखा दिrणी बडहार सं.

117 क ओर बनबाशपुर अथात् उBरी दशा के Cलॉट सं. 01 बनबाशपुर पर ि,थत है ।

ठ-ड: यह रेखा िब4दु “ठ” से *ारंभ होती 5ई पूव€ दशा क ओर से िब4दु “ड” पर िमलती है जो क समा4य रेखा ि.- जं3शन

,त9भ बडहार सं^या 117 बनबाशपुर क ओर बाघबाशपुर सं^या 11 अथात् ‡संगोडाजोरा के पास ि,थत है ।

ड-ढ: यह रेखा िब4दु “ड” से *ारंभ 5ई पूव दशा क ओर से िब4दु “ढ” पर िमलती है जोक समा4य रेखा बनबाशपुर क ओर

बाघबाशपुर सं^या 11 ,त9भ बडहार सं^या 117 बनबाशपुर क ओर बाघबाशपुर सं^या 11 अथात् ‡संगोडाजोर कनारा

क पूव€ दशा है।

ढ-ण: यह रेखा िब4दु “ढ” से *ारंभ 5ई दिrणी दशा क ओर से िब4दु “ण” पर िमलती है जोक समा4य रेखा सं^या 117

बनबाशपुर क ओर बाघबाशपुर सं^या 11 अथात् Cलॉट सं^या 1095 बनबाशपुर क पूव€ दशा है ।

ण-त : यह रेखा िब4दु “ण” से *ारंभ होती 5ई दिrणी- पूव दशा क ओर से िब4दु “त” पर िमलती है जोक समा4य रेखा

सं^या 117 बनबाशपुर क ओर बाघबाशपुर सं^या 11 अथात् पूव€ दशा के Cलॉट सं^या 1095 बनबाशपुर ‡संगोडाजोर

पूव€ दशा पर ि,थत है ।

त-थ : यह रेखा िब4दु “त” से *ारंभ होती 5ई दिrणी दशा क ओर से िब4दु “थ” पर िमलती है जोक समा4य रेखा सं^या

117 बनबाशपुर क ओर बाघबाशपुर सं^या 11 अथात् पूव€ दशा के Cलॉट सं 1095 बनबाशपुर ‡संगोडाजोर पूव€ दशा पर

ि,थत है ।

थ-द: यह रेखा िब4दु “थ” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा क ओर होते 5ए पूव€ ‡संगोडाजोर के कनारा के साथ म" िब4दु

”द” पर िमलती है, जोक बनबाशपुर और बाघबाशपुर सं^या 11 का क सामा4य रेखा अथात् पूव€ दशा के Cलॉट सं. 1095

ाम बनबाशपुर और पूव€ ‡संगोडाजोर के कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

द-ध : यह रेखा िब4दु “द” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा क ओर होते 5ए िब4दु सं^या “ध” पर िमलती है,जोक

बनबाशपुर सं^या 10 क सामा4य रेखा और बनबाशपुर Cलॉट सं-624 क पूव€ दशा के ाम पारबेडा Cलॉट सं-651 के

उBरी कोने पर ि,थत है ।

1130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ध-न : यह रेखा िब4दु “ध” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी- पूव€ दशा क ओर होते 5ए िब4दु “न” पर िमलती है, जोक

बनबाशपुर सं^या 10 का सामा4य रेखा और ाम पारबेडा के Cलॉट सं-52 के पूव€ दशा पर ि,थत है ।

न-प: यह रेखा िब4दु “न” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी- पूव€ क दशा क ओर होते 5ए िब4दु “प” पर िमलती है, जोक

सामा4य रेखा ि.- जं3शन के िब4दु बनबाशपुर सं-10, गोपाल*साद सं-04 अथात् ाम पारबेडा Cलॉट सं- 350 क पूव€ दशा

म" ि,थत है ।

प-फ : यह रेखा िब4दु “प” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा के िब4दु ”फ” पर िमलती है, जो क गोपाल*साद सं^या 04

के राज,व ,त9भ (आर.एफ.) क ओर पारबेडा अथात् नदी कनारा के पूव€ दशा पर ि,थत है ।

फ-ब: यह रेखा िब4दु “फ” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा के िब4दु ” ब” पर िमलती है,जो क गोपाल*साद सं 04 का

राज,व ,त9भ (आर.एफ.) क ओर पारबेडा अथात् नदी कनारा के पूव€ दशा पर ि,थत है ।

ब-भ: यह रेखा िब4दु “ब” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा के िब4दु ”भ” पर िमलती है, जो क गोपाल*साद सं^या 04

का राज,व ,त9भ (आर.एफ.) क ओर पारबेडा अथात् नदी कनारा के पूव€ दशा पर ि,थत है ।

भ-म: यह रेखा िब4दु “भ” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा के िब4दु ”म” पर िमलती है, जोक गोपाल*साद सं^या 04 का

राज,व ,त9भ (आर.एफ.) क ओर पारबेडा अथात् नदी कनारा का पूव€ दशा पर ि,थत है ।

म-य: यह रेखा िब4दु “म” से *ारंभ होती है और पिxम दशा के िब4दु ” य” पर िमलती है, जोक ि.-जं3शन गोपाल*साद

सं^या 04 कुमुंडा क ओर पारबेडा अथात् ‡संघोडाजोर के दिrणी कनार पर ि,थत है ।

य- य1 : यह रेखा िब4दु ‘य’ से *ारंभ होती है और िब4दु ‘य1’ पर िमलती है ।

य1-य2 :- यह रेखा िब4दु “य1” से *ारंभ होती है और पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य2” पर िमलती है जो क राज,व

,त9भ (आर.एफ.) गोपाल*साद सं^या 04 क ओर कुमुंडा क सामा4य रेखा अथात् ‡संघोडाजोर के दिrणी कनारे पर

ि,थत है ।

य2-य3 : यह रेखा िब4दु “य2” से *ारंभ होती है और पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य3” पर िमलती है जोक गोपाल*साद

सं 04 क ओर कुमुंडा क सामा4य रेखा अथात् ‡संघोडाजोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य3-य4 : यह रेखा िब4दु “य3” से *ारंभ होती है और पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य4” पर िमलती है जोक गोपाल*साद

सं 04 क ओर कुमुंडा क साम4य रेखा अथात् ‡संघोडाजोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य4-य5 : यह रेखा िब4दु “य4” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य5” पर िमलती है जो क गोपाल*साद

सं^या 04 क ओर कुमुंडा क सामा4य रेखा अथात् ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य5- य6.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य5” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य6” पर िमलती है जो क

गोपाल*साद सं^या 04 क ओर कुमुंडा क सामा4य रेखा अथात् ‡संघोडाजोर का दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत होती है ।

य6-य7 : यह रेखा िब4दु “य6” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य7” पर िमलती है जोक

गोपाल*साद सं 04 क ओर कुमुंडा क सामा4य रेखा अथात् ‡संघोडा जोर का दिrणी कनार पर ि,थत है।

य7 - य8.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य7” से *ारंभ होती है और पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य8” पर िमलती है जोक ि.-जं3शन

गोपाल*साद सं^या 04 कुमुंडा और कुसुमपाल सं 03 अथात् ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनार पर ि,थत है ।

य8-य9.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य8” से *ारंभ होती है और पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य9” पर िमलती है जोक कुसुमपाल सं

03 और कुमुंडा का सामा4य रेखा अथात् ‡संघोडाजोर के दिrणी कनार पर ि,थत है ।

य9-य10: यह रेखा िब4दु “य9” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य10” पर िमलती है जोक

सामा4य रेखा कुसुमपाल सं 03 और कुमुंडा अथात् ‡संघोडाजोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य10-य11.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य10” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी-पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य11” पर िमलती है जो क

Sाई जं3शन कुसुमपाल सं 03 कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं 01 अथात् ‡संघोडाजोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1131

य11-य12: यह रेखा िब4दु “य11” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी दशा के साथ म" होते 5ए सामा4य रेखा भालुगािडआ सं. 01

और कुमुंडा होते 5ए “य12” पर िमलती है जोक कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सामा4य रेखा ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे

पर ि,थत है ।

य12-य13.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य12” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी-पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य13” पर िमलती है जो क

सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं01 अथात् ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य13- य14: यह रेखा िब4दु “य13” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य14” पर िमलती है जो क

सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं01 ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत होती है ।

य14-य15.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य14” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य15” पर िमलती है जो क

सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा ओर भालुगािडआ सं01 ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य15-य16.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य15” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी -पिxम दशा क ओर साथ म" नदी कनारे होते 5ए “य16”

पर िमलती है जोक सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं01 ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य16-य17.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य16” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर साथ म" नदी कनारे होते 5ए “य17”

पर िमलित है जो क सामां4य रेखा कुमुंडा ओर भालुगािडआ सं01 ‡संघोडा जोर का दिrणी कनार पर ि,थत होित है ।

य17.य18.:- यह रेखा िब4दु “य17” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर साथ म" नदी कनारे होते 5ए “य18”

य18-य19.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य18” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी- पिxम दशा क ओर साथ म" नदी कनारे होते 5ए “य19”

पर िमलती है जोक सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं. 01 ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य19-य20.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य19” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर साथ म" नदी कनारे होते 5ए “य20”

पर िमलती है जो क सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं. 01 ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य20-य21.:- यह रेखा िब4दु “य20” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा क ओर साथ म" नदी कनार होते 5ए “य21” पर

िमलती है जो क सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा ओर भालुगािडआ सं01 ‡संघोडा जोर के पूव€ कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य21-य22.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य21” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पूव€ दशा क ओर साथ म" नदी कनारे होते 5ए “य22” पर

िमलती है जोक सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं01 ‡संघोडा जोर के पूव€ कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य22-य23.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य22” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी दशा क ओर साथ म" नदी कनार होते 5ए “य23” पर

िमलती है जो क सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं.01 ‡संघोडा जोर के पूव€ कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य23-य24.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य23” से *ारंभ होती है और दिrणी-पिxम दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य24” पर िमलती है जोक

सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा ओर भालुगािडआ सं01 ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनारे पर ि,थत है ।

य24-य25.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य24” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी-पिxमी दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य25” पर िमलती है जोक

सामा4य ि.-जं3शन कुमुंडा और भालुगािडआ सं. 01 ‡संघोडा जोर के दिrणी कनार पर ि,थत होती है ।

य25-य26.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य25” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी-पूव€ दशा क ओर होते 5ए “य26” पर िमलती है जोक

सामा4य रेखा कुमुंडा और कंकरेई सं 65 अथात् ‡संघोडा जोर का पिxम रेखा Cलॉट सं. 975 ।

य26-य27.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य26” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी-पिxमी दशा क ओर साथ म" राज,व रेखा होते 5ए कंकरेई

और कुमुडा के िब4दु “य27” पर िमलती है जोक ि.- जं3शन कुमुंडा और कंकरेई सं. 65 और जयपुर आर.एफ. ।

य27-य28.:- यह रेखा िब4दु “य27” से *ारंभ होती है और उBरी-पिxमी दशा क ओर साथ म" सामा4य राज,व रेखा होते

5ए कंकरेई सं. 65 और कुमुंडा “य28” पर िमलती है जोक राज,व ,त9भ अथात् पिxम दशा के कुमुडा और जयपुर

आर.एफ क पूव€ दशा ।

य28-य29.: यह रेखा िब4दु “य28” से *ारंभ होती है और उत0र-पिxम दशा क ओर साथ मे राज,व रेखा होते 5ए जयपुर

आर. एफ. और कुमुंडा “य29” पर िमलती है जो क राज,व ,त9भ अथात् उBरी दशा के कोना कुमुंडा Cलॉट सं. 57 ।

1132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

य29-य-30: रेखा “य 29” से आर9भ होते 5ए उBर पिxम दशा से होते 5ए जयपुर आर. एफ. और कुमु4डा क साम4य

राज,व सीमा से बढती 5ई कुमु4डा,मरडह0रहरपुर के ि.-जं3शन पर ‘य30’ िब4दु से िमलती है, अथात ाम कुमुंडा के Cलॉट

सं-39 के अ4तरी कोना और ाम मरडह0रहरपुर के Cलॉट सं-2 के दिrणी पिxम और जयपुर के संरिrत वन के पूव€ भाग ।

य-30-क : रेखा “य 30” से आर9भ होते 5ए उBर पिxम दशा से होते 5ए मरडह0रहरपुर और जयपुर के सरिrत वन के

साम4य राज,व सीमा क ओर बढ़ते 5ए जयपुर संरिrत वन, बड़क0ठआ, संरिrत वन और मरडह0रहरपुर के ि.-जं3शन पर

िब4दु “क” के नजदीक पर समाs होती है अथात मरडह0रहरपुर ाम के Cलॉट सं-01 का उBर- पिxम कोना ।

[ फा. सं. 43015/2/2019-एलए एQड आईआर]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 8^th March, 2019

S.O. 373.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in

the locality described in the schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing number MCL/HA/Notification/2018-19/01, dated the 5^th December,2018 containing

details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Director Technical

(operation), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, At- Jagruti Vihar, P.O. Burla, District Sambalpur-768018, Odisha or at the

office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mining Planning and Design Institute limited,

Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi(Jharkhand) or at the office of the Coal Controller,1, Council House Street,

Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the District Collector, District Angul, Odisha;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the land described in the said Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may-

(i)

object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any right in or over the said land; or

(ii)

claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any

action taken under sub-section(3) of section 4 thereof; or

(iii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act in respect of prospecting licenses

ceasing to have effect or under sub-section(4) of section 13 of the Act for mining lease ceasing to have

effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the land to show the expenditure

incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the office of the Director Technical (operation),Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, At- Jagruti Vihar, P.O- Burla, District

Sambalpur-768018, Odisha within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Balabhadra Coal Block

District- Angul, State- Odisha

[ plan bearing number MCL/HA/Notification/2018-19/01, dated the 5^th December, 2018 ]

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Name of village

Patwari Circle

number/ Thana

number

Tehsil

District

Area in acres

(approxi-mately)

Remarks

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Kumunda

119

Talcher

(259)

Angul

1174.498

Full

Chitalpur

120

Talcher

(258)

Angul

529.830

Full

Parabeda

121

Talcher

(257)

Angul

133.368

Full

Banabaspur

Talcher

(255)

Angul

188.030

Part

Maradharharipur

118

Talcher

Angul

649.100

Full

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1133

(167)

Badakathia

reserve forest

Talcher

Angul

213.640

Part

Total Area:

2888.466 acres (approximately)

1168.946 hectares (approximately)

Plot numbers to be notified:

(1) VILLAGE KUMUNDA (FULL):

1 to 5954 , 100/5932 , 101/5883 , 101/6029 , 101/6030 , 101/6031 , 101/6032 , 101/6033 , 101/6076 , 1022/5792 ,

103/5988 , 1037/6317 , 1038/6466 , 1038/6467 , 1038/6469 , 1038/6542 , 1042/6476 , 1067/5812 , 1076/6475 ,

1078/5819 , 1081/5961 , 1081/5962 , 1084/6567 , 1084/6629 , 1085/6572 , 1089/6391 , 1089/6420 , 1089/6544 ,

1090/6185 , 1090/6233 , 1090/6531 , 1090/6532 , 1090/6533 , 1090/6534 , 1090/6535 , 1090/6536 , 1090/6537 ,

1113/5794 , 1113/6006 , 1139/5791 , 1143/6023 , 1143/6065 , 1143/6145 , 1143/6220 , 1143/6499 , 1146/6188 ,

1146/6209 , 1164/6384 , 1164/6385 , 1164/6433 , 1167/6051 , 1167/6083 , 1167/6213 , 1167/6278 , 1167/6304 ,

1167/6506 , 1168/6570 , 1169/6571 , 1219/5952 , 1221/5953 , 127/6639 , 1275/5805 , 1296/5811 , 1299/6580 ,

1305/6179 , 1306/5919 , 133/5972 , 133/5973 , 1333/6610 , 1333/6611 , 1333/6627 , 1338/6449 , 1354/6424 ,

1365/6418, 1365/6419 , 1397/5976 , 1403/5784 , 1403/5986 , 1404/5785 , 1406/6480 , 1408/5928 , 1408/5929 ,

1410/6220 , 1438/5955 , 1439/6299 , 1440/5956 , 1440/5957 , 1441/6091 , 1442/6379 , 1443/6380 , 1446/6092 ,

1448/6093 , 1448/6644 , 1449/6094 , 1452/6095 , 1453/5829 , 1454/5830 , 1454/6096 , 1456/6021 , 1456/6057 ,

1456/6319 , 1457/6318 , 1467/6541 , 1524/5832 , 1528/6137 , 1528/6514 , 1557/5898 , 156/5810 , 1567/6525 ,

159/6235, 159/6236 , 159/6430 , 1613/6086 , 1613/6087 , 1613/6088 , 1613/6375 , 1613/6425 , 1613/6428 , 1622/6680 ,

1623/5944 , 1626/6558 , 1636/5921 , 1636/5930 , 1657/5859 , 1664/6515 , 1688/5878 , 1698/5931 , 1700/6247 ,

173/6557 , 1742/6581 , 1750/6062 , 1788/5963 , 1795/5902 , 1796/6116 , 1800/6300 , 1805/6050 , 1829/6298 ,

1841/6259 , 1841/6261 , 1841/6262 , 1841/6263 , 1847/6260 , 1848/6258 , 1902/5993 , 1909/5871 , 1909/5872 ,

191/6573 , 1916/5994 , 1916/5995 , 1928/6244 , 1937/6019 , 1942/5891 , 1943/5890 , 1961/5861 , 199/5818 ,

1997/5901, 1998/6504 , 2037/6310 , 2042/6270 , 2043/6190 , 2044/6195 , 2048/6193 , 2049/6191 , 205/5822 ,

2050/6192 , 2054/6516 , 2055/6526 , 2058/6026 , 2071/6048 , 2078/6009 , 2087/6186 , 2087/6485 , 2089/6239 ,

2094/6154 , 2097/5934 , 2102/5797 , 2104/6361 , 2113/6427 , 2113/6429 , 2114/5852 , 2116/538 , 2116/6426 ,

2183/6519 , 2183/6520 , 2183/6521 , 2184/5903 , 2184/5904 , 2184/5905 , 2194/5967 , 2194/5968 , 2194/5969 ,

2197/5966 , 221/5817 , 2212/5958 , 2215/5907 , 2232/5915 , 2247/5796 , 2247/5867 , 2254/5814 , 2255/6198 ,

2255/6524 , 2257/5997 , 2268/6489 , 2268/6491 , 2268/6500 , 2268/6501 , 2268/6502 , 2269/5916 , 2281/6376 ,

2286/5879 , 2286/6377 , 2286/6397 , 2286/6650 , 2288/6456 , 2311/6005 , 2321/5880 , 2321/5881 , 2331/5996 ,

2341/5795 , 2341/5900 , 2405/5885 , 2417/6465 , 2445/5854 , 2473/6362 ,2475/5998 , 2476/6522 , 2485/6156 ,

2489/6157 , 2497/6582 , 250/6295 , 2503/5982 , 2505/6248 , 2505/6249 , 2519/6559 , 2519/6560 , 2535/6413 ,

2536/5892 , 2536/5893 ,2536/5894 , 2536/6272 , 2536/6275 , 2536/6276 , 2537/5895 , 2537/6527 , 2541/6414 ,

2541/6415 , 2541/6416 , 2541/6649 , 2547/6105 , 2553/6182 , 2567/5964 , 257/6268 , 257/6269 , 2596/6225 ,

2596/6561, 2596/6562 , 2602/8574 , 2629/6049 , 2636/6638 , 2641/6342 ,2641/6457 , 2642/6232 , 2657/5917 ,

2657/5918 , 2661/5875 , 2664/5943 , 2712/6484 , 2720/5815 , 2730/5778 , 2757/5889 , 2760/5888 , 2797/5882 ,

2811/5835 , 2814/5908 , 2814/5909 , 2829/6382 , 2832/6211 , 2842/5910 ,2842/5911 , 2844/6445 , 2850/6452 ,

2850/6453 , 2850/6454 , 2851/5946 , 2852/5858 , 2857/5863 , 2858/5864 ,2878/6633 , 2910/6002 , 2910/6598 ,

2923/6264 , 2924/5833 , 2924/6474 , 293/5816 , 2958/6553 , 2971/6146 ,2974/6440 , 2976/6443 , 2976/6444 ,

2976/6648 , 2977/6042 , 2987/6464 , 2995/6634 , 3/5925 , 3005/6635 ,3011/5802 , 3017/5787 , 302/5980 , 302/5981 ,

302/6481 , 302/6607 , 302/6630 , 3085/5949 , 3087/6043 , 3094/6044 ,3094/6059 , 3096/6451 , 3096/6455 , 3096/6468 ,

3096/6492 , 3105/6583 , 3111/6243 , 3117/6530 , 3124/5798 ,3124/5799 , 3126/6024 , 3126/6529 , 3135/5897 ,

3138/5924 , 3164/6517 , 3169/6599 , 3177/6034 , 3178/6035 ,3195/5983 , 3196/59843199/5985 , 320/6114 , 321/6115 ,

321/6639 , 322/6640 , 3222/5843 , 3230/5912 , 3231/5913 ,3300/6273 , 3321/5920 , 3321/6077 , 3360/6538 , 3385/6008,

3410/5941 , 3412/6477 , 3412/6490 , 3415/6147 , 342/6365 , 342/6381 , 3428/5806 , 3429/5807 , 3430/5808 ,

3433/5809, 3438/5774 , 3438/5775 , 3441/5951 , 3446/6109 , 3446/6498 , 3447/5820 , 3470/6306 , 3471/6117 ,

3471/6119 , 3471/6120 , 3471/6153 , 3471/6450 , 3471/6472 , 3473/6112 , 3473/6118 , 3473/6267 , 3473/6316 ,

3477/6307 , 348/6099 , 3486/6027 , 3486/6090 , 3488/6028 , 3528/6296 , 3528/6364 , 3529/6174 , 3529/6175 ,

3529/6417 , 3530/6340 , 3576/6279 , 3576/6280 , 3580/6372 , 3639/6054 , 3649/5941 , 3669/6055 , 3672/6056 ,

3688/6111 , 3732/6110 , 374/6036 , 374/6037 , 374/6038 , 374/6039 , 374/6040 , 374/6041 , 3747/5804 , 376/5974 ,

3869/6357 , 3871/5947 , 3894/5789 , 394/5824 , 395/5825 , 395/5826 , 3955/5945 , 3964/5834 , 3980/5906 , 3982/5959 ,

3995/5896 , 4/5926 , 405/6395 , 4096/5862 , 4096/6245 , 4096/6246 , 4152/5837 , 4152/5838 , 4161/6250 , 4161/6252 ,

4165/6196 , 4167/6150 , 4167/6251 , 4167/6345 , 4169/5970 , 4171/5977 , 4172/5845 , 4173/5844 , 4183/6539 ,

4222/6302 , 4222/6303 , 4229/6227 , 4231/6144 , 4231/6200 , 4231/6320 , 4231/6321 , 4231/6322 , 4231/6470 ,

4231/6631 , 4231/6636 , 4231/6637 , 4232/6169 , 4232/6170 , 4232/6171 , 4233/5857 , 4235/6584 , 424/5975 ,

425/5868, 4253/6569 , 426/6614 , 426/6615 , 4278/5965 , 4279/6181 , 4365/6646 , 4366/6647 , 4375/6493 ,4381/6399 ,

4389/6241 , 4415/5780 , 4434/6124 , 444/6546 , 444/6547 , 444/6548 , 444/6555 , 4452/6177 , 446/6545 , 446/6549 ,

446/6556 , 446/6564 , 4461/6007 , 449/6565 , 450/6277 , 450/6281 , 450/6282 , 450/6283 , 450/6284 , 450/6285 ,

450/6289 , 450/6290 , 450/6291 , 450/6292 , 450/6293 , 450/6294 , 450/6305 , 450/6313 , 450/6314 , 450/6315,

450/6323 , 450/6324 , 450/6336 , 450/6337 , 450/6338 , 450/6339 , 450/6373 , 450/6374 , 450/6383 , 450/6396 ,

450/6421 , 450/6437 , 450/6543 , 451/6073 , 452/6309 , 4526/5999 , 4546/5781 , 4550/5821457/6084 , 4585/5823 ,

4588/5851 , 4598/6652 , 4598/6653 , 4598/6654 , 4601/6010 , 4609/6003 , 4625/6641 , 4625/6642 , 4625/6643 ,

1134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4649/6566 , 4651/6265 , 4652/6254 , 4653/6255 , 4657/5887 , 4684/5886 , 4705/6585 , 4712/5855 , 472/5978 ,

472/5979, 4722/5856 , 475/6436 , 4752/5786 , 4757/6068 , 4776/6001 , 4780/6224 , 4788/5776 , 4788/6586 , 4790/6587,

4795/5779 , 4805/5899 , 4807/6164 , 4827/6000 , 4844/6588 , 485/5773 , 4857/6022 , 4857/6237 , 4857/6528 ,

4871/6589 , 4873/6590 , 4873/6591 , 4873/6592 , 4873/6593 , 4873/6594 , 4873/6595 , 4880/6132 , 4880/6134 ,

4880/6134 , 4880/6461 , 4880/6463 , 4887/6133 , 4887/6135 , 4887/6462 , 49/5923 , 4905/6012 , 491/6616 , 4915/6596 ,

492/6617 , 492/6618 , 492/6619 , 4927/6079 , 4947/5241 , 4947/5842 , 4947/6011 , 4947/6129 , 4948/5989 , 4960/6204 ,

4961/6004 , 4977/6628 , 4982/6047 , 4983/6155 , 4987/5847 , 506/5827 , 5120/5790 , 5129/6550 , 5129/6551 ,

5154/6609 , 5155/6363 , 5174/5870 , 5197/6651 , 520/5828 , 5233/6163 , 5233/6206 , 5233/6207 , 5236/5848 ,

5240/6148 , 5251/5777 , 5252/6301 , 5274/6214 , 5274/6215 , 5274/6234 , 5276/6216 , 5278/5950 , 5278/6346 ,

5294/5850 , 5295/5849 , 5301/6347 , 5301/6349 , 5308/5869 , 5318/5922 , 5358/6411 , 5358/6435 , 5358/6446 ,

5358/6447 , 5358/6448 , 5360/6486 , 5360/6495 , 5362/5942 , 5371/6441 , 5371/6442 , 5371/6488 , 5393/5801,

5394/5938 , 5398/6348 , 5398/6350 , 54/5990 , 540/6612 , 5400/6410 , 5400/6601 , 5401/6398 , 5401/6412 , 541/6613 ,

5410/5939 , 5410/5940 , 5420/5937 , 544/6626 , 5456/5831 , 5471/5813 , 5494/5800 , 5496/5936 , 55/5991 , 55/5992 ,

550/6620 , 550/6621 , 5503/6431 , 5503/6432 , 551/6622 , 551/6623 , 552/6624 , 555/66255550/5873 , 5563/6600 ,

5575/6597 , 5584/5884 , 5591/6152 , 5602/6311 , 5602/6312 , 5609/6020 , 5609/6286 , 5611/6266 , 5611/6343 ,

5611/6344 , 5618/6197 , 5618/6202 , 5618/6203 , 5618/6238 , 5618/6568 , 5619/6158 , 5619/6159 ,

5619/61765619/6230 , 5619/6351 , 5623/6183 , 5640/5933 , 5641/6217 , 5655/6072 , 5669/6403 , 5670/6404 ,

5671/6405 , 5672/6400 , 5673/6401 , 5674/6402 , 5674/6406 , 5675/6352 , 5675/6507 , 5676/6025 , 5676/6080 ,

5676/6081 , 5676/6082 , 5676/6089 , 5676/6113 , 5676/6212 , 5676/6242 , 5676/6253 , 5676/6256 , 5676/6325 ,

5676/6341 , 5676/6353 , 5676/6359 , 5676/6407 , 5676/6408 , 5676/6508 , 5676/6510 , 5676/6512 , 5677/6509 ,

5677/6511 , 5691/6100 , 5691/6101 , 5691/6102 , 5691/6103 , 5691/6104 , 5691/6106 , 5691/6107 , 5691/6108 ,

5691/6121 , 5691/6128 , 5691/6149 , 5691/6151 , 5691/6210 , 5691/6518 , 5691/6552 , 5710/5860 , 5723/6360 ,

5723/6386 , 5723/6473 , 5723/6483 , 5748/6138 , 5748/6139 , 5748/6140 , 5748/6141 , 5748/6142 , 5748/6161 ,

5748/6162 , 5751/6124 , 5751/6125 , 5751/6126 , 5752/6143 , 5752/6205 , 5752/6223 , 5753/6178 , 5757/6052 ,

5757/6053 , 5757/6060 , 5757/6069 , 5757/6070 , 5757/6071 , 5757/6074 , 5757/6075 , 5757/6122 , 5757/6127 ,

5757/6165 , 5757/6172 , 5757/6173 , 5757/6184 , 5757/6221 , 5757/6222 , 5757/6240 , 5757/6271 , 5757/6287 ,

5757/6288 , 5757/6496 , 5757/6497 , 576/6018 , 5762/6063 , 5762/6160 , 5762/6166 , 5762/6168 , 5762/6180 ,

5762/6189 , 5762/6231 , 5762/6267 , 605/5839 , 605/5840 , 605/6187 , 605/6354 , 605/6355 , 605/6356 , 605/6513 ,

6066/6199 , 614/6378 , 630/6066 , 641/6602 , 641/6603 , 641/6604 , 641/6605 , 641/6606 , 659/6392 , 659/6422 ,

661/6368661/6370 , 661/6393.661/6431 , 661/6439 , 661/6487 , 661/6494 , 661/6503 , 661/6523 , 673/6130 , 680/5935 ,

680/6061 , 681/6409 , 682/6058 , 682/6505 , 684/6358 , 685/6208 , 685/6471 , 692/6257 , 692/6332 , 692/6478 ,

693/6333 , 693/6479 , 696/6085 , 696/6131 , 696/6389 , 697/6308 , 697/6334 , 697/6335 , 698/6136 , 698/6387 ,

698/6388 , 698/6390 , 7/5927 , 701/6366 , 701/6367 , 702/6226 , 702/6327 , 702/6328 , 702/6329 , 702/6330 , 702/6331 ,

706/6218 , 706/6229 , 707/6228 , 708/6219 , 710/5846 , 713/6554716/5836 , 717/6434 , 727/6045 , 727/6122 , 728/6046,

741/6297 , 755/6482 , 764/6064 , 764/6201 , 813/5793 , 818/5865 , 819/5866 , 823/5788 , 828/6574 , 832/5876 ,

832/5877 , 87/6540 , 896/5948 , 902/5960 , 923/6458 , 923/6459 , 923/6460 , 9258/6226 , 937/5971 , 937/6017 ,

937/6394 , 942/6369 , 942/6371 , 956/6013 , 956/6014 , 956/6015 , 959/6575 , 963/6576 , 964/6577 , 978/5782 ,

979/5783 , 98/5987 , 984/5803 , 985/6578 , 991/6579 , 997/6016.

(2) VILLAGE CHITALPUR (FULL):

1 to 1298 , 1431 , 1028/2019 , 1028/2020 , 1028/2021 , 1028/2022 , 1028/2023 , 1028/2024 , 1031/1667 , 1031/1736 ,

1031/2059 , 1035/1692 , 1035/1693 , 1037/1500 , 1037/1626 , 1038/1499 , 1038/1633 , 1039/1522 , 1039/1719 ,

104/1413 , 105/1414 , 106/1645 , 1071/1895 , 1071/1896 , 1071/1897 , 1071/1898 , 1071/1899 , 1071/1900 , 1071/1901 ,

1072/2007 , 1072/2008 , 1072/2009 , 1072/2010 , 1076/1931 , 1076/1932 , 1076/1937 , 1076/1938 , 1076/1996 ,

1077/1999 , 1077/2000 , 1077/2001 , 1077/2002 , 1077/2003 , 1077/2084 , 1081/2004 , 1081/2005 , 1082/1742 ,

1082/1751 , 1082/1752 , 1082/1753 , 1082/1764 , 1085/1743 , 1085/1744 , 1085/1745 , 1085/1746 , 1085/1747 ,

1085/1748 , 1085/1761 , 1085/1857 , 1085/1907 , 1085/1998 , 1086/1906 , 1086/1908 , 1087/1690 , 1087/1805 ,

1088/1540 , 1088/1541 , 1088/1542 , 1091/1740 , 1091/1864 , 1091/2097 , 1092/1648 , 1092/2050 , 1094/1698 ,

1095/1354 , 1096/1329 , 1096/1699 , 1097/2039 , 11/1701 , 1100/1432 , 1100/1433 , 1113/1968 , 1113/1969 ,

1113/1970, 1113/1971 , 1113/1972 , 1113/1973 , 1113/1974 , 1113/1975 , 1113/1976 , 1113/1977 , 1113/1978 ,

1114/1801 , 1114/1802 , 1118/1995 , 1118/2063 , 1118/2064 , 1119/1664 , 1121/1785 , 1121/1787 , 1121/1788 ,

1121/1819 , 1121/1856 , 1121/1922 , 1121/1923 , 1121/1933 , 1121/2037 , 1121/2057 , 1121/2058 , 1122/1546 ,

1122/1713 , 1124/1800 , 1125/1987 , 1125/1988 , 1125/1989 , 1125/1990 , 1125/1991 , 1125/1992 , 1126/1627 ,

1126/1636 , 113/1415 , 1137/1863 , 1141/1380 , 1141/1473 , 1141/1474 , 1152/1979 , 1152/1980 , 1152/1981 ,

1152/1983 , 1155/1884 , 1156/1512 , 1156/1523 , 1156/1524 , 1158/1714 , 1159/1715 , 1162/1644 , 1165/1518 ,

1165/1519 , 1165/1520 , 1166/1716 , 1173/1793 , 1173/1794 , 1179/1434 , 1180/1995 , 1186/1517 , 1189/1547 ,

119/1865 , 1190/1668 , 1197/1397 , 1207/2034 , 1217/1818 , 1217/1820 , 1218/1767 , 1219/1887 , 1219/1888 ,

1219/1889 , 1223/1890 , 1224/1852 , 1224/1853 , 1224/1854 , 1225/1791 , 1225/1827 , 1225/1844 , 1225/1855 ,

1226/1817 , 1226/1838 , 1226/1885 , 1229/1628 , 1229/1635 , 1230/1816 , 1236/1848 , 1239/1355 , 1239/1388 ,

1239/1389 , 1239/1390 , 125/1703 , 1256/1386 , 1256/1387 , 1261/1867 , 1262/1391 , 1262/1891 , 1263/1726 ,

1263/1728 , 1263/1729 , 1263/1730 , 1264/1727 , 1264/1731 , 1264/1732 , 1264/1733 , 1264/1734 , 1264/1735 ,

1264/1929 , 1265/1868 , 1273/1501 , 1280/2016 , 129/1704 , 1292/1454 , 1292/1455 , 1292/1456 , 1292/1457 ,

1292/1458 , 1292/1459 , 1292/1460 , 1292/1461 , 1292/1463 , 1292/1465 , 1292/1466 , 1292/1467 , 1292/1468 ,

1292/1469 , 1292/1470 , 1292/1471 , 1292/1472 , 1292/1657 , 1292/1814 , 1292/1815 , 1292/2006 , 1292/2025 ,

1292/2047 , 1292/462 , 1296/1655 , 1297/1656 , 130/1705 , 139/1521 , 145/1707 , 1471/1647 , 149/1943 , 149/1944 ,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1135

149/1945 , 149/1946 , 149/1947 , 149/1948 , 149/1949 , 149/1950 , 149/1951 , 149/1952 , 149/1952/2095 , 149/1953 ,

149/2096 , 150/1502 , 150/1926 , 150/1927 , 150/2074 , 150/2076 , 150/2077 , 150/2078 , 150/2079 , 150/2080 ,

150/2081 , 150/2082 , 150/2083 , 152/1305 , 161/1557 , 163/1558 , 163/1559 , 163/1708 , 18/1332 , 195/1828 ,

1992/1464 , 21/1331 , 21/1368 , 21/1771 , 21/1772 , 21/1773 , 21/1774 , 21/1775 , 21/1776 , 21/1777 , 21/1778 ,

21/1779, 21/1780 , 21/1781 , 21/1786 , 21/1843 , 21/1904 , 21/1905 , 21/2098 , 21/2099 , 21/2100 , 212/1318 , 212/1629

, 212/1785 , 213/1319 , 216/1309 , 223/1709 , 224/1560 , 225/1561 , 232/2049 , 232/2049/2090 , 24/1568 , 24/1573 ,

24/1576 , 24/1581 , 24/1582 , 24/1583 , 24/1584 , 24/1585 , 24/1586 , 24/1587 , 24/1588 , 24/1591 , 24/1593 , 24/1594 ,

24/1606 , 24/1608 , 24/1620 , 24/1669 , 24/1670 , 24/1671 , 24/1672 , 24/1673 , 24/1674 , 24/1675 , 24/1676 , 24/1677 ,

24/1678 , 24/1679 , 24/1680 , 24/1681 , 24/1682 , 24/1683 , 24/1684 , 24/1685 , 24/1686 , 24/1687 , 24/607 , 245/1396 ,

249/1658 , 249/1724 , 250/1374 , 250/1378 , 250/1739 , 252/1476 , 252/1483 , 252/1484 , 252/1485 , 252/1486 ,

252/1487 , 252/1940 , 252/2085 , 252/2086 , 255/1317 , 255/1984 , 255/1985 , 255/1986 , 259/1488 , 259/1763 ,

267/1994 , 269/1489 , 269/1939 , 270/1322 , 270/1652 , 270/1653 , 270/1738 , 270/1809 , 272/1529 , 273/1528 ,

273/1866 , 275/1666 , 281/1527 , 282/1543 , 282/1544 , 282/1545 , 285/1303 , 285/1306 , 285/1530 , 285/1531 ,

285/1532 , 289/1649 , 289/1688 , 289/1689 , 289/2048 , 290/1954 , 292/1379 , 292/1562 , 304/1655 , 305/1423 ,

305/1424 , 305/1425 , 305/1426 , 305/1427 , 305/1428 , 305/1429 , 315/1493 , 315/1631 , 317/1492 , 319/1526 ,

32/1308, 32/1356 , 32/1357 , 32/1358 , 32/1360 , 32/1361 , 32/1370 , 32/1638 , 32/1640 , 32/1641 , 32/1643 , 32/1807 ,

32/2014 , 32/2026 , 32/2027 , 32/2028 , 32/2056 , 33/1337 , 33/1338 , 33/1344 , 33/1345 , 33/1346 , 330/1304 ,

333/1623, 333/1634 , 335/1725 , 337/1551 , 337/1552 , 337/1553 , 337/1662 , 338/1554 , 338/1555 , 338/1556 ,

341/1384 , 342/1385 , 345/1435 , 345/1993 , 346/1660 , 346/1955 , 349/1624 , 349/1630 , 350/1398 , 351/1399 ,

351/1697 , 351/2055 , 359/1382 , 360/1381 , 360/1717 , 360/2060 , 361/2069 , 364/1494 , 364/1495 , 364/1538 ,

37/1928, 37/2091 , 372/1496 , 375/1394 , 394/1533 , 4/1333 , 4/1334 , 4/1335 , 4/1336 , 4/1339 , 4/1340 , 4/1341 ,

4/1342 , 4/1343 , 4/1347 , 4/1348 , 4/1362 , 4/1372 , 4/1375 , 4/1376 , 4/1377 , 4/1696 , 4/2029 , 4/2030 , 4/2033 ,

4/2035 , 4/2041 , 4/2042 , 4/2043 , 4/2044 , 4/2045 , 4/2046 , 4/2070 , 4/2071 , 4/2075 , 40/1328 , 40/1720 , 40/1754 ,

40/1755 , 40/1756 , 40/1757 , 40/1758 , 412/1659 , 412/1956 , 412/1957 , 412/1958 , 412/1959 , 413/1821 , 414/1563 ,

430/1651 , 431/1383 , 432/1332 , 433/1497 , 433/1497/1564 , 446/1324 , 446/1325 , 448/1710 , 46/1353 , 46/1366 ,

46/1367 , 46/1371 , 46/1373 , 46/1565 , 46/1622 , 46/1749 , 46/1750 , 46/1759 , 46/1760 , 46/1770 , 46/1790 , 46/1795 ,

46/1804 , 46/1824 , 46/1825 , 46/1826 , 46/1829 , 46/1830 , 46/1831 , 46/1832 , 46/1834 , 46/1835 , 46/1836 , 46/1837 ,

46/1845 , 46/1849 , 46/1850 , 46/1851 , 46/1858 , 46/1859 , 46/1860 , 46/1903 , 46/1910 , 46/1911 , 46/1912 , 46/1913 ,

46/1914 , 46/1915 , 46/1916 , 46/1917 , 46/1918 , 46/1920 , 46/1930 , 46/1934 , 46/1935 , 46/1936 , 46/2038 , 46/2051 ,

46/2067 , 463/1871 , 467/1765 , 467/1766 , 47/1307 , 471/1797 , 471/1803 , 471/1808 , 471/1833 , 471/1872 , 471/1924 ,

471/2031 , 473/1847 , 473/2052 , 475/1548 , 475/1549 , 475/1550 , 476/1711 , 483/1960 , 483/1961 , 483/1962 ,

483/1963 , 483/1964 , 483/1965 , 483/1966 , 483/1967 , 494/1534 , 494/1535 , 494/1536 , 51/1504 , 51/1505 , 51/1506 ,

51/1507 , 51/1508 , 51/1509 , 51/1510 , 51/1718 , 51/1869 , 52/1359 , 52/1392 , 52/1393 , 522/1873 , 53/1511 , 53/1512 ,

53/1514 , 53/1515 , 53/1516 , 53/1870 , 53/513 , 535/1712 , 54/1491 , 545/1430 , 55/1323 , 56/1503 , 56/1503/2087 ,

56/1503/2088 , 56/1503/2089 , 56/1737 , 56/1925 , 564/1537 , 564/1539 , 570/1625 , 575/1874 , 577/1349 , 577/1875 ,

579/1299 , 586/1439 , 587/1498 , 59/1326 , 59/1694 , 59/2061 , 61/1327 , 61/1352 , 61/1702 , 627/1941 , 628/1846 ,

632/1363 , 632/2015 , 632/2017 , 632/2068 , 632/2092 , 632/2093 , 636/1876 , 638/1877 , 639/1300 , 639/1403 ,

639/1404 , 639/1405 , 639/1406 , 639/1407 , 639/1408 , 639/1409 , 643/1482 , 646/1475 , 646/1477 , 646/1478 ,

646/1479 , 646/1480 , 646/1481 , 653/1416 , 653/1417 , 653/1418 , 654/1419 , 654/1420 , 654/1421 , 654/1422 ,

663/1310 , 665/2062 , 67/1706 , 685/1637 , 687/1642 , 688/1806 , 692/1639 , 693/1566 , 694/1792 , 696/1320 ,

696/1862, 696/1921 , 696/1997 , 696/2018 , 702/1301 , 722/1798 , 724/1842 , 728/1799 , 731/2040 , 732/1321 ,

734/1663 , 734/1909 , 74/1401 , 74/1402 , 74/1444 , 740/1609 , 740/1610 , 740/1612 , 740/1613 , 742/1722 , 743/1723 ,

745/1614 , 745/1615 , 745/1616 , 745/1617 , 745/1618 , 745/1619 , 756/1364 , 76/1312 , 76/1313 , 76/1314 , 76/1315 ,

76/1316 , 764/1365 , 764/1796 , 766/1762 , 766/1782 , 766/1783 , 766/1784 , 79/1311 , 792/1691 , 80/1395 , 801/1661 ,

804/1453 , 804/1650 , 804/1665 , 805/1450 , 805/1451 , 805/1452 , 806/1443 , 806/1444 , 806/1445 , 806/1446 ,

806/1447 , 806/1448 , 806/1449 , 809/1369 , 810/1654 , 820/1441 , 821/1442 , 823/1700 , 823/1721 , 828/1440 ,

828/2036 , 828/2065 , 828/2066 , 829/1902 , 829/1919 , 830/1412 , 853/1410 , 853/1411 , 856/1810 , 856/1888 ,

856/1892 , 856/1893 , 856/1894 , 858/1768 , 858/1769 , 858/1822 , 858/1823 , 858/1861 , 859/1436 , 859/1437 ,

859/1438 , 883/1886 , 892/1646 , 892/2053 , 901/1878 , 905/1879 , 906/1942 , 907/1880 , 908/1812 , 908/1881 ,

908/2011 , 908/2013 , 908/2054 , 91/1302 , 913/2094 , 916/1351 , 932/1813 , 932/1882 , 932/2012 , 941/1839 ,

941/1840, 941/1841 , 964/1350 , 970/1602 , 971/1601 , 994/1883.

(3) VILLAGE PARABEDA (FULL):

1 to 285 , 1/339 , 1/494 , 1/495 , 1/500 , 1/501 , 1/502 , 1/517 , 1/519 , 1/520 , 1/521 , 1/522 , 1/523 , 1/524 , 1/525 ,

1/526 , 1/527 , 100/326 , 103/288 , 106/350 , 107/305 , 113/309 , 114/294 , 115/337 , 128/308128/466 , 128/467 ,

128/468 , 130/469 , 130/470 , 130/471 , 132/313 , 135/426 , 135/474 , 135/483 , 135/513 , 135/514 , 135/515 , 136/316 ,

138/314 , 144/382 , 144/441 , 145/443 , 145/450 , 145/558 , 146/423 , 149/408 , 150/447 , 151/407 , 151/409 , 151/410 ,

152/439 , 153/392 , 153/393 , 154/448 , 154/449 , 154/452 , 154/453 , 155/479 , 155/496 , 155/497 , 155/498 , 156/437 ,

156/438 , 157/431 , 157/433 , 157/435 , 158/424 , 159/302 , 159/454 , 160/317 , 160/411 , 160/432 , 160/434 , 160/436 ,

161/343 , 161/344 , 162/429 , 162/451 , 162/475 , 162/476 , 162/477 , 162/478 , 162/489 , 162/493 , 163/353 , 163/455 ,

163/456 , 163/457 , 163/458 , 163/459 , 163/460 , 163/480 , 163/481 , 167/345 , 172/290 , 180/300 , 180/301 , 180/490 ,

181/386 , 181/399 , 181/400 , 182/346 , 182/347 , 182/348 , 182/349 , 183/306 , 184/341 , 184/342 , 184/362 , 184/363 ,

184/364 , 184/367 , 184/371 , 184/372 , 184/375 , 184/376 , 184/389184/404 , 184/419 , 184/427 , 184/428 , 184/445 ,

184/484 , 184/492 , 184/499 , 185/289 , 186/287 , 186/351 , 186/383 , 186/384 , 186/385 , 186/387 , 186/388 , 186/390 ,

186/391 , 186/394 , 186/395 , 186/398 , 186/401 , 186/402 , 186/405 , 186/406 , 186/412 , 186/413 , 186/414 , 186/415 ,

186/416 , 186/417 , 186/418 , 186/425 , 186/430 , 186/442 , 186/482 , 188/299 , 190/297 , 192/298 , 192/312 , 194/311 ,

195/396 , 195/397 , 195/403 , 195/446 , 2/440 , 2/528 , 2/529 , 2/530 , 2/531 , 2/532 , 2/533 , 2/534 , 2/535 , 2/536 ,

1136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2/537 , 2/538 , 2/539 , 2/540 , 2/541 , 200/295 , 204/330 , 206/331 , 210/332 , 214/333 , 215/328 , 233/420 , 233/421 ,

233/422 , 233/472 , 233/473 , 233/487 , 234/485 , 234/486 , 234/488 , 245/464 , 245/465 , 245/491 , 27/511 , 281/296 ,

3/291 , 3/292 , 3/368 , 3/369 , 3/542 , 3/543 , 3/544 , 3/545 , 3/546 , 3/547 , 30/503 , 31/504 , 31/505 , 31/506 , 34/370 ,

34/512 , 34/557 , 341/374 , 39/293 , 39/554 , 4/509 , 44/329 , 48/336 , 48/462 , 49/379 , 53/318 , 57/307 , 59/303 ,

59/304 , 6/548 , 6/549 , 6/550 , 6/551 , 6/552 , 6/553 , 62/327 , 63/377 , 63/380 , 69/510 , 7/507 , 7/508 , 74/463 , 75/352,

75/354 , 75/444 , 78/338 , 8/286 , 81/322 , 81/324 , 81/365 , 81/366 , 81/461 , 85/335 , 86/378 , 86/381.88/323 , 90/340 ,

92/334.

(4) VILLAGE BANABASPUR (PART):

1 to 61, 624 to 650, 2/1095, 37/1255, 38/1100, 51/1090 , 51/1091 , 51/1151 , 60/1258 , 629/1150 , 632/1146 , 632/1147 ,

650/1148.

(5) VILLAGE MARADHARHARIPUR (FULL):

1to 815 , 113/906 , 118/1013 , 118/1014 , 118/855 , 119/1015 , 119/1016 , 119/1017 , 120/1092 , 120/1105 , 120/1106 ,

121/1014 , 121/853 , 128/1021 , 128/1022 , 128/1042 , 128/1043 , 141/859 , 144/837 , 147/860 , 149/844 , 151/858 ,

17/1158 , 17/1194 , 17/995 , 17/997 , 172/1091 , 172/1172 , 179/923 , 18/851 , 19/1161 , 234/1127 , 234/1128 ,

234/1129, 234/1130 , 234/1131 , 234/1132 , 234/1133 , 234/1168 , 236/1002 , 236/1004 , 236/1005 , 236/1006 ,

236/1007 , 236/942 , 236/943 , 236/944 , 236/945 , 236/946 , 236/947 , 237/948 , 237/949 , 237/950 , 237/951, 238/1008,

238/1009 , 238/1010 , 238/1011 , 238/1012 , 238/952 , 238/953 , 238/954 , 318/1195 , 318/838 , 322/872, 324/852 ,

329/826 , 331/931 , 331/938 , 332/873 , 332/874 , 332/875 , 332/876 , 332/877 , 332/878 , 332/879 , 332/925, 332/926 ,

332/927 , 332/974 , 333/914 , 333/915 , 333/916 , 334/1086 , 334/1179 , 334/1180 , 334/1182 , 334/880, 334/881 ,

334/882 , 334/883 , 334/884 , 375/980 , 375/982 , 375/983 , 376/1107 , 376/1113 , 376/1174 , 376/1175, 376/1184 ,

376/1188 , 376/890 , 376/891 , 376/900 , 376/901 , 376/902 , 376/903 , 384/888 , 385/1035 , 385/960, 385/984 , 386/968,

386/986 , 399/1102 , 399/893 , 399/1187 , 400/894 , 402/1033 , 402/895 , 402/981 , 407/896, 407/897 , 409/898 ,

436/824 , 449/1206 , 449/1207 , 449/1208 , 449/1209 , 453/917 , 455/905 , 466/818 , 467/868, 468/731 , 468/832 ,

468/835 , 468/836 , 469/846 , 469/847 , 469/848 , 469/849 , 472/1120 , 472/1121 , 472/1122, 472/1123 , 472/1124 ,

473/1173 , 477/1199 , 477/1199/1220 , 477/1199/1219 , 477/1199/1221 , 477/1199/1222, 479/1189 , 479/1190 ,

479/1191 , 506/974 , 506/975 , 506/976 , 506/977 , 506/978 , 506/979 , 511/988 , 512/989, 512/990 , 512/991 , 512/992 ,

514/1097 , 516/1098 , 517/1099 , 523/887 , 525/1020 , 525/1038 , 525/1039 , 525/962, 526/963 , 527/964 , 528/1103 ,

536/1210 , 536/1211 , 556/1203 , 557/1162 , 557/1164 , 557/1165 , 561/1160 , 561/1185, 564/1163 , 196/857 , 206/1100,

21/1159 , 21/816 , 21/907 , 21/996 , 21/998 , 210/1085 , 210/966 , 211/965 , 213/856, 215/870 , 234/1125 , 234/1126 ,

610/1095 , 610/1166 , 618/1116 , 618/1117 , 618/1118 , 618/1119 , 618/1167 , 618/819, 625/830 , 644/1134 , 644/829 ,

645/1030 , 646/1178 , 646/1181 , 646/1183 , 610 , 238/955 , 238/956 , 238/957, 241/1001 , 241/1003 , 246/845 ,

255/871, 263/1096 , 269/1186 , 269/1200 , 269/1201 , 269/1202 , 277/817 , 288/869, 656/820 , 660/1154 , 668/1031 ,

67/861 , 672/1146 , 672/1147 , 672/1148 , 672/1149 , 672/1150 , 672/1151 , 672/1152, 677/904 , 68/862 , 689/827 ,

69/863 , 610/1094 , 334/885 , 334/886 , 334/941 , 337/821 , 345/892 , 352/841 , 355/825, 357/889 , 359/1032 , 375/1033,

375/1034 , 375/1037 , 375/1112 , 375/959 , 70/864 , 707/839 , 71/866 , 718/1171, 718/1196 , 718/1197 , 718/1198 ,

718/1204 , 718/1213 , 72/867 , 720/834 , 721/840 , 729/833 , 73/865 , 730/958, 409/899 , 410/822 , 413/1140 , 413/1141,

413/842 , 416/1155 , 416/1157 , 417/1043 , 419/1044 , 420/1045 , 421/1046, 422/1047 , 432/1205 , 436/823 , 731/843 ,

741/1135 , 742/1136 , 744/1067 , 744/1138 , 745/1023 , 745/1064 , 745/1066, 745/1137 , 745/1139 , 749/1025 ,

749/1026 , 749/1028 , 75/854 , 755/1024 , 479/1192 , 479/1193 , 479/908 , 479/909 , 479/910 , 479/911 , 479/912 ,

479/913 , 496/993 , 506/969 , 506/970 , 506/971 , 506/972 , 506/973 , 755/1027, 758/1156, 758/1169 , 765/1115 ,

765/1170 , 772/1065 , 779/1143 , 779/1144 , 780/1145 , 785/1108 , 785/1110 , 785/994, 786/1109 , 786/1111 , 793/985 ,

565/1018 , 565/1153 , 565/1227 , 566/1087 , 566/1088 , 566/1089 , 566/1090, 566/1093, 570/961 , 575/921 , 576/922 ,

584/1000 , 584/1019 , 584/1029 , 801/940 , 808/920 , 808/987 , 809/819, 810/1216 , 810/818 , 812/1101 , 813/1104 ,

813/967 , 880/929 , 880/939 , 881/930 , 881/931 , 881/936 , 881/937.

(6) Badakathia, reserve forest (R.F.) (Part) : Area – 213.640 acres.

Boundary Description:

A-B: The line starts from Point ‘A’ which is situated at tri-junction Pillar of village Maradahariharapur, Jaypur (R.F.)

and Badakathia (R.F.). Then it moves towards east direction in the area of Badakathia (R.F.) up to common boundary of

Maradaharaharipur and Badakathia (R.F.) touch on revenue pillar at point ‘B’ which is situated north of the plot No. 332

of Maradahariharapur.

B-C: The line starts from ‘B’ and moves towards east direction in the area of Badakathia (R.F.) to meet point ‘C’ ( tri-

junction point of Badakathia RF, Maradahariharapur and Badahar No- 117). The tri junction point is situated north side

of plot No. 902 of Maradahariharpur and common boundary with Badahar No.117 and Badakathia (R.F.).

C-D: The lines start from ‘C’ and moves towards east direction along common boundary of Maradahariharpur and

Badahar No-117. /North side of the plot No-902, 900, 876 and 981to meet point ‘D’ on revenue pillar.

D-E: The lines start from ‘D’and moves towards east direction along common boundary of Maradahariharpur and

Badahar No-117/North side of the plot No-382 of Maradhariharpurto meet point ‘E’.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1137

E-F : The line starts from ‘E’ which is situated at north corner of plot no. 382 of village Maradhariharpur and moves

towards south along eastern boundary of plot no. 382 and again moves towards east direction to meet point ‘F’ on

common tri-junction point of Badahar No-117, Chittalpur and Maradhariharpur.

F-G: The line starts from ‘F’ on tri-junction point of Badahar No-117, Chittalpur and Maradhariharpur moves towards

east direction to meet point ‘G’, which is situated on common boundary i.e. south of Badahar No-117 and north of

Chittalpur.

G-H: The line starts from ‘G’ moves towards east direction to meet point ‘H’, which is situated on common boundary

i.e. south of Badahar No-117 and north of Chittalpur i.e. north boundary of plot No-04.

H-I: The line starts from ‘H’ moves towards east direction to meet point ‘I’, which is situated on common boundary

revenue pillar i.e. south side of Badahar No-117 and north of Chittalpur i.e. north boundary of plot No-47.

I-J: The line starts from ‘I’ moves towards east direction to meet point ‘J’, which is situated on common boundary

revenue pillar i.e. south side of Badahar No-117 and north of Chittalpur i.e. north boundary of plot No-47.

J-K: The line starts from ‘J’ moves towards east direction to meet point ‘K’, which is situated on common boundary tri-

junction pillar of Badahar No-117, Chittalpur and Banabaspur, i.e. south side of Badahar No-117 and north-east side of

Chittalpur and north-west of Bananbaspur .

K-L: The line starts from ‘K’ moves towards east direction to meet point ‘L’, which is situated on common boundary

revenue pillar of Badahar No-117 and Banabaspur, i.e. north side of plot No-1 of Bananbaspur .

L-M: The line starts from ‘L’ moves towards east direction to meet point ‘M’, which is situated on common boundary

tri-junction pillar of Badahar No-117, Banabaspur and Baghabaspur No-11, i.e. near SingdaJora.

M-N: The line starts from ‘M’ moves towards east direction to meet point ‘N’, which is situated on common boundary

tri-junction pillar of Badahar No-117, Banabaspur and Baghabaspur No-11, i.e. east side of Singda Jora bank.

N-O: The line starts from ‘N’ moves towards south direction to meet point ‘O’, which is situated on common boundary

of Banabaspur and Baghabaspur No-11 i.e. east boundary of plot No- 1095 of village Banabaspur.

O-P: The line starts from ‘O’ moves towards south-east direction to meet point ‘P’, which is situated on common

boundary of Banabaspur and Baghabaspur No-11 i.e. east boundary of plot No- 1095 of village Banabaspur and east

bank of SingdaJora.

P-Q: The line starts from ‘P’ moves towards south direction to meet point ‘Q’, which is situated on common boundary

of Banabaspur and Baghabaspur No-11 i.e. east boundary of plot No- 1095 of village Banabaspur and east bank of

SingdaJora.

Q-R: The line starts from ‘Q’ moves towards south direction along east of Singda Jora bank to meet point ‘R’, which is

situated on common boundary of Banabaspur and Baghabaspur No-11 i.e. east boundary of plot No- 1095 of village

Banabaspur and east bank of SingdaJora.

R-S: The line starts from ‘R’ moves towards south direction to meet point ‘S’, which is situated on common boundary of

Banabaspur No-10 and east side of plot No-624 of Banabaspur and north corner of plot No-651 of village Parabeda.

S-T: The line starts from ‘S’ moves towards south-east direction to meet point ‘T’, which is situated on common

boundary of Banabaspur No-10 and east side of plot No-52 of village Parabeda.

T-U: The line starts from ‘T’ moves towards south-east direction to meet point ‘U’, which is situated on common

boundary tri-junction point of Banabaspur No-10, Gopal Prasad No-04 and Parabeda i.e. east side of plot No-350 of

village Parabeda.

U-V: The line starts from ‘U’ moves towards south direction to meet point ‘V’, which is situated on revenue pillar of

Gopal Prasad No-04 and Parabeda i.e. east side of river bank.

V-W: The line starts from ‘V’ moves towards south direction to meet point ‘W’, which is situated on common boundary

of Gopal Prasad No-04 and Parabeda i.e. east side of river bank.

W-X: The line starts from ‘W’ moves towards south direction to meet point ‘X’, which is situated on common boundary

of Gopalprasad No-04 and Parabeda i.e. east side of river bank.

X-Y: The line starts from ‘X’ moves towards south direction to meet point ‘Y’, which is situated on common boundary

of Gopal Prasad No-04 and Parabeda i.e. east side of river bank.

Y-Z: The line starts from ‘Y’ moves towards west direction to meet point ‘Z’, which is situated on common tri-junction

point of Gopal Prasad No-04, Kumunda and Parabeda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z-Z1: The lines starts from point Z and meets at point Z1.

Z1- Z2 : The line starts from ‘Z1’ moves towards west direction to meet point ‘Z2’, which is situated on common

boundary revenue pillar of Gopal Prasad No-04 and Kumunda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z2- Z3 : The line starts from ‘Z2’ moves towards west direction to meet point ‘Z3’, which is situated on common

boundary of Gopal Prasad No-04 and Kumunda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

1138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Z3- Z4 : The line starts from ‘Z3’ moves towards west direction to meet point ‘Z4’, which is situated on common

boundary of Gopal Prasad No-04 and Kumunda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z4- Z5 : The line starts from ‘Z4’ moves towards south direction to meet point ‘Z5’, which is situated on common

boundary of Gopalprasad No-04 and Kumunda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z5- Z6 : The line starts from ‘Z5’ moves towards south-west direction to meet point ‘Z6’, which is situated on common

boundary of Gopalprasad No-04 andKumunda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z6- Z7 : The line starts from ‘Z6’ moves towards south-west direction to meet point ‘Z7’, which is situated on common

boundary of Gopalprasad No-04 and Kumunda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z7- Z8 : The line starts from ‘Z7’ moves towards west direction to meet point ‘Z8’, which is situated on tri-junction

point of Gopalprasad- 04, Kumunda and Kususmpal No-03 i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z8- Z9 : The line starts from ‘Z8’ moves towards west direction to meet point ‘Z9’, which is situated on common

boundary of Kusumpal No-03 and Kumunda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z9- Z10 : The line starts from ‘Z9’ moves towards south-west direction to meet point ‘Z10’, which is situated on

common boundary of Kusumpal No-03 and Kumunda i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z10- Z11 : The line starts from ‘Z10’ moves towards north-west direction to meet point ‘Z11’, which is situated on tri-

junction point ofKusumpal No-03 ,Kumunda, Bhalugadia No-01 i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z11- Z12 : The line starts from ‘Z11’ moves towards north direction along common boundary of Bhalugadia-01 and

Kumunda to meet point ‘Z12’, which is situated on common boundary of Kumunda and Bhalugadia south bank of

SingdaJora.

Z12- Z13 : The line starts from ‘Z12’ moves towards north-west direction to meet point ‘Z13’, which is situated on

common boundary of Kusumpal No-03 ,Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 i.e. south bank of SingdaJora.

Z13- Z14 :- The line starts from ‘Z13’ moves towards south-west direction to meet point ‘Z14’, which is situated on

common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z14- Z15 : The line starts from ‘Z14’ moves towards south-west direction to meet point ‘Z15’, which is situated on

common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z15- Z16 : The line starts from ‘Z15’ moves towards north-west direction along river bank to meet point ‘Z16’, which is

situated on common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z16- Z17 : The line starts from ‘Z16’ moves towards south-west direction along river bank to meet point ‘Z17’, which is

situated on common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z17- Z18 : The line starts from ‘Z17’ moves towards south-west direction along river bank to meet point ‘Z18’, which

issituated on common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z18- Z19 : The line starts from ‘Z18’ moves towards north-west direction along river bank to meet point ‘Z19’, which

issituated on common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z19- Z20 : The line starts from ‘Z19’ moves towards south-west direction along river bank to meet point ‘Z20’, which

issituated on common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z20- Z21 : The line starts from ‘Z20’ moves towards south direction along river bank to meet point ‘Z21’, which is

situated on common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / east side bank of SingdaJora.

Z21- Z22 : The line starts from ‘Z21’ moves towards south-east direction along river bank to meet point ‘Z22’, which is

situated on common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / east bank of SingdaJora.

Z22- Z23 : The line starts from ‘Z22’ moves towards south direction along river bank to meet point ‘Z23’, which is

situated on common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / east bank of SingdaJora.

Z23- Z24 : The line starts from ‘Z23’ moves towards south-west direction to meet point ‘Z24’, which is situated on

common boundary of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z24- Z25 :- The line starts from ‘Z24’ moves towards north-west direction to meet point ‘Z25’, which is situated on

common tri-junction point of Kumunda , Bhalugadia No-01 and / south bank of SingdaJora.

Z25- Z26 : The line starts from ‘Z25’ moves towards north-east direction to meet point ‘Z26’, which is situated on

common boundary of Kumunda , Kankrei No-65 i.e. west boundary of plot No- 975.

Z26- Z27 : The line starts from ‘Z26’ moves towards north west direction along common revenue boundary of Kankrei

and Kumunda to meet point ‘Z27’ on tri-junction point of Kumunda , Kankrei No-65 andJayapur RF.

Z27- Z28: The line starts from ‘Z27’ moves towards north west direction along common revenue boundary of Kankrei-

65andKumundato meet point ‘Z28’ on revenue pillar i.e. west side of Kumunda and east ofJayapur RF.

Z28- Z29: The line starts from ‘Z28’ moves towards north west direction along common revenue boundary of Jaypur RF

and Kumunda to meet point ‘Z29’ on revenue pillar i.e. near north corner of plot no-57 of Kumunda.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1139

Z29- Z30: The line starts from ‘Z29’ moves towards north west direction along common revenue boundary of Jaypur RF

and Kumunda to meet point ‘Z30’ on tri-junction pillar of Kumnda, Maradhariharpur i.e. north corner of plot no-39 of

Kumunda village and south west corner of plot no-2 of village Maradahariharpur And east side of Jaypur reserve forest.

Z30- A: The line starts from ‘Z30’ moves towards north west direction along common revenue boundary of

Maradahariharpur and Jaypur reserve forest to close at point ‘A’ on tri-junction pillar of Jaypur Reserve Forest,

Badakathia Reserve Forest and Maradhariharpur i.e. north-west corner of plot no-1 of Maradahariharpur village.

[ F. No. 43015/2/2019-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

पे-ोिलयम और /ाकृितक गैस मं ालय

नई दली, 21 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 374

374

374.—पेSोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन क धारा (2) के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म" (भूिम म" उपयोगकता

के अिधकार का अिधहण) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50), और राजप. अिधसूचना के आधार पर भारत के राजप. म"

पेSोिलयम और *ाकृितक गैस मं.ालय ारा अिधसूचना सं^या 2709(ई) दनांक 27 अ3टूबर, 2009 को *कािशत 5ई‚ और

अिधसूचना सं^या 1173 दनांक 26 मई, 2016‚ भारत के राजप. म" पेSोिलयम और *ाकृितक गैस मं.ालय ारा दनांक

18 ज़ूऩ, 2016 को *कािशत 5ई‚ के अितFमण म" क"Dय़ सरकार इसके ारा “िवशेष भूिम अज़ॅऩ अिधकारी

िवशेष भूिम अज़ॅऩ अिधकारी

िवशेष भूिम अज़ॅऩ अिधकारी, , , , जीआईडीसी

जीआईडीसी

जीआईडीसी, , , ,

िजला

िजला भ2च

भ2च

भ2च” को अिधकृत कया है. तेल और *ाकृितक गैस िनगम िलिमटेड, अंकले‰र एसेट ारा गुजरात राŠय म" गैस /

तेल / पानी के प0रवहन के िलए पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उ& अिधिनयम के तहत सrम *ािधकारी के काय@ को करने के

िलए *ािधकृत (2) अनुसूची के अनुसार क़रती है: -

सारणी

/ािधकारी का नाम और पता

अिधकार का

अिधकार का 4े

4े

(1)

(2)

“िवशेष भूिम अज़ॅऩ अिधकारी

िवशेष भूिम अज़ॅऩ अिधकारी

िवशेष भूिम अज़ॅऩ अिधकारी, , , , जीआईडीसी

जीआईडीसी

जीआईडीसी, , , , िजला

िजला

भ2च

भ2च“

भ2च

भ2च, , , , सुरत

सुरत

सुरत, , , , वडोदरा

वडोदरा

वडोदरा, , , , आनंद और नवसारी

आनंद और नवसारी

यह अिधसूचना उसके जारी होने क तारीख से *भावी होगी।

[फा. सं. ओ-12026/15/2014-ओएनजी-III]

एम. सी. भ|, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 21^st February, 2019

S.O. 374.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), and in supersession of Gazette Notification No. S.O. 2709(E) dated 27^th

October, 2009 published by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in the Gazette of India dated 28^th October, 2009 and

Notification No. S.O.1173, dt. 26^th May, 2016 published by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in the Gazette of

India dated 18^th June, 2016, the Central Government hereby authorizes “Special Land Acquisition Officer, GIDC,

Dist. : Bharuch” to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying of pipelines for

transportation of gas/oil/water in the state of Gujarat by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Ankleshwar Asset in

respect of the areas specified in column (2) of the schedule namely:-

TABLE

Name and address of Authorities

Area of Jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

“SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GIDC,

DIST. : BHARUCH”

AREA FALLING IN DISTRICTS

BHARUCH, SURAT, VADODARA, ANAND AND

NAVSARI

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. O-12026/15/2014-ONG-III]

M.C. BHATT, Under Secy.

1140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5म एवं रोजगार मं ालय

नई दली, 13 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 375

375

375.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, िनदेशक, अंत0रr अनु*योग क" D,भारत सरकार, डी/ओ , पेस, इसरो सैटेलाइट, अहमदाबाद, और अ4य एवं उनके

कमचारी के संबi िनयोजक और उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक

अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय, न. 1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 58/2012) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय

सरकार को 11.02.2019 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/210/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2019

S.O. 375.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court

Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Space

Application Centre, Government of India, D/o Space, ISRO Satellite, Ahmedabad and Others, and their workmen which

were received by the Central Government on 11.02.19.

[No. L-42012/210/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

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

Ahmedabad, Dated 22^nd January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 58/2012

The Director,

Space Application Centre,

Government of India, D/o Space, ISRO, Satellite,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

M/s. Dharat Consultancy,

Nishanth Apartment, Near Kashyap Apartment,

Nehru Nagar Jain Derasar, Satellite,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…First Parties

V/s

Shri Sharvilakbhai Govindbhai Dantani,

Opp. R.C. High School, Gundi Chowk, Shahpur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party No. 1 : Shri R.R. Prajapati

For the First Party No. 2 : None

For the Second Party

: Shri Govindbhai C. Dutt

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/210/2011–

IR(DU) dated 24.02.2012 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:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1141

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Dharat Consultancy, Ahmedabad, a contractor of Director Space

Application, Centre in terminating the services of Shri Dantani Sharvilakbhai Govindbhai w.e.f. 21.04.2011 is

legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 24.02.2012 and received on 12.03.2012 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 03.04.2012

along with the authority letter Ex. 3. Thereafter on 04.01.2018, the first party no. 1 Space Application Centre

submitted the written statement Ex. 9 along with the vakalatpatra Ex. 6.

The second party workman in his statement of claim Ex. 2 has alleged that he was engaged and has been

working as Gardner (Mali) in M/s Dharat Consultancy since 2009. M/s Dharat Consultancy, hereinafter referred

to as ‘first party no. 2’ was the contractor under the first party no. 1 The Director, Space Application Centre,

Government of India, D/o Space, ISRO, Satellite, Ahmedabad hereinafter referred to as ‘first party no. 1’ and

has been working under its control. Thus the first party no. 1 was the main employer under which the first party

no. 2 was contractor who engaged him as Mali. He used to work more than 240 in each calendar year on the

daily wages of Rs.131/-. He was not paid the minimum wages as prescribed in law and without disclosing any

reason, the first party illegally terminated his services on 21.04.2011 without giving him any show-cause notice

and notice pay. Thus his services were terminated without making compliance of provisions of Section 25 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. He has further alleged that the workmen junior to him were retained violating the

provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus he has prayed for reinstatement in

service with back wages along with Rs.10000/- as legal expenses.

The first party No. 1 in his written statement Ex. 9 has submitted that there was no master servant relationship

with the workman as he was a contract employee of first party no. 2. He was not terminated by first party No. 1;

therefore, there was no violation of provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act on its

part.

The first party No. 2 M/s. Dharat Consultancy despite service by registered post did not prefer to submit the

written statement, therefore, the reference was proceeded ex-parte against it.

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

Whether the action of the management of M/s Dharat Consultancy, Ahmedabad, a contractor of Director

Space Application, Centre in terminating the services of Shri Dantani Sharvilakbhai Govindbhai w.e.f.

21.04.2011 is legal and justified?

ii.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workman 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 workman who submitted his affidavit Ex. 10 reiterating the averments

made in the statement of claim but he has stated in his cross-examination that he was employed by M/s. Dharat

Consultancy. He does not know who used to pay him the wages. No appointment letter was issued to him by the

first party no. 1. He was removed from services by first party no. 2 M/s. Dharat Consultancy. Thus from the

evidence, it is admitted fact that the second party workman was the employee of M/s. Dharat Consultancy and

therefore, there was no violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act on the part of the first

party no. 1.

As the workman has admitted that he was employed by the first party no. 2 M/s. Dharat Consultancy and was

removed from service by it retaining the junior workmen at the time of his removal without serving show-cause

notice and giving notice pay despite the fact that he served the first party no. 2 M/s Dharat Consultancy for

more than 240 days in each calendar year. The first party no. 2 has not contested the case by submitting written

statement or appearing in person, therefore, it is a fit case of reinstatement of the second party workman along

with back wages with the first party no. 2 M/s Dharat Consultancy as the termination was being in violation of

Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus both the issues are decided accordingly.

The first party no. 2 M/s Dharat Consultancy is directed to reinstate the second party workman Dantani

Sharvilakbhai Govindbhai on the post of Gardner with lump-sum compensation of Rs.100000/- (Rupees One

Lac). The award shall be given effect within 30 days from the publication of the award.

10.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 13 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 376

376

376.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, मु^ य महा*बंधक (दूरसंचार), गुजरात सक ल भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड अहमदाबाद (गुजरात), और अ4य एवं उनके

1142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय, न. 1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 519/2004) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय

सरकार को 11.02.2019 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/53/2004-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2019

S.O. 376.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 519/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court

Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General

Manager (Telecom), Gujarat Circle Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Ahmedabad (Gujarat), and Others, and their

workmen which were received by the Central Government on 11.02.19.

[No. L-40012/53/2004-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

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

Ahmedabad, Dated 22^nd January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 519/2004

The Chief General Manager (Telecom),

Gujarat Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

The Telecom District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ganj Market,

Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001

…First Parties

V/s

The Org. Secretary,

The Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment,

Near Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380007

…Second Party

For the First Parties

: Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party

: Shri R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/53/2002–IR(DU)

dated 30.09.2002 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for reinstatement of Shri Popatlal Dhanjibhai Pandya, Casual Labour in

service w.e.f. 10.11.1995 with full back wages is legal, proper and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

The reference dates back to 30.09.2002 and received on 15.11.2002 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on 07.04.2004

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 10 on 11.10.2004.

The advocate for the second party workman moved an application Ex. 13 for production of documents detailed

in the application against the first party. The first party also filed the reply Ex. 14 stating that these documents

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1143

are not traceable as being destroyed as per the rules. Thereafter, the second party workman was directed to lead

evidence. Despite giving dozens of opportunities, the second party workman failed to lead evidence. The

advocate of the second party workman Shri Chintan Gohel and R.C. Pathak stated in writing that the workman

is not in their contact, therefore, they cannot lead evidence.

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

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

observation as under: “the demand of the union for reinstatement of Shri Popatlal Dhanjibhai Pandya, Casual

Labour in service w.e.f. 10.11.1995 with full back wages is not legal, proper and justified.”

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 377

377

377.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, *बंधन, हेवी इंजीिनयŒरंग कॉप}रेशन िलिमटेड धनबाद, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के संबi िनयोजक और उनके

कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय, धनबाद के

पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 38/2013) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 7.02.2019 को *ाs 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-42011/96/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 377.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court

Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of

heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Dhanbad, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 7.02.19.

[No. L-42011/96/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 38/2013

Employer in relation to the management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd,

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: Sri Ajay Kumar Lala, Adv.

For the workman .

: None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Steel

Dated: 28.01. 2019

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/96/2013-IR(DU) dated 11/09/2013 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Heavy Machines Building Plant under the M/s. Heavy

Engineering Corporation Ltd., In denying promotion as prescribed for the cadre with consequential

benefits with retrospective effect to Sri Binod Sharma, Machinist Gr.A on Account of his exoneration of

1144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

charges by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed. Management is present, but after issuance of two regd.

Notices, none is appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long so, it appears that the workmen has lost

his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 378

378

378.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, सोमा इंटर*ाइजेज िलिमटेड कु>rे., ह0रयाणा, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के संबi िनयोजक और उनके कमकार

के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट

(संदभ सं^या 185/2016) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 30.01.2019 को *ाs 5ए था ।

[सं. एल-42012/100/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 378.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 185/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court

Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Soma

Enterprises Ltd. Kurukshetra, Haryana and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government

on 30.01.19.

[No. L-42012/100/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

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. 185/2016

The Private Driver Sangathan Haryana,

B.M.S. Office, Arjun Gate, Karnal (Haryana).

… Workmen/Union

Versus

M/s. Soma Enterprises Ltd., Rich-2,

Sahabad Markanda, Kurukshetra.

… Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter

No. L-42012/100/2016-IR(DU) dated 23.11.2016/02.12.2016 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 M/s. Soma Enterprises Ltd. Not considering the demand the

union Private Driver Sangathan, Haryana indicated in its demand notice dated 08.01.2015 is legal and

justice? If not, what relief the workmen concerned is 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 workmen/union as well as to the management. The

registered notice was sent on the address mentioned in the letter of reference. There is no other address of workmen

available to this Court. Moreover, there is a presumption that a registered letter sent to the addressee i.e. workman herein

has been received by such addressee and rebuttal presumption of service of notice arises in such a case. Despite service

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1145

of the notice, workmen/union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement has been filed on their

behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workmen/union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workmen/union has neither put in their appearance nor has they led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/No Claim

Award’. Since there is no adjudication of reference or case on merits as such, it would not preclude the workmen/union

from seeking fresh reference or filing fresh case in accordance with Law.

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

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 379

379

379.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, आईएल एंड एफएस इंजीिनयŒरंग एंड कं, S3 शन कंपनी िलिमटेड गुड़गांव, ह0रयाणा, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के

संबi िनयोजक और उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं

म 4यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 53/2017) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 30.01.2019 को

*ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/74/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 379.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court

Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. IL&FS

Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. Gurgaon, Haryana and Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 30.01.19.

[No. L-42012/74/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

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. 53/2017

Sh. Suresh Singh S/o Sh. Jawala Parsad,

Niwasi Thauriya Via Fuder, Mathura-281001.

… Workman

Versus

M/s. IL & FS Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. (Rapid Metro Rail Project),

H.O.Plot No.D-367, Sector-28, Near Delhi Public School, Gurgaon (Haryana).

… Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter

No. L-42012/74/2017-IR(DU) dated 23.02.2018 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:

1146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of IL & FS Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. (Rapid

Metro Rail Project), Gurgaon in terminating the service of the workman Sh. Suresh Singh S/o Sh. Jawala

Parsad on 7.2.2015 and not paying his dues is legal or justified? If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

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 management. 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/ No 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

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 380

380

380.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, महा*बंधक, नेशनल हाइडल पावर कॉपोरेशन कु लू, ह0रयाणा, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के संबi िनयोजक और

उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय,

चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 5/2009) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 29.01.2019 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/4/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 380.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court

Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, National Hydel Power Corporation Kullu Haryana and Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 29.01.19.

[No. L-42012/4/2009-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

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

ID No. 5/2009

Registered on 19.05.2009

Sh. Mordhwaj, S/o Sh. Shankar Dass, Village and PO: Pattrighat,

Tehsil Sarkaghat, Mandi (HP).

… Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1147

Versus

1. General Manager, National Hydel Power Corporation, Parbati Hydel Project, Stage-III, Village Behali, PO: Larjee,

District Kullu(HP).

2. The Project Manager, Jager Gammon Joint Venture, Parbati H.E. Project,

Stage-III, Lot-2, Village Behali, PO: Larjee, District Kullu(HP)

…Respondents

AWARD

Passed on: 21.01.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/4/2009-IR(DU) Dated 05.05.2009, 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 Project Manager, Jager Gammon Joint Venture, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Mordhwaj w.e.f. 07.11.2007 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The facts, in brief, are that Sh. Mordhwaj, workman had joined the services of respondent no.2 in the month of

September, 2006 as helper and later on he was engaged as Tyre Fitter. He was also issued appointment letter dated

17.10.2006 for the post of Type Fitter which was issued by the Liasion-cum-Vigilance Officer(AnnexureP-1). Later on,

he was issued another appointment letter by the Project Manager on 18.12.2006(Annexure P-2). The respondent no.2

was engaged by respondent no.1 as Contractor in the Project under the NHPC at the site. The respondent no.1 was also

in the knowledge of the fact that the petitioner had been engaged by respondent no.2 during that period. The service of

the workman was terminated by respondent no.2 on 07.09.2007(Annexure P-3). Thus, the workman had worked

continuously from September 2006 to 07.11.2007. The services of the workman terminated without issuing any show

cause notice on 07.11.2007 without any enquiry and issuance of any charge-sheet. The workman had worked

continuously from September 2006 to 07.11.2007 i.e. till the date of termination. It is also alleged that workman has

deposited regular deduction towards P.F. from the month of September 2006. Thus, total amount contributed towards

EPF amount is Rs.4,607/- which is also not given to the workman.

Respondent No.1 i.e. General Manager, NHPC, Parbati Hydel Project, has filed written statement and has

made averments that he is not aware with the relationship of workman with M/s Jager Gammon Joint Venture i.e.

respondent no.2. It is also alleged that it has been wrongly made party as respondent no.1 and reference is made to be

answered between workman and respondent no.2 i.e. M/s Jager Gammon Joint Venture. It has been also alleged that

respondent no.1 is not a answering party against whom any order can be made so he be deleted as party to the dispute. It

is also alleged that Tribunal has got no jurisdiction as reference being illegal and not capable of adjudication. In regards

to para 4, it is alleged that it relates to respondent no.2 only and the deduction of 12% from the salary amount has to be

deducted under EPF and deposited by adding the same amount as employer-contribution with the concerned Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner. The prayer made by the workman seems to be unjustified and the petition is liable to be

rejected.

3. Respondent No.2 i.e. Project Manager, Jager Gammon Joint Venture, filed written statement and alleged

that workman is terminated from service as he dishonestly stolen new tube issued for fitting in a vehicle and was caught

red handed for theft of new tube. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer of the company Mr. Vinod

Kumar(P&A Dept.) and finding him guilty and his services was rightly terminated by respondent no.2 within the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question of compensation regarding retrenchment is not alleged in this

case. It is admitted that EPF deduction is made from the salary of the workman and the same was deposited by

respondent no.2 before the EPF Office, Shimla and no amount is lying with respondent no.2. Therefore, it is requested

that respondent no.2 has lost his faith and confidence and unable to keep the workman in service and the petition is

liable to be dismissed on the facts as mentioned in the written statement.

Workman has filed rejoinder to the written statement submitted by respondent no.2, reiterating all the facts

which has been mentioned in the claim petition itself. It has been alleged that no regular enquiry is being conducted by

the respondents and he has been unheard and illegally terminated by the management without giving any show cause

notice and compensation etc. as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

During the course of pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, respondent no.2 has made himself

absent and consequently, ex parte order dated 02.03.2015 was passed by this Tribunal. Against this factual background,

both the parties has adduce their evidence. The workman has examined himself and respondent no.1 has examined Sh.

Rakesh Kumar(Manager) whose affidavit is filed as Ex.R1.

Now the preliminary question before this Tribunal is whether the services of the workman was terminated by

respondent no.2 in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the same is legal, just and valid

under the Law.

The learned counsel for the workman, Sh. Raj Kaushik has strongly urged that workman herein was in service

with respondent no.2 who has not followed the principle of natural justice before terminating the service of the

1148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman. In this connection, my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the workman regarding the photocopy

of the alleged enquiry in which few statements of the witnesses has been recorded by alleged enquiry officer. But there

is nothing on the record to show that any officer had been appointed as enquiry officer after giving charge-sheet to the

workman and reply was received accordingly. It appears from the record that on 07.11.2007, the date of alleged theft,

statement of the few witnesses were recorded and order of dismissal had accordingly passed against all the norms of

procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

This fact is supported by the affidavit of the workman in which he has alleged that neither there was any

enquiry officer appointed by the competent authority nor enquiry report has been submitted to the disciplinary

authority. It is pertinent to mention here that this witness is cross-examined by respondent no.1 but not by respondent

no.2, who had made himself absent before the cross-examination of the witness. The learned counsel for respondent

no.1 has cross-examined the witness in which this witness has alleged that neither any enquiry was conducted nor any

charge-sheet was submitted by the respondent. He has clearly admitted that he was the employee of Jager Gammon

Joint Venture, respondent no.2 and his services were terminated by the respondent no.2. Thus, there is nothing on

record to show that workman was duly served any charge-sheet and proper enquiry was conducted by the enquiry

officer duly authorised by respondent no.2 before his termination.

The written statement submitted by respondent no.2 itself denotes that factum of appointment of the workman

is not disputed and respondent no.2 has specifically accepted in its written statement at Para 3 that workman continued

his service from September 2006 to 07.11.2007. Thus, factum of appointment till the termination of the workman is not

disputed. As Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has mandate that before the termination, management is

duty bound to issue show cause notice and after receiving the reply and appointing appropriate authority for enquiry,

termination or any order, so required has to be passed. But respondent has not complied this mandate in spite of the

services of about 14 months rendered by the workman in the establishment. There is a long line of decisions of the

Hon’ble Apex Court that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman

from service in derogation of Section 25-F has render the action of the respondents to be illegal and void under the Law.

10.

Now, the residual question is whether the workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages

and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the

employment of the respondent no.2 since September 2006.Respondent no.2 Jager Gammon Joint Venture has clearly

admitted in its written statement that he has deposited the EPF deductions towards the workman has been deposited by

respondent no.2 before the EPF Office, Shimla for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 as per Rules. There is no show

cause notice or memo issued to the workman during his service by the respondents. Moreover, the job of the workman

is of perennial and regular nature as Tyre Fitter is always required to perform his duties.

11.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”

reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:

“i)

In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is

the normal rule.

ii)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back

wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the

Court of first instance that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the

employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence

to prove that the workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he wads

drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof

of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its

existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the

employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove

that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar

emoluments.”

12.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC

(L & S) 716 observed as under:-

‘‘There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination

of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors

like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy

or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short

term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the

like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the

important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had

rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services

are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this

age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,

where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the

complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is

often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be

compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1149

13.

The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the violation of Section 25-F of the Act in Incharge Officer & Anr.

V. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126: 2010 LLR 1137 and after referring to the various decisions, held that the relief

by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of

justice and it was observed as under:-

“2.

Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager

has been brought to end in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short “the

ID Act”)? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above

question.

In Jagbir Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327, delivering the

judgment of this Court, one of the us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this

Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. V. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479;

Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. V. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar

Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; M.P. Admn. V. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru

Farmers Training Institute, (2008)5 SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11

SCC 684; GDA v. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat,

Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575 and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case (2009) 11 SCC 327, SCC pp. 330

& 335, paras 7 & 14)

“7.

It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that

if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back-

wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and

in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement

with back-wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even

though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation

instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

14.

It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that

an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of

reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed.”

14.

Yet, in another latest case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in District Development Officer Vs. Suresh 2018 LLR 225

awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.2.50 lac in lieu of reinstatement with back wages where the workman was daily

wager and have served the management only for two and half years in the case in hand.

15.

In view of legal position discussed above, this Court is of the view that workman herein was not holding a

regular or permanent post nor he was recruited against the post is a regular manner. In such circumstances, it is

appropriate to grant reasonable compensation instead of reinstatement with back wages.

16.

As such, having due regard to the facts and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.75,000/- along with EPF amount deposited in the account of the workman, which he can legally withdraw by

formalizing the procedure for withdrawn of the EPF amount, appears to be just and reasonable to which the workman is

entitled. In case, the amount of Rs.75,000/- is not paid within one month from the date of publication of the award, the

workman is held be entitled to 6% interest from the date of reference till payment.

17.

Last but not the least question still remains for consideration regarding the payment of aforesaid compensation.

In this connection, lerned counsel for respondent no.1 argued that he was neither the employer of the workman nor he

had terminated the service of the workman as is accepted by the workman during the cross-examination. Therefore,

respondent no.1 General Manager, National Hydel Power Corporation, Parbati Hydel Project, Stage-III, is not

responsible to pay the consideration, if any, and this liability has to be owned by respondent no.2 Jager Gammon Joint

Venture, who was the employer of the workman. Certainly, the workman in his cross examination has accepted that he

was employed by respondent no.2 as well as terminated by respondent no.2. In this connection, learned counsel for the

workman has drawn my attention towards the agreement executed between respondent no.1 i.e. General Manager,

National Hydel Power Corporation, Parbati Hydel Project, Stage-III and respondent no.2 i.e. Jager Gammon Joint

Venture and letter of acceptance for construction, which shows that respondent no.1 was the principal employer on

whose behest agreement was taken by respondent no.2 and consequently, he had employed workman in service. It is

legally settled law that master is liable for the work done by the servant. Hence, being the principal employer,

respondent no.2 i.e. Jager Gammon Joint Venture is duty bound to satisfy the award. However, it is made clear that

respondent no.1 will be at liberty to recover the awarded amount from respondent no.2 after duly paid to workman.

18.

Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of

the Act.

A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

1150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 381

381

381.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, ‡हंदु, तान ऑगyिन3 स केिमक स िलिमटेड मुंबई, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के संबi िनयोजक और उनके कमकार

के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय, नं. 1, मुंबई के पंचाट

(संदभ सं^या सीजीआईटी-1/1/2013) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 06.12.2018 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/126/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 381.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-1/01 of 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-

Court No. 1, Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Hundustan

Organics Chemicals Ltd. Mumbai and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 06.12.18.

[No. L-42011/126/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI

Present : JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/ 1 OF 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd.

AND

Their workman (Nana R.Gawand)

Appearances:

For the first party No.1/ Management

Mr.N.N.Kankonkar, Adv.

For the second party / Workman

Workman present in person

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 19th day of November, 2018

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-42011/126/2012-

IR(DU)dated 18.12.2012 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are

as under:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., Rasayani in dismissing Shri

Nana Raghunath Gawand, Office Assistant Grade-I from service by imposing the punishment of ‘Dismissal

from service vide order dated 29.10.1990 and not accepting his demand of reinstatement in the light of his

acquittal by the Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai is justified and proper? If not, what relief and other benefits the

workman is entitled to?”

In brief the facts necessary for adjudicating this instant reference as stated in the Statement of Claim may be

summed up as under:

The workman Raghunath Gawand was appointed as an Office Assistant, Grade-III with the Opposite Party

employer on 30.3.1981. While in service, the workman was arrested by the police on 23.1.1987 in connection of an

incident in which he remained in police custody from 23.1.1987 to 11.3.1987. On 12.3.1987, when the workman was

released, he resumed his duty with the management but a show cause notice was served to him which was replied to the

satisfaction of the management. No chargesheet was issued to the workman nor any enquiry was held against him. On

11.3.1997 the Sessions Court at Alibaug sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 13.11.1990, when the workman after

released from jail reported back to the duty he was not allowed to join. The workman made several representations to

the management but he was not allowed to resume duties. Therefore, he filed complaint of Unfair Labour Practice where

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1151

Labour Court passed an order restraining the management from terminating services of the workman without following

the due process of law. On receipt of the order, the management issued an intimation to the workman that he was already

discharged from service. It has also been pleaded by the workman that against the judgement of conviction he has

preferred an appeal before the Bombay High Court, where the conviction was set aside on 10.4.2012. The workman has

claimed that the action of the management in discharging his services is illegal, improper and unjust as it was done

without conducting any domestic enquiry and contrary to the principles of natural justice and, therefore, he is entitled not

only for reinstatement but also for compensation for wrongful termination of his services.

The opposite party management has filed its written statement in which factual position of the case has been

admitted. However, it is pleaded inter alia that the services of the workman came to be terminated vide discharge order

dated 29.10.1990. The demand of the workman was raised after 22 years is not legal and proper as the same suffers from

inordinate delay and laches. The workman has filed a complaint before Labour Court for Unfair Labour Practice where

the Labour Court after full hearing of the dispute dismissed the complaint and found the order of discharge to be legal

and valid. The workman was involved in a murder case for which he remained in police custody from 4.12.1986 to

12.3.1987 but he did not informed the company that he was arrested by police and was in police custody. After resuming

the duty, the workman replied the show cause notice issued by the opposite party but he suppressed the fact that he was

in police custody due to which he was absent from duty. When the fact of his police custody came to notice of the

company, again a show cause was issued to him as to why he suppressed the fact but the workman again made an excuse

for his absenteeism. The workman was sentenced for life imprisonment on 11.9.1990 by Sessions Court, therefore,

looking into the scenario the company came to the conclusion that the workman was unable to continue the contract of

employment and, therefore, his services were terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders No.42 vide letter dated

29.10.1990. The workman has admittedly remained absent from duty without any leave on the false ground of personal

work even though he was implicated in a murder case. Therefore, nothing remained to be proved through any domestic

enquiry. However, the company did not attract any clause of misconduct in termination of the workman concerned. The

demand of workman is illegal, improper, unjustified, baseless and untenable at law as well as on fact the workman is not

entitled for any wages.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.

(1)

Whether there was any delay in raising the present dispute? If yes, whether the reference is maintainable?

(2)

Whether the present dispute is barred by the principles of res-judicata?

(3)

Whether the Reference is bad in Law in view of the provisions of Section 59 of the Maharashtra

Regulation of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971?

(4)

Whether the action of the Management of M/s.Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., Rasayani in

discharging Nana Raghunath Gawand, the workman concerned herein with effect from 29.10.1990 by the

Order dated 03.11.1990 is legal, justified and proper?

(5)

Whether the demand of the workman concerned herein for reinstatement in the light of his acquittal by

the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.2012 is legal, justified and

proper?

(6)

To what relief or benefit, if any is the workman concerned herein entitled?

The workman has examined himself as WW-1 to substantiate his case. On behalf of the management Mr.Sanjay

V.Deshpande has been examined on MW-1. However, before the Management witness could be cross-examined by the

workman, the parties entered into a settlement outside the Court. The crux of the matter and the case is whether

discharge of the workman concerned is illegal for want of any enquiry. Admittedly, the workman concerned had

remained in police custody with unauthorised leave for a long duration and he was also convicted by Additional Sessions

Judge in the murder case. Second proviso to Article 311 sub-clause (2) of the Constitution of India says that Opportunity

of hearing or say enquiry before termination is not required where the conduct in question of the workman has led to his

conviction on a criminal charge. However, as the parties has entered into an amicable settlement the adjudication on the

point of legality of termination of service of the workman is not warranted.

It has been settled between the parties that the workman shall be paid 20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) in

full and final settlement of all his rights and claim of employment and re-employment, reinstatement and by monetary

claims such as back wages, any arrears arising out of revision, compensation, any wages due, LTA, Bonus, Leave wages,

Notice pay or any other monetary claims in respect of his employment. Out of the above Rs.20,00,000/- an amount of

Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) has already been received by the workman through cheque which has been

endorsed by the workman concerned on the agreement of settlement itself and remaining Rs.10,00,000/- would be paid

after receipt of the order. In addition to above PF amount of Rs.5,26,144/- (Rupees Five Lakhs twenty six thousand one

hundred and forty four only) including interest and gratuity amount of Rs.29,366.00 will be paid to the workman. The

terms of settlement has been filed by the parties which are on record. An affidavit has also been filed by the workman in

support of the Settlement agreement. Thus, as the workman has agreed to receive Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation no

further adjudication in the matter is required as no dispute exist between the parties.

In view of the above, Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

1152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 382

382

382.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, आयु3 त द ली नगर िनगम,नई द ली, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं. संबi िनयोजक और उनके

कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय-1, नई

द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 298/2011) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 07.02.2019 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/23/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 382.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 298/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court-1,

New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner,

Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 07.02.19.

[No. L-42011/23/2011-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI – 110 075

ID No.298/11

Shri Shyam Lal,

S/o. Shri Parsadi Lal,

Through General Secretary,

Municipal Employees Union,

Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi 54.

… Workman

Versus

The Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Through its Commissioner,

Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006.

…Management

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide

letter No.L-42011/23/2011/IR(DU) dated 05.08.2011 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as

under:-

‘Whether the action of the management Municipal Corporation of Delhi in not constituting the Medical Board

for Medical examination of Shri Shyam Lal, Mali, is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled

to?’’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Shyam Lal filed his statement of claim with the averments that

he was in the employment of Management as Mali in its Horticulture Department since the year 1980. Initially he was

treated as a casual/daily rated worker and was paid fixed wages which was revised from time to time under the Minimum

Wages Act, his services were regularized w.e.f. 12/4/1999 vide order dated 21/2/2006. It is pleaded that on 5/4/2007

while the workman was going alongwith his colleagues in a departmental vehicle to dump garbage, some of his

colleagues pushed him and he fell out of the departmental vehicle/truck & suffered multiple injuries. The workman

proceeded on medical leave to recover from the injuries but to no result. His both legs are not fully fit and as such the

injuries sustained by him have incapacitated him discharging his duties as a Mali, though he joined his duties on

1/1/2008. The workman was not able to discharge his duties and since 5/5/2009 even his attendance was not being

marked, though he was regularly visiting the office. Vide communication dated 13/6/2009 the workman requested the

management to constitute a Medical Board for purpose of his medical examination and if the Medical Board comes to

the conclusion that he is not able to discharge his normal duties, in that eventuality he may be retired and his son

Shri Chander Bhan may be given appointment on compassionate ground. But the Management did not take any action

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1153

on the said communication, which action of the Management is unjust, malafide and illegal, inasmuch as the job to

which the workman was working is of permanent and regular nature; the workman had continuously discharged his

duties from the year 2009 till May, 2009 and he was due to retire on 28/03/2023; Management failed to take note that the

workman got injuries during the course of his employment; that in similar circumstances the dependents of other

employees have been given employment on compassionate ground. A demand notice dated 26/9/2009 was served upon

the Management but to no response. Thereafter the workman approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail and

hence this reference.

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

objections inter alia that the claimant is not workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and that the claimant has

already been terminated by the Management vide letter dated 14/1/2011 and as such, there does not exist any employee-

employer relationship between the parties. The claimant remained unauthorisedly absent from duties without any

intimation w.e.f. 5/5/2009 and did not turn up for duties despite service of call back notices dated 9/7/2010, 27/8/2010,

22/11/2010, 3/12/2010 etc. Even otherwise the claimant never produced any medical certificate about his incapability

nor gave any intimation to the Management alongwith authentic documents. Denying the plea of the claimant that he fell

out of the departmental truck/vehicle on 5/4/2007 and suffered multiple injuries, it has been alleged that the workman

neither informed the Management about the same, nor submitted any document showing himself to be medically unfit or

got occupational incapability. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

Vide order dated 22/11/2011 my learned Predecessor framed following issues :-

(i)

Whether an industrial dispute is raised and referred for adjudication ?

(ii) As in terms of reference ?

(iii) Relief.

The workman /claimant examined himself as WW1 and led evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A & relied

on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/22. He also examined one Shri Surender Bhardwaj, General Secretary of the

Municipal Employees Union regarding espousal of the dispute of the claimant by the Union pursuant to resolution

Ex.WW1/4 passed in the meeting on 10/9/2009. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Seesh Pal

Meena. Assistant Director (Horticulture) who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/A as

well as documents Ex.WW1/M-45 to Ex.WW1/M-49.

I have heard Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, A/R for the claimant and Shri Rajiv Bhardwaj, A/R for the Management. I

have also gone through the records carefully.

Issue No.1 and 2 :-

Both these issues are taken up together as the same can be conveniently disposed of by common discussion.

Testimony of the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. There is admission on the

part of MW1 Seesh Pal Meena – witness of the Management that the claimant joined the Management as a Mali on

muster roll in 1980 and his services were regularized with effect from 12/4/1999. As such, the plea of the Management

that there existed no relationship of employee between the claimant herein and the Management is not sustainable and it

is held that the claimant is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act.

It is notable that MW1- sole witness examined by the Management – has admitted that the claimant was injured

on 5/4/2007 when he was going to dump garbage in the departmental vehicle. However, this witness showed his

ignorance whether the claimant had requested the Management to constitute a Medical Board for his medical

examination. The claimant has filed on record a representation dated 13/6/2009 (Ex.WW1/5) which he had sent to the

Director (Horticulture) through registered post, copy of which has been filed on record as Ex.WW1/6, whereby while

narrating about the incident of suffering multiple injuries on 5/4/2007 while he was going to dump garbage in the

departmental truck and lodging of a complaint to the PS Govindpuri, New Delhi, he requested for constituting a Medical

Board for his medical examination and if the Medical Board comes to the conclusion that injuries sustained by him

rendered him incapacitated disablement totally for all works, he may be retired and his son may be given appointment for

a suitable post on compassionate ground. The claimant has also filed on record copy of the demand./legal notice

Ex.WW1/1 which, as per deposition of MW1- was admittedly received by the Management and through that notice he

had also called upon the Management/MCD to constitute a Medical Board for his medical examination and in case of his

incapacitation to perform duty, his son Chander Bhan be given appointment on compassionate ground. It will be

worthwhile to mention here that the term “industrial dispute” as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act came up for

consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate Vs. Management of

Dimakuchi Tea Estate, (1958) 1LLJ 500 SC, wherein it was held that :-

“…Having regard to the scheme and objects of the Act and its other provisions, the expression “any person” in

Section 2(k) of the Act must be read subject to such limitations and qualifications as arise from the context : the

two crucial limitations are (1) the dispute must be a real dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated

in the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party to

the dispute giving necessary relief to the other and (2) the person regarding whom the dispute is raised must be

one in whose employment, non employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour (as the case may be)

the parties to the dispute have a direct or substantial interest…..”

1154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

To my mind, the claimant/workman was/is having a direct and substantial interest since the issue relating to his medical

examination and/or capacity to performance or non performance was part & parcel of his service condition/ terms of

employment and inaction on the part of the Management is also connected with “employment or non employment” of the

workman. The claimant/workman vide his representation Ex.WW1/5 and demand notice Ex.WW1/1 had also requested

for appointment of his son on compassionate ground in case he in view of his injuries is found/declared incapacitated to

work by the Medical Board. It is fairly settled that dispute relating to compassionate appointment is an “industrial

dispute” within Section 2(k) of the Act. To this view, I am supported by the decision of our own High Court in the case

of DDA Vs. Sudesh Kumar and others, (2009)II LLJ 641 (Delhi).

In view of the aforesaid rulings coupled with the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Tribunal has no

hesitation to hold that an “industrial dispute” has been raised and referred for adjudication.

10.

Now the question arises for consideration is whether the failure on the part of the Management to constitute

Medical Board for medical examination of the workman herein was legal and justifiable.

11.

No doubt, services of the claimant have been terminated by the Management vide order (dated 14-1-2011)

Ex.WW1/M-45 and he is no more in the employment of the Management but once a reference has been received, same is

required to be answered and should not be rendered incompetent. It is the duty of the Tribunal to adjudicate controversy

on merits even if the reference is cryptic and vague. As such, this tribunal proceeds to adjudicate the controversy

between the parties as per terms of the reference.

12.

As mentioned above, the claimant/workman admittedly received injuries on 5/4/2007 while he was in the

employment of the Management and was going to dump garbage alongwith his colleagues in the departmental vehicle.

The workman/claimant has filed on record number of medical papers as Ex.WW1/M-1 to Ex.WW1/M-14 and has

clarified that he got himself treated at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in respect of injuries received in April, 2007. He

also clarified that he had applied for medical leave in April, 2007 for nine months and during that period he got treatment

from RML Hospital, Jagdamba Hospital and other hospitals at Vivek Vihar/Dilshad Garden. He further deposed that

applications alongwith medical certificates Ex.WW1/M-30 to Ex.WW1/M-44 were sent by him to the Management.

Once the workman/claimant had sustained injuries during the course of his employment with the Management when he

alongwith his other colleagues had gone to dump garbage in the departmental vehicle/truck on 5/4/2007 and sustained

multiple injuries on his leg and he vide his representation Ex.WW1/5 and demand notice Ex.WW1/1 had requested the

Management to constitute Medical Board for his medical examination, it was moral and legal duty of the Management

to consider his request sympathetically to ascertain his medical condition and fitness to perform duty, in view of fracture

of his left leg & other injuries as also availing long leave since after the said incident, It appears that the

Management/MCD adopted a very casual approach in not entertaining the representation of the claimant in proper

perspective. By no stretch of imagination the action of the Management in not considering the request of the

claimant/workman for constitution of Medical Board for his medical examination can be considered to be legal and

justified. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that action of the Management in not constituting the Medical

Board for medical examination of the workman /claimant was legal and justified. These issues are decided accordingly

in favour of the claimant and against the Management.

Relief :-

As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the Management/MCD is directed to constitute a Medical Board

comprising of experts who would opine as to whether the claimant/workman was/is unable/unfit to perform duties of

Mali due to sustaining injuries in the incident occurred on 5/4/2007 during the course of his employment and in case he

is medically found unfit to perform duty, in that eventuality the request of the claimant for employment on

compassionate ground be considered by the Management. The course of action be initiated by the Management/MCD,

within one month, from the date of publication of this Award. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 01.02.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 383

383

383.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, *बंधन,‡हंदु, तान एंटीबायो0ट3 स िलिमटेड कोलकाता, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के संबi िनयोजक और उनके

कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय, कोलकाता

के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 20/2012) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 21.01.2019 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/81/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1155

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court Kolkata,

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan

Antibiotics Ltd. Kolkata, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 21.01.19.

[No. L-42011/81/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 20 of 2012

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. Souvik Dere, learned counsel.

On behalf of the Workmen

: Mr. Suvodip Bhattacharjee, learned counsel.

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Medicines

Dated: 11^th January, 2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-42011/81/2012-IR(DU) dated 26.11.2012/04.12.2012 and corrigendum of even number dated

03.01.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the

industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. in dismissing the service of Shri

Dibyansu Kumar Biswas w.e.f. 11.08.2009 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Brief facts in the background of which this reference has been made to this Tribunal are that the concerned

workman, Shri Dibyansu Kumar Biswas was employed in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. on 12^th March, 1979and working

as a Medical Representative in the Marketing Department. On 8^th May, 2000 he was transferred from Kolkata to Hubli in

the state of Karnataka. It is alleged by the management of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. that on 1^st June, 2000 at about 2.30

P.M. Shri Biswas and Shri P. Tafardar accompanies by more than 100 outsiders came to Kolkata Divisional Office of the

company demanding recall of transfer order of Shri Biswas and Shri Tarafdar. In this process the mob became unruly

intimidating and threatening. The said unruly mob also manhandled Regional Manager, Shri D.N. Chakraborty and

forced him to write that the relieving orders of Shri Tarafdar and Shri Biswas were revoked. Consequently FIR was

lodged in the local Police Station. It is further alleged that in the wake of such physical torture and charging situation the

company decided to close down its operation from Kolkata Divisional Office as Officers of the Divisional Office of the

company were afraid of attending office at Kolkata. A chargesheet was issued to Shri Biswas on 06.06.2000 and he was

placed under suspension vide order dated 06.06.2000. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his

report on 2^nd February, 2002. Concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority issued show

cause notice to the workman concerned on 4^th May, 2009 calling upon to explain why his service should not be

dismissed without notice. Finally, disciplinary authority dismissed the concerned workman from service on 11^th August,

2009. The dismissal of the workman concerned gave rise to the present industrial dispute which has been referred by the

Government of India to this Tribunal.

After reference the unions representing workman concerned filed statement of claims challenging validity of

enquiry on the ground that he was placed under suspension by the company on 06.06.2000, but no subsistence allowance

was ever paid to him during suspension period and his demand for subsistence allowance was turned down by the

company by letter dated 27^th July, 2000 advising him to claim his subsistence allowance on reporting at transferred place

without which claim for subsistence allowance would not be entertained. It is alleged by the concerned workman that

due to non-payment of subsistence allowance concerned workman was suffering a lot and gross prejudice was caused to

him.

The workman concerned has further challenged the validity of enquiry on the ground that the Enquiry Officer

while conducting the enquiry deprived him opportunity to adduce evidence without affording sufficient time to produce

1156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

documents in support of his defence. The Enquiry Officer acted as Presenting Officer. In enquiry, despite request of the

workman concerned for time, the Enquiry Officer adjourned hearing of the case for next day which was not sufficient to

bring the witness from Kolkata to Pune. The Enquiry Officer rejected his application for holding enquiry at Kolkata

instead of Pune on the ground of inconvenience of the company. He has further challenged the enquiry on the ground

that refusal of the company to sanction leave and T.A. to the witnesses of defence hampered fair conduct of enquiry.

The management of the company has pleaded that the company had become sick and was referred to BIFR. For

revival of the company 13 Medical Representatives from all over the country were transferred to different places and the

concerned workman was one of them. The concerned workman was chargesheeted and suspended during enquiry vide

order dated 06.06.2000 on the ground of misconduct of physical torture of Regional Manager of Kolkata Division of the

company. The suspension order was issued under the Certified Standing Orders of the company which is applicable in

case of Shri Biswas. Clause 27(e) of the Certified Standing Orders provides that during the period of suspension

employees shall not leave the station except with the written permission of the company. The concerned workman on his

transfer to Hubly did not report for duty at the place of his transfer, therefore, he was not entitled for subsistence

allowance and the question of vitiating the enquiry does not arise on that score. It is further pleaded that sufficient

opportunity was given to the workman concerned to produce defence witnesses whose evidence was considered

necessary. In the list of witnesses furnished by the workman concerned, most of them belonged to the alleged union in

which the concerned workman was allegedly office bearer. At the request of Shri Biswas the company advanced

Rs.20,000/= to enable him to produce defence witness. Inspite of receipt of said advance, he did not produce any

witness. When the enquiry proceedings started the concerned workman was not on the roll of the company’s Kolkata

Office and there was no existence of Kolkata Office, holding of enquiry in the Head Office at Pune did not prejudice the

workman concerned at all. Moreover, expenses for attendance of the concerned workman at Pune, hotel charges were

reimbursed by the company. After giving full opportunity to the workman concerned to defend himself in the enquiry

and after observing natural justice, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding six charges out of seven to be

proved.

The workman concerned examined himself as WW-01 to substantiate his case. However, no witness was

produced from the side of the management.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

During the course of argument learned counsel for the unions has relied on Anwarun Nisha Khatun v. State of

Bihar and others, (2002) 6 SCC 703, Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another, (1999) 3

SCC 679, Bombay Forgings Ltd. v. Prem Singh K. Sonar & Others, 1999 (4) LLN 178, Veena Shamrao Kadke v.

Presiding Officer, University & College Tribunal & Others, 2004 (4) LLN 249 to argue that non-payment of

subsistence allowance causes prejudice to the defence of the concerned workman. He has further relied on D. Indroji

Rao v Management of Chamundi Machine Tools Ltd. & Another, ILR 1999 Ker 1487 and Workmen represented

by Brooke bond Employees (Sales Unit) & Others v. Eighth Industrial Tribunal & Others, 2002 (2) LLN 1060 for

his argument that refusal to adjourn hearing of enquiry for non-payment of travelling allowance to witness of defence

prejudices the case of the workman.

Learned counsel for the management has contended that as per clause 27(e) of the Certified Standing Orders

during suspension period the employee cannot leave the head quarters without permission of the company. As the

workman concerned did not join at the place of his transfer, he is not entitled for subsistence allowance. It is submitted

that sufficient opportunity was provided to the workman concerned to adduce defence evidence. The workman

concerned participated in the proceedings and the Enquiry Officer complying with the principles of natural justice

submitted his report that six charges out of seven were duly proved.

10.

For a valid enquiry the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sur Enamel & Stamping Works v. their workmen, reported in

AIR 1963 SC 1914 has laid down following ingredients to be followed:

(1)

The employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him;

(2)

The witnesses are examined ordinarily in the presence of the employee in respect of the charges;

(3)

The employee is given fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses;

(4)

The employee is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence, if he

so wishes and

(5)

The Enquiry Officer record his findings with reasons for the same in his report.

11.

Now coming to the instant case, it is not disputed that the workman concerned was properly informed about the

charges leveled against him and the witnesses of the management were also examined in his presence. Opportunity to

cross-examine the management witness is also not denied. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the

workman is that during suspension period, he was not provided with subsistence allowance which caused prejudice to

him and also that his witnesses were not allowed to avail leave to attend enquiry proceeding and they were also not given

travelling allowance to facilitate their participation in the proceeding.

12.

Non-payment of subsistence allowance to the workman by the company is not disputed. Now the question is

whether non-payment of subsistence allowance prejudiced the defence of the workman concerned? The case law cited by

the learned counsel for the workman in Bombay Forgings Ltd. v. Prem Singh K. Sonar (supra) lays down that non-

payment of subsistence allowance prejudices the case of defence and vitiates the enquiry. The Hon’ble Bombay High

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1157

Court has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines (supra)

wherein it has been held that

“………the provisions of payment of subsistence allowance made in the service

rules

only

ensures

non-

violation of the right to life of the employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demobilized

and the salary is also paid t him at a reduced rate under the nick name of “subsistence allowance”, so that

they employee may sustain himself. The very object of paying the reduced salary to the employee during the

period of suspension would be frustrated if even subsistence allowance is not paid because “subsistence”

means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. The act of non-payment of subsistence allowance

can be linked to slow poisoning as the employee, if not permitted to sustain himself on account of non-payment

of subsistence allowance would gradually serve himself to death. ………”

13.

Further in Veena Shamrao Kakde v. Presiding Officer, University & College Tribunal (supra) the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court has reiterated the same principle as follows:

“8.

This Court while dealing with the bunch of writ petitions took the view that since the subsistence

allowance was not paid to the employees during the course of enquiry proceedings, the enquiry itself vitiated.

There is no reason for this Court to take different view of the matter especially when it is admitted position

that subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner when the enquiry was going on against her. It would

also be relevant to note that enquiry against the petitioner was conducted at Nagpur and she was required to

attend the dates of enquiry at Nagpur from Chimur and it is contended that she was also not paid the T.A. and

D.A. for the purpose of attending the dates of enquiry. It would reveal that the management college did not

dispute the allegations of the petitioner before the Tribunal that subsistence allowance as well as T.A. and

D.A. was not paid, and therefore, the only conclusion could be reached is that the petitioner was not paid the

subsistence allowance as well as T.A. and D.A. which has prejudiced her right of putting her defence. ………”

14.

Thus from the above case law it is established that during suspension period the delinquent employee must be

paid subsistence allowance, non-payment of which vitiates the enquiry. But the learned counsel for the management has

submitted that where service rule provides for presence of suspended employee at the head quarter and the employee

concerned defaults, he is not entitled for subsistence allowance and no prejudice would be caused to him. Learned

counsel for the management has relied on the Certified Standing Orders of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd wherein clause

27(e) provides “during the period of suspension, the employees shall not leave the station, except with the written

permission of the management”. Though the application of this clause to Medical Representative like concerned

workman has been objected by the learned counsel for the workman on the ground that according to Section 2(2) of the

Payment of Wages Act which defines ‘industrial establishment’ and which is applicable to “industrial establishment”

defined under Section 2(e) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 only workshop and other

establishment in which articles are produced, adopted or manufactures with a view to their use, transport comes within

the definition of industrial establishment and the workman concerned was not working in such workshop or

establishment. But the submission of the learned counsel for the workman does not find force in view of clause 1 of the

Certified Standing Orders of the company which deals with scope of orders. According to clause 1 the Certified Standing

Orders shall apply to all the employees of the company who are workmen within the definition of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. It is not disputed that Shri Biswas is a workman within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Thus application of the Certified Standing Orders to the workman concerned is not doubtful.

15.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Others v. Arbind, AIR 2013 SC 3329 while dealing with similar

issue has held that an order of suspension never puts an end to the service of an employee. He is only not entitled to the

salary, but is eligible to get subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance is governed by the service rules and is given to

a suspended employee for his sustenance. Hon’ble the Apex Court has relied on Anwarun Nisha Khatun v. State of Bihar

(supra) wherein the employee claimed for subsistence allowance for the entire period of suspension of her husband, who

was not terminated and during the pendency of the enquiry had breathed his last. Wife preferred a writ petition before the

Hon’ble Patna High Court which was dismissed on the ground that the husband of the appellant therein was not present

for one day at the head quarters and hence not entitled to the benefits. In the above case law under Rule 96(2) of Bihar

Service Code a government employee is required to furnish a certificate that he was not engaged in any other

employment, business, profession or vocation. The Hon’ble Court was of the view that where the rule does not provide

for marking of attendance, his subsistence allowance cannot be denied for that reason. Thus the Hon’ble Court by

necessary corollary has held that where necessary rules provide for marking attendance at the head quarters and the

suspended employee does not present himself at the head quarters, denial of subsistence allowance would not prejudice

his defence. In the present case, clause 2(e) of the Certified Standing Orders specifically provides that during period of

suspension the employee shall not leave the station, except with the written permission of the management. The

workman concerned admittedly never joined at the place of his transfer and admittedly he remained absent at the head

quarters. Therefore, in view of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the workman concerned was not entitled

for subsistence allowance, non-payment of which does not prejudice his defence.

16.

Though appropriate authority under the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act had directed the

company to pay subsistence allowance to the workman concerned, appeal against this order is pending before the

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court wherein the company had deposited entire amount of subsistence allowance with the

Registrar General by the order of the Court and the concerned workman was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount.

However, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court has remanded the matter to the Single Judge and as it appears

from the order, further withdrawal of the amount deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court is not allowed.

1158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

However, the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court and the order of the prescribed authority under the West

Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is not final.

17.

Next limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the workman is his witnesses were not allowed

to adduce evidence before the Enquiry Officer for want of leave and Travelling Allowance. In order to appreciate this

argument of the learned counsel for the workman it is necessary to look into the enquiry proceedings. The order sheets

dated 12^th October, 2001, 10^th December, 2001, 7^th January, 2002 and 8^th January, 2002 are relevant order sheets of

enquiry. From perusal of order sheet dated 12^th October, 2001 it transpires that matter had been raised by the workman

before the Enquiry Officer regarding non-payment of subsistence allowance and regarding deductions from T.A. Bill and

advance for attending enquiry, but the Enquiry Officer refused to interfere or direct the company to pay amount of

Travelling Allowance to the workman concerned. Again from the order sheet of enquiry dated 10^th December, 2001 it

appears that the workman had requested the Enquiry Officer on 26^th November, 2001 to fix date after 15^th December,

2001 as marriage of his niece was scheduled on 10^th December, 2001, but surprisingly the Enquiry Officer fixed the date

of hearing on 10^th December, 2001 itself knowing that that was the date of marriage of his niece. This act of Enquiry

Officer cannot be said to be inadvertent. Not only this, the Enquiry Officer gave last opportunity to the workman

concerned fixing 7^th January, 2002 as the date of hearing. It also appears from the record that on 19^th November, 2001 a

witness, Shri P.K. Bhadury moved an application to the Divisional Manager, Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., Chennai for

grant of necessary leave to attend the enquiry at Pune for giving evidence and also to provide him admissible TA, DA

and necessary instruction. Another witness had also moved an application on 3^rd December, 2001 to the General

Manager, Marketing, Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., Pune for permission to attend enquiry on 7^th January, 2002 as requested

by the workman concerned, but there appears no permission by the management and thrown in dustbin. The management

instead of granting permission and advance to the witness a letter to the Presenting Officer to the effect that Rs.28000/=

as advance for bringing witnesses in enquiry have been granted, but this intimation does not appear to have been sent to

the witness and the sanction of advance was also given in a manner that the same may not be effective to attend enquiry

on 7^th January, 2002. Order sheet dated 7^th January, 2002 itself speaks that the Presenting Officer himself received this

intimation on 1^st of January, 2002. In such a short time it may not have been possible for a witness to come from Chennai

to Pune to attend enquiry and when the workman concerned requested for adjournment of hearing of 7^th January, 2002

the Enquiry Officer acting in haste fixed next day for hearing knowing that it would not be possible for a witness

working at Chennai to come at Pune to participate in enquiry next day. The order sheet dated 8^th January, 2002 goes to

show that when the workman concerned applied for adjournment and requested to fix next date of enquiry in February to

enable him to bring his witnesses, the Enquiry Officer closed the defence evidence. This act of Enquiry Officer cannot be

said to be fair in any manner and amounts to denial of principle of natural justice. Surprisingly the Enquiry Officer was

not inclined to adjourn hearing for more than one day enabling the workman concerned to adduce evidence, but he was

prepared to give more than 20 days for argument. When the workman concerned was not allowed to adduce evidence in

his defence, there was nothing left for argument.

18.

In D. Indroji Rao v Management of Chamundi Machine Tools Ltd. (supra) the examination-in-chief and cross-

examination of the management witness was concluded on 10^th March, 1995. On that day the defence representative

requested for time to lead evidence of the delinquent and his witnesses on the ground that he was not in a position to

concentrate to the enquiry proceeding in view of the heavy work in the company. However, the Enquiry Officer

postponed the hearing to 21^st March, 1995. Again on 21^st March, 1995 defence representative sought time on the ground

that he was not prepared with the case to lead evidence and need time for preparation. This request of defence

representative was turned down by the Enquiry Officer saying that work inside the factory should not be handled to

proceed with the enquiry. This attitude of the Enquiry Officer did not find favour of the Court. The Court was of the

opinion that the delinquent employee was asking for a date beyond 31^st March, 1995 on the ground that he was hard

pressed for time to concentrate with the enquiry proceeding. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court relying on State of Uttar

Pradesh v. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 observed as follows:

“………. The result of the refusal to adjourn the case has deprived the charge sheeted officer to defend himself

of the serious accusations made in the charge memo. Therefore the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer is

in violation of rules of natural justice and this unjustified refusal necessarily prejudice the case of the charge

sheeted officer.”

19.

In Ms. Shireen Dubah v. Air India Ltd. & Others, 2001 (1) LLN 693 request of delinquent employee to

examine custom official and police official as defence witnesses were held to be wrongly denied on the ground that their

evidence was not relevant. Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the entire enquiry was vitiated for non-observance of

principles of natural justice in not permitting the petitioner to examine custom officials and Inspector of Police whose

evidence would not be entirely irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

20.

In workmen represented by Brooke bond Employees (supra) the Enquiry Officer refused to direct the company

to bear the expenses of the workman for producing witnesses from Keonjhar in his defence though admittedly everything

took place at Keonjhar and vital witnesses of the workmen were residence of Keonjhar. It was held by Hon’ble Calcutta

High Court that the principles of natural justice was violated by the Enquiry Officer in conducting the departmental

enquiry. It was observed –

“25.

In the present case, the enquiry officer refused to direct the respondent-company to bear the expenses

of the workman for producing the witnesses from Keonjhar in his defence though, admittedly everything took

place at Keonjhar and the vital witnesses for the workman were residents of Keonjhar and thereby the

principles of natural justice were violated by the enquiry officer…….”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1159

21.

Thus applying above legal principles to the facts of the present case, it is explicitly clear that the Enquiry

Officer did not act fairly and violated the principles of natural justice by refusing to adjourn the case on 8^th January, 2002

and closing the evidence of the workman concerned enabling him to bring his witnesses from Chennai to Pune for

evidence. It was also not fair on the part of the Enquiry Officer to shut his eyes to the fact that some of the material

witnesses were not granted leave to attend enquiry. It questions his impartiality.

22.

Learned counsel for the workman has also submitted that chargesheet was given to the workman concerned on

6^th of June, 2000 and he was placed under suspension with the same order. The enquiry started from 13^th December,

2000 and continued till 7^th January, 2002. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 1^st

February, 2002, but the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the workman in 2009. Thus the company

deliberately kept the workman under suspension for a period of 7 years which itself shows that the officers of the

company was biased against the workman concerned. There was no justification for delay in keeping the matter pending.

In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India & others, AIR 1987 SC 2257 it has been observed that the natural justice demands

conclusion of departmental proceeding with a reasonable diligence and within reasonable period of time.

“…….. It is clear principle of natural justice that the delinquent officer when placed under suspension is

entitled to represent that the departmental proceedings should be concluded with reasonable diligence and

within a reasonable period of time. If such a principle is not to be recognized, it would imply that the executive

is being vested with a total arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officer under disability and distress

for indefinite duration.”

23.

Thus, in view of above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the enquiry was not in consonance with the

principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is vitiated and held to be not valid, illegal and improper.

24.

As it has been laid down in Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Ltd. v. The Management,

1973-I-LLJ 278 (SC) that where the enquiry was not held validly, the employer has every right to adduce evidence

before this Tribunal to prove the charges.

25.

In Shankar Chakraborty v. Britania Biscuit Co. Ltd., (1979) 3 SCC 371 a question arose when the domestic

enquiry is held illegal and improper, whether the Labour Court or Tribunal is duty bound to afford an opportunity to the

employer to lead evidence to prove the charge against the workman on merits before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Apex

Court relying on its previous decisions of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 SCC 595 and

workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. (supra) examined the question as to where dismissal is based on enquiry or no

enquiry or illegal enquiry, how the Court should decide the legality of dismissal.

26.

Referring the principles laid down in Shankar Chakraborty case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.L.Singh

v. Punjab National Bank, 2018 LAB I.C. 4321 observed –

“44.

This Court while answering the aforesaid question held that it is for the employer to ask for such

opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct and once such prayer is made in any form, i.e.,

orally or by application or in the pleading, the same cannot be denied to the employer. It has to be granted to

enable him to prove the misconduct. This Court further held that no duty is cast upon the Court to offer such

opportunity to the employer suo motu, if he does not ask for it. In other words, he has to ask for from the Court

by any of the three modes mentioned above.”

27.

In the present case there is no prayer by the company in any form, either oral or by any application or in the

pleading asking for opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct. Hence no question of giving

opportunity to the employer to lead evidence arises. Consequently dismissal of the workman concerned on the basis of

invalid, illegal and improper enquiry cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Admittedly the workman Shri

Dibyansu Biswas has attained the age of superannuation on 21^st March, 2011. He is not entitled for reinstatement. He is

entitled only for back wages.

28.

The workman concerned in his statement of claim has pleaded that during the period of suspension he was not

gainfully employed anywhere. This fact is also supported by affidavit filed by the workman. There is no rebuttal of this

pleading. Therefore, the workman is entitled for back wages. However, it is admitted case of the workman that after his

transfer from Calcutta to Hubli, he never joined his duty at transferred place. In these circumstances, the workman is

entitled for 70% back wages.

29.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 11^th January, 2019

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

1160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 384

384

384.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, *बंध िनदेशक, द ली मेSो रेल कॉप}रेशन, नई द ली, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं. के संबi िनयोजक

और उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय-

1, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 107/2018) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 07.02.2019 को *ाs 5आ

था ।

[सं. एल-42012/75/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019

S.O. 384.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 107/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court-1, New

Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Managing Director,

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 07.02.2019.

[No. L-42012/75/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

ID No.107/2018

Shri Kanhiya S/o Shri Bhudhu,

R/o Village & Post Office Jab,

Tehsil Chata, District Mathura,

Mathura – 281 403

…Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

M/s. PLN-9 Security Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Sun Tower, 2^nd Floor, Sukhrali,

MG Road, Gurgaon,

Haryana 122 001

The Managing Director,

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,

Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi

…Managements

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-42012/75/2017-IR(DU) dated 29.01.2018 under

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for

adjudication of an industrial disputes, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the services of the workman Shri Kanhiya S/o Bhudu have been terminated arbitrarily/illegally and/or

unjustifiably by the management of M/s PLN 9 Security Services Pvt. Ltd. from the establishment of DMRC

Airport Metro Express Line and if so what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this

respect?’’

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, Shri Kanhiya, the workman, opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1161

Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the workman as well as the management.

Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

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

the above notice was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, the workman opted to abstain from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

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

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

However, it will not debar Shri Kanhiya, the workman from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the

reference on merits. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : February 1 , 2019

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 15 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 385

385

385.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, महा*बंधक, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, सूरत (गुजरात), और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं. के संबi

िनयोजक और उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म

4यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 11/2015) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 11.02.2019 को

*ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-40011/24/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2019

S.O. 385.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,

Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Surat (Gujarat) and Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 11.02.2019.

[No. L-40011/24/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

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

Ahmedabad, Dated 24^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 11/2015

1. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Department of Telecom, Varacha Road,

Surat (Gujarat) – 395006

2. The Sub-Divisional Engineer EUM,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Textile Market Exchange,

Surat (Gujarat) – 395003

3. The Divisional Engineer Telecom,

Indian Post & Telegraphs Department,

Surat (Gujarat) – 395003

…First Parties

1162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

The General Secretary,

Akhil Bhartiya Karmachari Mahasangh,

28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,

Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470

…Second Party

For the First Parties

: Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party

: Shri R.S. Sisodiya (Union’s Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/24/2014–IR(DU)

dated 04.02.2015 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, Department of Telecom/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Surat to

terminate the service of Shri Mahavir Singh S. Yadav and Ramshankar Rampravesh Singh, is justified? If not,

then what relief Shri Mahavir Singh S. Yadav and Ramshankar Rampravesh Singh, workmen are entitled to?”

The reference dates back to 04.02.2015 and received on 13.02.2015 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After issuing of notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 13.05.2016 and

the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 23.06.2016 along with vakalatpatra Ex. 6 of Shri N.K. Trivedi on

the same day.

On 01.12.2017, Shri R.S. Sisodiya, The General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Karmachari Mahasangh, 28/B,

Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, has stated in writing that the workman

Ramshankar Rampravesh Singh is not contesting the reference.

The second party workman has alleged in his statement of claim Ex. 5 that the workman named Mahavir Singh

S. Yadav son of Siyaram Yadav has been working on the post of Group D under the sub-ordination of Assistant

Engineer, Udhna/Surat and he was terminated on 31.12.1989. He was terminated from service without giving notice and

paying notice pay despite the fact that there was no complaint of any misconduct against him and workmen junior to him

were retained and regularised by the first party Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, hereinafter referred to as “BSNL”. He

requested the administration of the first party BSNL for several times orally and by way of written representation in

violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act but to no result. Same averments were also made

regarding Ramshankar Rampravesh Singh which was later not pressed by the second party union. Thus the second party

union has prayed for reinstatement of service of the workman and any other relief if the Tribunal may deem fit.

The first party Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited submitted the written statement Ex. 7 denying the averments

made in the statement of claim submitting that the workman Mahavir Singh S. Yadav was engaged as causal labour on

need basis as and when required in August, 1985 till December, 1989. He has not completed 240 days in any of the

calendar year during his tenure of engagement. It is wrong to say that he was terminated. The truth is that he left the job

on his own accord. The workman Mahavir Singh S. Yadav never completed 240 days in any calendar year and left the

job at his own accord, therefore, no question arises regarding issue of legal notice and paying notice pay. Similar

submissions are also made regarding Ramshankar Rampravesh Singh. Thus the reference has no force, hence liable to be

dismissed and the prayers made by the workman are also fit to be rejected.

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

Whether the action of the General Manager, Department of Telecom/Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Surat to terminate the service of Shri Mahavir Singh S. Yadav and Ramshankar Rampravesh Singh, is

justified?

ii.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workman 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 workman Mahavir Singh S. Yadav who submitted his affidavit Ex. 8 reiterating the

averments made in the statement of claim and he has stated in his cross-examination that he was engaged as daily wager

from 01.08.1985 to 31.12.1989 by the first party BSNL. He was not given any appointment letter regarding engagement.

He used to work in the BSNL for whole year except holidays. He is suffering with cataract in his eyes. He also sent the

medical certificate to the officers of BSNL which the officers refuse to take. It is wrong to say that he left the job

voluntarily. He was not given any notice or notice pay. Since retrenchment, he has been doing work as Agricultural

Labour and earning Rs.6000/- per annum. He is having 7 family members including 2 daughters. He has submitted

medical certificate dated 01.02.1987 regarding paralysis, hypertension, acidity and gastric ailment etc.

The first party submitted the affidavit Ex. 10 of one Lalit D. Lakinwala, Assistant General Manager, Legal Cell,

BSNL reiterating the averments made in the written statement. He has also stated that one casual labour Satyendrakumar

Tiwari got a relief in the similar matter from C.G.I.T., Ahmedabad on 28.02.2011 which was set aside by the Gujarat

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1163

High Court in Special Civil Application No. 13451 of 2012. In his cross-examination, he has stated that this workman

was not terminated. The truth is that he left the job on his own accord. He never worked for 240 days in any calendar

year. He worked for 91 days in the year 1985, 127 days in the year 1986, 26 days in the year 1987, 137 days in the year

1988 and 287 days in the year 1989. The document Ex. 11/1 is the copy of the muster roll issued by the first party BSNL.

After seeing it, the witness stated that the workman did not work for 251 days in the year 1988. He never moved any

application for regularisation.

I heard and considered the oral and written arguments of both the parties. The second party union has argued

that the workman worked for more than 240 days; therefore, the workman was entitled for the benefit provided under

Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The first party did not maintain the seniority list of the workman and also not

followed the principle of ‘last cum first go’ while retrenching this workman. Thus this was violation of Section 25 F, G

and H of the Industrial Disputes Act as the first party has admitted that the workman Mahavir Singh S. Yadav completed

240 days in the preceding year of the date of termination. Similarly, the procedure stipulated in Section 25 H of the

Industrial Disputes Act is also not followed while re-employing the workman which resulted into miscarriage of justice.

The learned counsel for the second party workman has referred the judgement of the apex court in Harinandan Prasad

V/s Employer I/R Management of FCI, AIR 2015 SC 1848 wherein it has been held as under:

“34. On harmonious reading of the two judgements discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when

there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction

for regularisation only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/ad-hoc/temporary worker for

number of years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularisation would be

impermissible. In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularise such a person, only on the basis

of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may amount to back door entry into the service

which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further such a direction would not be given

when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the

Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularised by the

employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached

Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularisation in such cases may be legally justified,

otherwise, non-regularisation of the left over workers itself would amount t invidious discrimination qua them

in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus the Industrial adjudicator

would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14 of the Constitution of India, rather than violating this

constitutional provision.”

10.

The first party also submitted the written arguments reiterating the facts narrated in the written statement and

denied that the workman has ever worked for 240 days in any year of engagement. He has also submitted that the second

party workman never submitted the medical certificates showing in Ex. 9/1 to BSNL. He has also submitted that the

reference has been made after 26 years of retrenchment and has not explained the delay.

11.

It is a settled law that delayed reference that to after 8 years are not maintainable as held in State of Maharashtra

V/s. Dattatraya Digamber Virajdar, 2007 LLR 1132 SC. The present reference has been made after 26 years and no

explanation has been given regarding such a long delay. Secondly, the second party workman has himself admitted by

papers Ex. 9/1 to 9/3 that he was suffering with paralysis, hypertension, acidity and gastric ailment in the year 1987.

Thirdly, he has not produced and proved any evidence that he worked for 240 days in the preceding year of

retrenchment. He has also not moved any application in the Tribunal requesting to ask the first party BSNL to produce

the muster roll of the workman. The workman has also not proved as to who the workmen junior to present workman

were re-engaged or re-employed. Thus in the light of the aforesaid reasons, the reference is not maintainable and liable to

be dismissed.

12.

Thus the reference is dismissed as not maintainable in the light of the reasons made above.

13.

The award is passed accordingly.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 15 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 386

386

386.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, िजला अिभयंता टेलीफोन, भारतीय डाक और तार िवभाग और तार िवभाग,जामनगर (गुजरात), और अ4य एवं उनके

अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 620/2004) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार

को 11.02.2019 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/183/1993-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

1164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2019

S.O. 386.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 620/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,

Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the District

Engineer Telephones, Indian Post and Telegraph Department, Jamnagar (Gujarat) and Others, and their workmen which

were received by the Central Government on 11.02.19.

[No. L-40012/183/1993-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

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

Ahmedabad, Dated 21^st January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 620/2004

1. The District Engineer Telegraphs,

Indian Post and Telegraphs Department,

Jamnagar (Gujarat)

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones),

Indian Post and Telegraphs Department,

Jamnagar (Gujarat)

… First Parties

V/s

The President,

Saurashtra Employees Union,

Umesh Commercial Complex, 213-214, 2^nd Floor,

Near Chaudhary High School,

Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360001

…Second Party

For the First Parties

: Shri B.D. Thakkar

For the Second Party

: Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/183/93–IR(DU)

dated 05.04.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamnagar in terminating the services of

Shri Bhatti Yunus Abubhai, Ex-casual Labour is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the employee is

entitled?”

The reference dates back to 05.04.1995 and received on 12.05.1995 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 04.07.1995

and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 07.08.1996.

The workman was examined on 22.04.1998 and 13.02.2005 wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the

statement of claim Ex. 2 but he has failed to establish that he worked for more than 240 days in any calendar year.

Thereafter, the first party examined one Lakshmikant Hargovindbhai Mehta vide affidavit Ex. 19 but the second party

workman did not appear to cross-examine the aforesaid first party witness. The first party advocate has also filed an

application Ex. 20 enclosed with the death certificate of the workman indicating that the workman died on 26.09.2018.

None has been responding since last several dates on behalf of the second party workman. No legal heir has moved any

application for their substitution as legal heir of the workman in the reference.

Thus the reference is disposed of as abate.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1165

नई दली, 15 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 387

387

387.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, महा*बंधक,भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड,व लभनगर निडयाद, और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के संबi िनयोजक और

उनके कमकार के बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय-1,

अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं^या 921/2004) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 11.02.2019 को *ाs 5आ

था ।

[सं. एल-40012/274/2002-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2019

S.O. 387.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 921/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court-1,

Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vallabhnagar Nadiad and Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 11.02.19.

[No. L-40012/274/2002-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

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

Ahmedabad, Dated 29^th January, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 921/2004

1. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Vallabhnagar Telephone Exchange Building, Pij Road,

Nadiad (Gujarat)

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer – Telegraphs,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Borsad Telephone Exchange,

Borsad (Kheda)

3. The Chief General Manager – Telecom Department,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Khanpur,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

… First Parties

V/s

The Org. Secretary,

The Association of Railway and Post Employees,

15, Shashi Apartment, Near Anjalee Cinema, Vasna Road,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) -380007

…Second Party

For the First Parties

: Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party

: Shri R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/274/2002–

IR(DU) dated 17.04.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect

of the matter specified in the Schedule:

1166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of General Manager, Nadiad Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited,

Nadiad/SDOT,

Bharat

Sanchar

Nigam

Limited,

Borsad

(Telecom

Department)

terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Firozkhan Samsherkhan Pathan without following due procedure

under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the

concern workman is entitled to and since when?”

The reference dates back to 17.04.2003 and received on 05.06.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 alleging that the first

party BSNL, hereinafter referred to as “BSNL” is an ‘Industry’ within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. BSNL engaged the workman Firozkhan Samsherkhan Pathan on 01.02.1985 as causal labour and worked

till 01.10.1994 continuously. He was terminated on 01.10.1994 without following the due procedure of law and also

without giving notice and paying notice pay violating the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

BSNL retained number of junior casual labours while terminating him and violated the provisions of Section 25 G of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The BSNL did not prepared the seniority list of casual labours as provided in Rule 77 of the

Industrial Disputes Central Rules. It is also alleged that after terminating his services, fresh recruitments were also made

without giving him an opportunity of re-employment violation the provisions of Section 25 F and H of the Industrial

Disputes Act. He has further alleged that he did work for more than 240 days in every year including the preceding

12 months from the of termination that is 01.10.1994. He has further alleged that he has been um-employed since then

and he and his family are starving for want of employment.

The first party BSNL submitted the written statement Ex. 19 denying the averments made in the statement of

claim submitting that the second party is not a workman and BSNL is also not Industry under the provision of Section 2

(s) and (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman Firozkhan Samsherkhan Pathan was engaged as casual labour on

need basic on 01.04.1991 in Nadiad district and was terminated on 31.07.1994. He never worked for more than 240 days

in any calendar year. He worked 196 days in the year 1985, 179 days in the year 1986, 178 days in the year 1987 in

Valsad district. It is wrong to say that he worked in Nadiad district. He did not work in the year 1988 to 1990. It is

further submitted that he was re-engaged in the year 1991 and worked for 178 days in the year 1991, 165 days in the year

1992, 306 days in the year 1993 and 194 days in the year 1994 in Nadiad district. It is further submitted that after

retrenchment of all the casual labours, the Labour Union requested the General Manager to reconsider the case,

therefore, a committee was formed for civil absorption of casual labours which considered the case of all the casual

labours but the second party workman was not fulfilling the criteria provided by the committee for absorption, therefore,

he was retrenched after paying him retrenchment compensation of Rs.1203/- and notice pay of Rs.1770/-, thus total

amount of Rs.2973/- which was sent to the workman by way of money order. It is wrong to say that the junior employees

were retained and re-employed and notice and notice pay was not given to him. Thus there was no violation of Section

25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also submitted that the practice of engaging casual labours has been

stopped since long and after introducing the latest technology for laying cables, installing poles, digging trenches and

extension of cable work is considerable reduced and all these works are taken by way of outsourcing contracts. It is also

noteworthy that this workman approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of moving a petition choosing the

wrong jurisdiction. It is further submitted that this reference has been referred after a period of 10 years, therefore, it is

not maintainable as held in State of Maharashtra V/s Dattatrya Digamber Virajdar, 2009 LLR(1) SC 132. Therefore, the

reference is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

The second party workman submitted the documents vide list Ex. 9 which are admitted by the first party. The

first party submitted the documents vide list Ex. 20 which are not admitted by the second party workman.

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

Whether the action of management of General Manager, Nadiad Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited, Nadiad/SDOT, Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited, Borsad (Telecom Department) in

terminating/discontinuing the services of Shri Firozkhan Samsherkhan Pathan without following due

procedure under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is legal, proper and justified?

ii.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workman 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 workman who submitted the affidavit Ex. 22 reiterating the averments made in the

statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not apply for job and was also not given any

appointment letter but he used to do work as casual labour from February, 1985 to 1988 in the District Valsad of BSNL

and he did not work anywhere in BSNL from 1989 to 1991. He has also admitted that thereafter, he was re-engaged in

the year 1991 and worked for 178 days, 165 days in the year 1992, 306 days in the year 1993 and 194 days in the year

1994 in Nadiad district but he never received any money order for Rs.2973/- as said above in the written statement.

The first party BSNL submitted the affidavit Ex.26 of one Chandragouda Laxmangouda Patil, Assistant General

Manager, (Administration and Legal), BSNL, reiterating the averments made in the written statement. However the Para

6 of the affidavit states as under: “The second party was engaged for the work which was not permanent nature. Due to

change in advance technology the work like erecting of pole, installation of open wire lines etc. reduced day by day.

Also it was directed by Assistant Director, N. Delhi vide letter dated 17.12.1993 that the services of all the casual

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1167

mazdoors who have not rendered at least 240 days of service in a year should be terminated after following the condition

of the Industrial Disputes Act. Here the second party has not worked continuously for 240 days in a year. It was also

directed that all those casual mazdoors ho were engaged during the period from 31.03.1985 to 22.06.1988 and who were

still continuing for such work where they were initially engaged and who are not absent for more than 365 days be

brought under scheme of temporary status. Hence the second party was not fulfilling the criteria mentioned above. Hence

he was terminated by paying one month’s notice pay Rs.1770/- and retrenchment compensation of Rs.1203/-, hence total

Rs.2973/- was paid to the second party by money order. The money order was made in bulk of fifty workmen and the

amount of Rs.138299/- was deposited with the Post Master Nadiad.”

He was paid wages by way of vouchers. The tactics of engaging casual labours was stopped, therefore, no fresh casual

labours was engaged after termination of this workman. He has not said anything to his examination-in-chief in his

cross-examination. He has also admitted the genuineness of the documents filed by the second party workman vide list

Ex. 9.

I considered the oral and written arguments of both the parties. The BSNL is a Public Sector Undertaking and

has its rules and regulations regarding recruitment and without following the procedure of recruitment prevailing in the

BSNL, appointments shall be called as back door entry. The second party workman has referred Secretary State of

Karnataka V/s Uma Devi, 2006 SC C (L&S) 753, wherein the apex court has held that absorption, regularisation,

permanent continuance of temporary contractors, casuals, daily wagers or ad-hoc employees appointed or recruited and

continuing them for a long time in public department de-hors the constitutional scheme of public employment.

The second party workman has further referred Dipali Gundu Surwase V/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Maha

Mandal (D.Ed.) and others, 2013 (10) SCC 324 wherein the apex court has considered the question of back wages and it

is declared that in case of illegal termination the normal relief is reinstatement with full back wages. Similar view has

been taken by the apex court in the matter of Bhuvneshverkumar Dwivedi V/s M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., 2014 (11)

SCC-85.

10.

The second party further referred Raghubir Singh V/s Haryana Roadways, 2014 AIR SCW 5515, wherein the

apex court has decided the question of legality of termination and relief for the same. It was a case of bus conductor.

Allegation was for collecting fair and not depositing it. The workman was appointed in the year 1976. He was charged

under Section 409 of IPC and a criminal case for misappropriation was launched. The workman was arrested on

15.09.1994 and his services were terminated on 21.10.1994. The workman was bailout on 15.11.1994 and he reported for

duty but the corporation has given verbal assurance for reinstatement after acquittal. The workman was acquitted on

11.07.2002 and again he reported for joining his duty but the corporation said that his services stood terminated w.e.f.

21.10.1994. Thereafter, an Industrial Dispute was raised and it was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The

Labour Court has adjudicated the same and the award was passed. The termination was declared illegal and the

corporation was directed to reinstate the workman with 60% back wages. Thereafter, the said award was challenged by

the corporation and the High Court has remanded the case back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication in the light of

the applicability of the provision of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The Labour Court has rejected the

reference in second round only on the ground of delay, saying that Industrial Dispute is time barred. The said award was

challenged by the workman by way of filing petition in the High Court but the said petition was dismissed. The LPA was

preferred by the workman and the same was also dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, the said order was challenged

by the workman in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed the Special Leave Petition and the relief of

reinstatement with back wages is granted with all consequential benefits. In the above referred circumstances, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed several aspects and has passed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

considered and discussed the judgement of Avon Services Production Agency (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s Industrial Tribunal,

Haryana and Sapankumar Pandit V/s U.P. State Electricity Board (C) S.M. Nilanjkar V/s Telecom.

11.

The second party further argued upon the judgements of Machinon Machenzie and Co. Ltd. V/s Machinon

Employees Union, AIR 2015 (SC) 1373 and Durgapur Casual Workers Union V/s Food Corporation of India and Ors.,

2015(1)LLJ 160 wherein the apex court has considered various judgements including the judgement in the case of Dipali

Gundu Surwase and has granted the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Thus once

again it is declared that in case of illegal termination, the normal relief is reinstatement with full back wages and

continuity of service. Therefore, the second party workman is entitled for the normal relief of reinstatement with full

back wages, continuity and with all consequential benefits.

12.

The second party further argued upon the judgement of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. V/s Sushila

Premjibhai Majithia and Anr. Reported in GLR – XLI (4) 3412 wherein the apex court has held that when daily wager or

casual labours have completed the services of 240 days then they are also entitled for protection under Section 25 F of

the Industrial Disputes Act. The second party further argued upon the judgement of Medical Officer, Primary Health

Centre, Surendranagar V/s Dashrathsinh Gajubha Zala reported in 2012 (5) GLR-4085 wherein the apex court has held

that when violation under Section 25 H is proved then calculation of 240 days is not required.

13.

The second party further argued upon the judgements of D.K. Yadav V/s J.M.A. Industries Ltd., 1993 SCC (3)

259, Rajasthan State Road Transport V/s Zakir Husain in Civil Appeal No. 5176/2005 arising out from S.L.P. (Civil) No.

5798 of 2003 and the Manager V/s Pradiplumar, SCA No. 8588/2009, order dated 13.10.2010, it has been declared by

the apex court that termination without enquiry is illegal.

1168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

From the perusal of oral and documentary evidence, it is admitted that the workman joined the service as casual

worker on 01.02.1985 and worked till the year in 1987 in Valsad Telecom District with a detail of 196, 179 and 178

working days in the year 1985, 1986 and 1987 respectively. Thereafter, he worked for 178, 165, 306 and 194 days in the

year 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively in Nadiad Telecom District. Thus it can be said that the workman worked

for reasonable long tenure in Valsad and Nadiad Telecom District, despite the same the committee formed in pursuance

of letter no. 298/V/179 dated 22.09.1995 did not shortlist this workman for regularisation and no reasons have been

given by the committee in its report Ex. 20/1 as to why this workman was left out from regularisation and absorption and

the witness examined by the first party namely Chandragouda Laxmangouda Patil did not explain the reasons in his

cross-examination as to why this workman who have worked for 306 days in the year 1993 and more than 170 days in

the remaining year, was left from regularisation and absorption but as the reference has been preferred by way of dispute

after a period of 10 years and no reasons have been given by the workman regarding the delay, therefore, it would be

appropriate to award a lump-sum amount of Rs.100000/- (Rupees One Lac) as a final relief. Both the issues are decided

accordingly.

15.

The first party is directed to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.100000/- (Rupees One Lac) as a final relief to the

second party workman Firozkhan Samsherkhan Pathan within 30 days from the publication of this award.

16.

The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 15 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 388

388

388.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, आयु3 त, पूव€ द ली नगर िनगम नई द ली और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के संबi िनयोजक और उनके कमकार के

बीच अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट

(संदभ सं^या 80/2016) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 15.02.2019 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/230/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2019

S.O. 388.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 80/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court-1, New

Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Commissioner, East

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 15.02.19.

[No. L-42011/230/2015-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 80/2016

S/Shri Rohtas and Shri Surender Singh,

Represented by MCD General Mazdoor Union (Regd.),

C/o. room No.95, Barrack No.1/10 Jam Nagar House,

Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi 110011.

...Workmen/Claiments

Versus

The Commissioner (East),

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Udyog Sadan, Plot No.419,

Near Patparganj Industrial Area,

Shahdara,

Delhi 110032.

…Management/Respondnt

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1169

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter

No.L-42011/230/2015/IR(DU) dated 9/2/2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

‘Whether Shri Rohtas s/o. Prem Raj and Shri Surender Singh s/o.Tilak Ram are entitled to be regularized w.e.f.

1/4/1988 as per the policy of the management and/or from the date of their junior s has been regularized

w.e.f.1.04.1988 on the post of Mali revised from time to time with all consequential benefits ? If so, what

directions are necessary in this respect?’

Both parties were put to notice and workmen/claimants Rohtas & Surender Singh filed joint statement of claim,

with the averments inter alia that though initially they were engaged as Mali on muster roll basis in June, 1981 and

October, 1981 respectively, however they were regularized w.e.f. 1^st April, 1995 which is against the policy of the

Management because as per the said policy, the workmen appointed between 1/4/1980 to 31/3/1985 are entitled to be

regularized as Mali w.e.f.1/4/1988 in the regular pay scale. Even officials junior to the claimants namely Mam Chand

s/o. Har Charn who was initially engaged on muster roll w.e.f. 4/3/1985, was regularized on 1/4/1990. The

Management can not discriminate its own policy to deny the lawful rights for grant of regular status and equal pay for

equal work. The claimants have filed on record copy of failure report of conciliation proceedings as well as espousal of

dispute& certificate regarding registration &recognition of the Union. Prayer has been made to pass award

regularization of service of the workmen/claimants w.e.f.1/4/1988 as per policy of the Management on the post of Mali

alongwith all consequential benefits.

The claim of the Workmen/claimants has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement and

took preliminary objections that the workman were never on the initial employment on muster roll as Mali from June,

1981 and October, 1981 respectively. No proof of muster roll has been filed by the workmen and therefore their version

that they joined the services of Management in the year 1981 can not be believed. It is alleged that regularization of the

claimants have been done exactly as per the rules & regulations. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim

petition.

Vide order dated 20/12/2016 following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor :-

(i)

Whether the claimant was not in the employment of the management from June, 1981 as alleged ?

(ii)

In terms of reference ?

(iii)

Relief.

The Claimant in support of their case examined themselves as WW1 and WW2 who tendered their respective

affidavits Ex.WW1/A & Ex.WW2/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/2.

On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Vijay Pal Sharma, Assistant Director (Horticulture) as

MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/2.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the workman and Shri Anil Mishra, A/R for the Management and have

also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

Issue No.1 and 2 :

These issues being co-related are taken up together and can be disposed of by a common discussion.

Contention of the management is that the claimants were not in the employment of the Management from

June/October, 1981 and that the regularization of the workmen/claimants w.e.f. 1^st April, 1995 have been done exactly

as per the rules & regulations. Although Shri Vijay Pal Sharma MW1 has filed on record copies of the service book/s of

the claimants herein as Ex.MW1/3 and Ex.MW1/4 to stress that the claimants were employed as Mali from 1^st April,

1995, however this witness admitted in his cross examination that document Ex.WW1/1 filed on record by the claimants

is not fake. Office order dated 11/4/1983 (Ex.WW1/1) has been issued by the Management itself and the names of the

claimants herein namely Rohtas and Surender find mentioned at Sl.No.12 and 24 respectively, showing initial dates of

their engagement as June, 1981 and February, 1982 – may be on muster roll basis. It is common knowledge that service

book is prepared when an official is appointed on permanent/regular basis. In the face of document Ex.WW1/1, the

contention of the Management that the claimants were employed only on 1/4/1995 as reflected in Ex.MW1/3 and

Ex.MW1/4 is not sustainable and it is to be held that the claimants Rohtas and Surender were initially engaged on muster

roll basis in June 1981 and February, 1982 respectively.

10.

It is not in dispute that the claimants/workmen are still in the employment of Management and relationship of

employer-employee between the Management and claimant stands established. It is also not in dispute that the claimants

have been regularized to the post of Mali w.e.f. 1/4/1995, Now the question arises for consideration is whether the

claimants were/are entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 1/4/1988 on the post of Mali or not.

11.

It is fairly settled that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or

temporarily or on contractual/muster roll basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such

workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim regularization if he/she is not working

against a sanctioned post and that the Industrial Tribunal should not give direction/s for regularization only because a

1170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year unless there is policy/scheme of

the Management.

12.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India

2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 observed as under :-

“… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the

Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage

worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for

regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person,

only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager., may amount to backdoor entry

into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be

given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the

Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the

employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached

Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally

justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the

Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this

constitutional provision.”

From the above ruling, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for

regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless

there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the

employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the

other.

13.

It is evident from the document Ex.WW1/2 that the Management has already evolved a scheme/policy decision

to regularize the muster roll workers and it provides that the muster roll workers engaged upto 31^st March, 1982 in

Horticulture Department may be regularized in the first instance w.e.f. 1/4/1988 in the category of Malies/Beldar in the

pay-scale of Rs.750-940 (pre-revised). As discussed above, the claimants on the basis of office order of the Management

Ex.WW1/1 have proved on record that they were initially engaged on muster roll basis in June 1981 and February, 1982

respectively. That is to say that they were engaged on muster roll basis prior to 31^st March, 1982 – which is the cut off

date for regularization in the first instance w.e.f. 1/4/1988 as per office order/policy Ex,WW1/1 issued by the

Management and they were eligible for regularization w.e.f. 1/4/1988. However, the claimants/workmen herein have

been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1995. It is pertinent to mention here that as per averments made in para 4 of the claim

petition, Mam Chand s/o. Har Charan and Hem Chand s/o. Tej Pal having been engaged on daily wage Malis/Beldar on

4/3/1985 and 12/5/1980 were regularized on 1/4/1990 and 1/4/1988 respectively, though they were juniors to the

claimants/workmen. In reply thereto, the Management in its written statement while stating that it is a matter of record,

has stated that the workmen as mentioned in para 4 were junior to Shri Rohtash and Shri Surender Singh as alleged. The

Management has not given any justification why the officials junior to the claimants Rohtash and Surender Singh were

regularized prior to them and why the claimants Rohtash and Surender Singh were considered for regularization when

the officials junior to them were regularized. Since it stands proved on record that the officials juniors to the

workmen/claimants herein have been regularized in service much prior to the date of regularization of the

workmen/claimants, it is a case of discrimination. It will be worthwhile to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Bal Kishan Vs. Delhi Administration and another (1990) I LLJ 61, wherein their lordships

observed as under :-

“In service, there could be only one norm for confirmation or promotion of persons belonging to the same

cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior. Any deviation

from this principle will have demoralizing effect in service apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the

Constitution.”

14.

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others,

2017Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of “equal pay for equal work” even for temporary employees observed

as under :-

“The principle of “equal pay for equal work” can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as

work-charged, daily wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial

parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another,

who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides

being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a

lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his

self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his

dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as

compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a

domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels

involuntary subjugation. ’’

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1171

15.

As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that action of the Management

in not regularizing the workmen Shri Rohtas and Shri Surender Singh on the basis of its policy/scheme Ex.WW1/1 w.e.f.

1/4/1988 is unjustified and illegal and it is held that the workmen were/are entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali

w.e.f. 1/4/1988 instead from 1/4/1995. Both these issues are decided accordingly in favour of the claimants and against

the Management.

Relief :-

In view of my aforesaid findings, the Management is directed to regularize the workmen/claimants herein to the

post of Mali/Beldar with effect from 01/04/1988 and they shall be placed & granted in the pay-scale of Rs.750-940/- and

be given all benefits of service w.e.f. 01/04/1988. Management shall make appropriate orders in this regard within a

period of four weeks from publication of this Award. The Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 07.02.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 15 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 389

389

389.—औ‹ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म" के4Dीय सरकार

मेसस, रिज, Sार,आईआईटी >ड़क और अ4य एवं उनके कमचारी के *बंधतं. संबi िनयोजक और उनके कमकार के बीच

अनुबंध म" िनcदE औ‹ोिगक िववाद म" के4Dीय सरकार औ‹ोिगक अिधकरण एवं म 4यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट

(संदभ सं^या 180/2012) को *कािशत करती है जो के4Dीय सरकार को 15.01.2019 को *ाs 5आ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/94/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

राज"D जोशी, उप िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2019

S.O. 389.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 180/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour-Court-1,

New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar, IIT

Roorkee, and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.01.2019.

[No. L-42011/94/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1. : NEW DELHI

ID No. 180/2012

Shri Surendra Kumar,

(The General Secretary),

IIT Roorkee Karamchari Union,

IIT Roorkee

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar,

IIT Roorkee

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter

No.L-42011/94/2012-IR(DU) dated 12th November, 2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which

are as under:-

1172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2019/PHALGUNA 25, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

‘Whether action of management of IIT Roorkee in not regularizing the workman Shri Surender Kumar s/o. Dal

Chand, Chowkidar, despite rendering service for more than 23 years continuously is justified ? If not, what

relief the said workman is entitled to ?’

Both parties were put to notice and workman Surendra Kumar filed his statement of claim, with the averments

that he was inducted into the service of erstwhile University of Roorkee (later on converted into IIT Roorkee) as Helper

(Gatekeeper) on muster roll basis w.e.f. July, 1991 and continues to work in the same capacity since then. He requested

the Management for his regularization many a times but to no avail. It is pleaded that the Management IIT Roorkee

chalked out a plan under the Scheme of Y-Pool workers for the consistent absorption/regularization of such

workmen/employees whose names were included in the Y-Pool for which the applicant was not taken into confidence.

Though some of the workmen who were not included in the Y-Pool list have been absorbed but the claimant has been

deprived of his legitimate right of being placed on regular pay scale. The claimant approached the Management several

times for grant of such benefits but to no avail. He has prayed that order be passed (a) for upgradation of the claimant as

per career development policy for the category to which he belongs with effect from the date he becomes entitled to his

promotion; (b) for payment of arrears arising out of his regularization in the different regular pay scales and (c) for

extension of all amenities & facilities such as residential accommodation allowance, medical, transport etc. for which the

claimant becomes entitled consequent to his regularization and up-gradation in the regular pay scales.

The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein it has

been alleged that the claimant was one of those casual daily wage workers whose services were engaged by the erstwhile

University of the Management as unskilled daily wager on 1/7/1991. Consequent upon agitation of such casual daily

wage workers in the year 1993, a broad Memorandum of Understanding dated 22/11/1993 and 20/2/1996 was reduced

into writing in the presence of Civil Administration inter-alia on the terms that the such daily wage workers would be

considered for appointment against vacant posts according to their qualifications and on the basis of their seniority &

performance/merit as per recruitment rules, regulations and guidelines. Advertisement from time to time including those

dated 24/10/94, 21/11/94, 26/7/95, 13/6/95, 27/8/96 and 27/3/97 for regular vacancies were issued and applications were

called from Y-Pool workers and accordingly 211 persons out of total 361 workers of Y-Pool were recruited/selected

against the regular posts on the basis of their merit/qualifications and experience. The claimant had also applied for the

post of Library Attendant as well as for Worker Grade-C in Mechanical Engg. Department of the respondent department,

he was called for interview but was not shortlisted by the Screening Committee for want of requisite minimum

qualification and experience in the relevant field. There was no automatic right for absorption or fresh appointment with

respect to all the daily wage or contract workers. Though efforts on the part of Government to reduce the workers’

strength was going on but the Management with the sole intention to accommodation Y-Pool workers placed an agenda

in the year 2004 before the Finance Committee and Board of Governors for absorption/regularization of the rest of these

Y Pool workers but the same was not accepted by the said Committee/Board. It is alleged that the Management is

providing all the facilities viz. EPF, Pension, Gratuity, accommodation, revision of fixed wages, hospital facilities to the

Y pool workers including the claimant. The engagement of the claimant was purely on casual, intermittent and

temporary basis and in exigencies of work which was extended from time to time, the claim of the claimant for

regularization of his services is ill founded and unjustified. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

Vide order dated 05/06/2013 my learned Predecessor observed that no specific issue except those referred by

the Government for adjudication arises from the pleadings of the parties and as such parties were called upon to adduce

their evidence.

The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as WW1 who tendered his affidavits Ex.WW1/A and

relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. In cross examination he stated that he is inter pass and was engaged

as Helper/Watchman without any advertisement. He also admitted about formulation of Y pool list by the Management;

conducting of test/interviews for the posts exclusively for the 361 Nos. of workers in the Y pool list and that the

Management had recruited/regularized 211 such workers in the Y pool List. He also admitted that for different posts,

minimum qualifications have been prescribed and that against the advertised post, he had also applied for the post of

Library Attendant and he was interviewed. He showed his ignorance that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh imposed a ban on

recruitment of non teaching staff vide orders dated 3/11/97 and 9/12/97. He also admitted that all eligible

claimants/workmen whose names were there in the Y Pool list were given an opportunity to participate in the selection

process for their absorption.

On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Surendra Kumar Saini, Deputy Registrar (Legal) as

MW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/20. In cross examination

he stated that category D posts have been abolished since 2006 and workmen/officials working in category-D are now

termed as Multi Tasking Staff who are getting initial scale. While producing the regulations regarding the creation and

pay-scale of different posts as Ex.MW1/W-5, he admitted that the posts created by Syndicate (Executive Body of

Roorkee University) are in the pay scale approved by the State Government applicable at that time. He admitted that

Management had created a single Y pool List but could not say whether at that time illiterate persons were regularized as

Maali from the list of Y pool. He also admitted that Shri Bal Chand (mentioned at Sl.N.21) of list Ex.MW1/4 also being

an illiterate was appointed as Safai Karamchari. Similarly incumbent at Sl.No.57, No.31 (Mahipal) and at Sl.No.80

(Tara Chand) in the said List all illiterate have been appointed as Safai Karamchari/Helper. He also admitted that the

claimant/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and is doing job regularly.

I have heard Shri Amit Sharma, A/R for the workman and Shri Sanjay Rawat, A/R for the Management and

have also gone through the records carefully and my findings are as follows.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 16] 2019@iQkYxqu 25] 1940

1173

From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant/workman

having been engaged as Helper (Maali) on daily wage/ casual basis by the erstwhile University of Roorkee, has been

under the employment of the Management since the year 1987 and he has been discharging duties as assigned to him.

As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard,

reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme

Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals

with the definition of “workman” has observed as under :-

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

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

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

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

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

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

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman.”

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

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

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

As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant on contract/casual basis for doing the work

of Maali, is duly admitted by the Management as per its pleadings and evidence adduced on record. It is not in dispute

that the workman/claimant is still working on contractual engagement under Y-1 category and is paid fixed monthly

emoluments in respect of his services, that is to say that he is being paid minimum in the scale without any increment or

promotion etc. for want of regularization.

10.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management relied on a number of judgements to contend

that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on

contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long

number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

11.

There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan

Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

“… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the

Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage

worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for

regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person,

only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry