रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक WEEKLY
सं. 13] नई दिल्ली, मार्च 24—मार्च 30, 2019, शनिवार/चैत्रा 3—चैत्रा 9, 1941
No. 13]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 24—MARCH 30, 2019, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 3— CHAITRA 9, 1941
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
वित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालय
(((((cid:1)य(cid:1)य(cid:1)य(cid:1)ययययय िवभाग) िवभाग) िवभाग) िवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 425425425425....————कें (cid:15) सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, भारत सरकार के भारतीय लेखापरीक्षा एवं लेखा विभाग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय जिसमें अस्सी प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक 2ान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है, अर्थात्:-
प्रधान निदेशक लेखापरीक्षा, रेलवे – वाणिज्यिक, नई दिल्ली।
[सं. ए-12034/02/2014-ईजी]
ऐनी जॉर्ज मैथ्यू, संयुक्त सचिव
1775 GI/2019
(1241)1242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Expenditure)
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 425.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Government of India in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, in which eighty per cent of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi, namely:-
Principal Director of Audit, Railway- Commercial, New Delhi.
[ No. A-12034/02/2014-EG]
ANNIE GEORGE MATHEW, Jt. Secy.
(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 426426426426....————भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, एतCारा, Dी टी. सी. सुशील कु मार, प्रबंध निदेशक, भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम को दिनांक 14.03.2019 (अपराKन) से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनकी अधिवMषता की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, उक्त निगम का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है।
[फा. सं. ए-15011/02/2018-बीमा-I]
मृत्यंजय सिह, अवर सिचव
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 426.— In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. T.C. Suseel Kumar, Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India as Member of the said Corporation with effect from 14.03.2019 (afternoon) for a period of five years or upto the date of his superannuation or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. A-15011/02/2018-Ins.I]
MRITUNJAY SINGH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 427427427427....————भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, एतCारा, Dी एम. आर. कु मार, अध्यक्ष, भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम को दिनांक 14.03.2019 से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनकी अधिवMषता की तारीख तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, उक्त निगम का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है।
[फा. सं. ए-15011/02/2018-बीमा-I]
मृत्यंजय सिह, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1243
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 427.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. M.R. Kumar, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India as Member of the said Corporation with effect from 14.03.2019 for a period of five years or upto the date of his superannuation or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. A-15011/02/2018-Ins.I]
MRITUNJAY SINGH, Under Secy.
कोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालयकोयला मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 27 मार्च, 2019
का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 428428428428....————के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) की धारा 19 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए यह निदेश देती है कि ऐसी सभी शक्तियों या कर्तUों या उनमें से कोई, िजसका उक्त सरकार द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की ऐसी धाराओं के अधीन, जो इससे उपाबX अनुसूची के स्तम्भ (2) में विनिZदष्ट हैं, प्रयोग और निर्वहन किया जा सके , ऐसे Uक्ति द्वारा भी प्रयोग और निर्वहन किया जा सके गा, जो उक्त अनुसूची के स्तम्भ (4) की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में विनिZदष्ट हैं ;
परन्तु उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन शक्तियों और कर्तUों का प्रयोग और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के अध्यधीन होगा जबकि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 21 के अधीन शक्तियों और कर्तUों का प्रयोग और निर्वहन ऐसी परिस्थिति में और शत] के अधीन, यदि कोई हो, किया जाएगा, जो एन.एल.सी. इंडिया लिमिटेड के अध्यक्ष- सह-प्रबंध निदेशक को लिखित आदेश द्वारा विनिZदष्ट और निदेशित की जाए ;
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| _.सं. | अधिनियिम की धारा | संक्षिप्त में कर्तUभार का स्वरूप | उन Uक्तियों का पदनाम और प्राधिकृ त पता जिन्हें शक्ति प्रत्यायोजित की गई है | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| 1. | 14(1) | प्रतिकर के अवधारण की पXति. | अध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंध िनदेशक | एन.एल.सी. इंिडया िलिमटेड, प्रथम तल, न ं. 8, मेयर सत्यमूMत रोड, एफ.एस.डी., एग्मोर काम्पलेक्स, भारतीय खाद्य िनगम, चेतपेट, चेन्नई-600031. |
| 2. | 14(4) | प्रतिकर के संबंध में अधिकरण के समक्ष कथन. | अध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंध िनदेशक | एन.एल.सी. इंिडया िलिमटेड, प्रथम तल, न ं. 8, मेयर सत्यमूMत रोड, एफ.एस.डी., एग्मोर काम्पलेक्स, भारतीय खाद्य निगम, चेतपेट, चेन्नई-600031. |
| 3. | 16 | अिधकरण क े अधिनिर्णय पर ब्याज पर संदाय. | अध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंध िनदेशक | एन.एल.सी. इंिडया िलिमटेड, प्रथम तल, न ं. 8, मेयर सत्यमूMत रोड, एफ.एस.डी., एग्मोर काम्पलेक्स, भारतीय खाद्य निगम, चेतपेट, चेन्नई-600031. |
| 4. | 17 | प्रतिकर का संदाय. | अध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंध िनदेशक | एन.एल.सी. इंिडया िलिमटेड, प्रथम तल, न ं. 8, मेयर सत्यमूMत रोड, एफ.एस.डी., एग्मोर काम्पलेक्स, भारतीय खाद्य निगम, चेतपेट, चेन्नई-600031. |
| 5. | 21 | सूचना अभिप्राप्त करने | अध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंध | एन.एल.सी. इंिडया िलिमटेड, प्रथम तल, |
| की शक्ति | िनदेशक | न ं. 8, मेयर सत्यमूMत रोड, एफ.एस.डी., एग्मोर काम्पलेक्स, भारतीय खाद्य निगम, चेतपेट, चेन्नई-600031. |
[ फा. सं. 43022/6/2016-एलए एfड आईआर]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 27th March, 2019
S.O. 428.—In exercise of the power conferred by section 19 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Government hereby directs that all the powers and duties that may be exercised or discharged by the said Government under the sections of the Act as are specified in column (2) of the Schedule hereto annexed shall be exercised and discharged by the person specified against in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Schedule;
Provided that the exercise and discharge of powers and duties under sub-section (1) of the section 14 of the said Act shall be subject to the prior approval of the Central Government, whereas the exercise and discharge of powers and duties under section 21 of the said Act by the officers as specified in the said Schedule shall be in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified and directed by an order, with the prior approval of the Central Government, in writing, by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of NLC India Limited;
SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Section of the Act | Nature of assignment in brief | Designation and official address of the person to whom power delegated. | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
| 1. | 14(1) | Method of determining compensation | Chairman-cum -Managing Director | NLC India Limited, First Floor, No. 8, Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, FSD, Egmore Complex of Food Corporation of India, Chetpet, Chennai-600031. |
| 2. | 14(4) | Statement before the Tribunal regarding compensation | Chairman-cum -Managing Director | NLC India Limited, First Floor, No. 8, Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, FSD, Egmore Complex of Food Corporation of India, Chetpet, Chennai-600031. |
| 3. | 16 | Payment of interest on award of the Tribunal | Chairman-cum- Managing Director | NLC India Limited, First Floor, No. 8, Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, FSD, Egmore Complex of Food Corporation of India, Chetpet, Chennai-600031. |
| 4. | 17 | Payment of compensation | Chairman-cum -Managing Director | NLC India Limited, First Floor, No. 8, Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, FSD, Egmore Complex of Food Corporation of India, Chetpet, Chennai-600031. |
| 5. | 21 | Power to obtain information | Chairman-cum- Managing Director | NLC India Limited, First Floor, No. 8, Mayor Sathyamurthy Road, FSD, Egmore Complex of Food Corporation of India, Chetpet, Chennai-600031. |
[ F. No. 43022/6/2016-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1245पेट्रोलियमपेट्रोलियमपेट्रोलियमपेट्रोलियम औरऔरऔरऔर प्राकृ तिकप्राकृ तिकप्राकृ तिकप्राकृ तिक गैसगैसगैसगैस मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
काकाकाका. . . . आआआआ.... 429429429429....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक िहत में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के िलए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खिनज पाइपलाइन्स (भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूिम में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अिधसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उसमें उपयोग के अिधकार के संबन्ध में Dी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिmना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, िवशाशापटनम - 530004, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को िलिखत रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े क्टे े ह ह क्टेयरयरयरयर क्टे े क्टे े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
42/2 00 00 95 42/1 00 00 11 42/3 00 03 28 42/10 00 02 63 41/11 00 00 45 41/12 00 00 09 46/14 00 01 19 46/10 00 00 62 46/12 00 00 04 47/13 00 04 88 47/10 00 00 13 50/13 00 01 20 18/13 00 01 441246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े क्टे े ह ह क्टेयरयरयरयर क्टे े क्टे े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
15/2 00 00 24
16/4 00 00 16
16/1 00 00 03
1/1R 00 00 08
1/1Q 00 00 03
1/1P 00 00 34
1/1J 00 00 47
1/1F 00 01 35
1/1E 00 02 28
1/1A/9 00 06 26
1/1A/4 00 00 05
1/1A/7 00 00 12
1/1A/5 00 00 83
3/1 00 01 95
121/13 00 00 49
123/6 00 00 28
123/4 00 00 92
119/2 00 01 25
123/1 00 00 35
120/16 00 00 12
18/9 00 00 41
15/7 00 04 05
टे(cid:3)लि परशुरामपुरम 118/8 00 16 70
110/5 00 01 13
105/4 00 00 43
105/2 00 00 56
118/6 00 00 46
पोंदू(cid:10) बुरिड़िकं चाराम 78/8 0 1 27
79/9 0 1 31
75/13 0 0 34
75/14 0 0 24
104/1 0 8 11
74/17 0 4 56
74/16 0 4 22
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1247
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े क्टे े ह ह क्टेयरयरयरयर क्टे े क्टे े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
114/4 0 0 52
114/2 0 0 70
118/5 0 2 69
118/7 0 1 49
40/19 0 0 90
135/7 0 0 12
141/11 0 0 11
141/5 0 0 88
143/13 0 0 90
144/6 0 0 28
144/7 0 0 20
144/12 0 0 18
154/10 0 0 86
154/6 0 1 29
154/5 0 0 40
154/4 0 0 36
152/12 0 0 51
152/8 0 1 31
152/3 0 0 57
150/18 0 0 67
150/11 0 0 11
80/6 0 0 61
पोंदू(cid:10) लोलुगु 232/42 0 0 67
232/43 0 0 67
232/46 0 0 6
232/45 0 0 30
232/49 0 0 81
232/56 0 0 11
232/57 0 0 76
232/33 0 4 51
1248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े क्टे े ह ह क्टेयरयरयरयर क्टे े क्टे े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
214/22 0 0 42
214/21 0 0 36
209/35 0 0 22
209/27 0 0 21
209/20 0 0 35
209/18 0 0 25
203/13 0 0 80
203/12 0 0 21
203/4 0 1 78
200/55 0 0 76
200/52 0 0 12
196/8 0 0 56
196/3 0 0 3
196/11 0 0 11
190/23 0 0 13
186/9 0 0 17
186/10 0 0 24
155/4 0 0 32
155/24 0 2 3
153/10 0 0 57
209/24 0 1 42
194/6 0 0 11
156/23 0 5 6
व(cid:22)ापुकत्तू(cid:10) उं ड(cid:10)कु ड़िया 1/1A 00 00 08
1/4 00 01 58
1/6 00 01 34
17/2A 00 01 48
17/2B 00 00 85
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1249
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े क्टे े ह ह क्टेयरयरयरयर क्टे े क्टे े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
8/8 00 00 44 28/5 00 02 61 28/4 00 03 16 27/3 00 03 34 26/10 00 01 10 26/9 00 00 77 43/4 00 00 38 43/5 00 01 20 43/12 00 00 13 42/1 00 00 42 41/22 00 00 81 9/4A 00 03 44 44/22D 00 00 21
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 429.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a Pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
42/2 00 00 95 42/1 00 00 11
41/11 00 00 45 1250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
46/10 00 00 62
46/12 00 00 04
47/13 00 04 88
47/10 00 00 13
50/13 00 01 20
18/13 00 01 44
18/10 00 01 82
13/5 00 02 56
13/6 00 00 93
15/1C 00 03 26
15/2 00 00 24
16/4 00 00 16
16/1 00 00 03
1/1R 00 00 08
1/1Q 00 00 03
1/1P 00 00 34
1/1J 00 00 47
1/1F 00 01 35
1/1E 00 02 28
1/1A/9 00 06 26
1/1A/4 00 00 05
1/1A/7 00 00 12
1/1A/5 00 00 83
3/1 00 01 95
121/13 00 00 49
123/6 00 00 28
123/4 00 00 92
119/2 00 01 25
123/1 00 00 35
120/16 00 00 12
18/9 00 00 41
15/7 00 04 05
TEKKALI PARASURAMPURAM 118/8 00 16 70
110/5 00 01 13
105/4 00 00 43
105/2 00 00 56
PONDURU BURIDIKANCHARAM 78/8 0 1 27
79/9 0 1 31
75/13 0 0 34
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1251
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
104/1 0 8 11
74/17 0 4 56
74/16 0 4 22
114/6 0 2 18
114/5 0 0 3
114/4 0 0 52
114/2 0 0 70
118/5 0 2 69
118/7 0 1 49
40/19 0 0 90
135/7 0 0 12
141/11 0 0 11
141/5 0 0 88
143/13 0 0 90
144/6 0 0 28
144/7 0 0 20
144/12 0 0 18
154/10 0 0 86
154/6 0 1 29
154/5 0 0 40
154/4 0 0 36
152/12 0 0 51
152/8 0 1 31
152/3 0 0 57
150/18 0 0 67
150/11 0 0 11
80/6 0 0 61
PONDURU LOLUGU 232/42 0 0 67
232/43 0 0 67
232/46 0 0 6
232/45 0 0 30
232/49 0 0 81
232/56 0 0 11
232/57 0 0 76
232/33 0 4 51
214/26 0 0 22
209/35 0 0 22 209/27 0 0 211252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
PONDURU LOLUGU 209/20 0 0 35
209/18 0 0 25
203/13 0 0 80
203/12 0 0 21
203/4 0 1 78
200/55 0 0 76
200/52 0 0 12
196/8 0 0 56
196/3 0 0 3
196/11 0 0 11
190/23 0 0 13
186/9 0 0 17
186/10 0 0 24
155/4 0 0 32
155/24 0 2 3
153/10 0 0 57
209/24 0 1 42
194/6 0 0 11
156/23 0 5 6
VAJRAPUKATHURU VUNDRUKUDIYA 1/1A 00 00 08
1/4 00 01 58
1/6 00 01 34
17/2A 00 01 48
17/2B 00 00 85
10/1 00 00 64
9/4B 00 02 87
9/9C 00 00 24
8/1 00 00 55
8/7 00 00 31
8/8 00 00 44
28/5 00 02 61
28/4 00 03 16
26/9 00 00 77 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1253
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
43/5 00 01 20 43/12 00 00 13 42/1 00 00 42 41/22 00 00 81 9/4A 00 03 44 44/22D 00 00 21
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 430430430430....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से उपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिmना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाशापटनम - 530004, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| जिला : ीकाकु लम जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : राज्य : आं आं आं आं प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश राज्य : | |||||
| म म म म ंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
41/9 00 12 78 40/4 00 00 26 40/9 00 03 07 39/10 00 00 37 23/4 00 00 391254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला : ीकाकु लम जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं आं आं आं प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश राज्य : राज्य : | |||||
| म म म म ंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
20/4 00 04 79
19/3 00 01 18
19/4 00 01 07
18/4 00 00 41
55/3 00 01 22
54 00 00 37
53/4 00 03 25
72/1 00 00 11
58/11 00 00 10
58/12 00 01 47
58/16 00 01 04
41/8 00 06 68
40/5 00 02 43
18/5A 00 00 21
नंदिगाम तुराकलाकोटा 141/2 00 00 64
142/18 00 00 60
142/16 00 14 63
142/14 00 01 83
143/5 00 00 63
145/7 00 01 14
146/5 00 01 35
146/6 00 00 70
127/4 00 01 04
127/8 00 01 48
142/17 00 00 11
नंदिगाम विस्समपल्लि 49/20 00 00 19
49/21 00 00 68
49/22 00 00 25
53/14 00 03 62
53/7 00 00 27
54/5a 00 02 15
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1255
| जिला : ीकाकु लम जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं आं आं आं प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश राज्य : राज्य : | |||||
| म म म म ंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
49/14 00 03 44
49/13 00 04 25
49/12 00 00 92
52/5A 00 00 81
52/5B 00 04 86
52/5C 00 00 81
53/11 00 04 15
53/8 00 02 53
54/5B 00 07 09
54/7 00 08 20
104/6A 00 03 75
53/12 00 00 41
नंदिगाम कोंडातेंबू(cid:10) 66/7 00 02 13
66/12 00 01 29
67/4 00 00 42
67/8 00 00 22
67/9 00 00 87
63/17B 00 01 66
61/8 00 00 69
61/9 00 00 83
61/10 00 00 81
61/25 00 00 81
61/23 00 00 57
60/15 00 01 77
43/6 00 00 41
43/5 00 00 28
43/7 00 00 75
43/9 00 00 70
43/24A 00 01 03
43/24B 00 00 92
44/9 00 00 87
1256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला : ीकाकु लम जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं आं आं आं प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश राज्य : राज्य : | |||||
| म म म म ंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
63/11 00 01 22
नंदिगाम संतोषापुरम 41/7 00 02 41
41/11 00 02 90
40/6A 00 00 57
नंदिगाम ल'िगाम 39/1 00 00 28
39/3 00 01 03
39/5 00 00 44
37/5 00 00 71
35/2 00 01 35
35/5 00 00 15
35/13 00 00 33
32/10 00 00 11
32/9 00 00 22
14/13 00 00 31
14/17 00 00 52
14/18 00 00 57
30/3A/1A 00 00 25
30/3B 00 00 86
26/1 00 20 40
21/1 00 03 43
14/12 00 00 51
30/3A 00 00 21
नंदिगाम चिन्नालवुनिपल्लि 289/4 00 01 72
289/5 00 00 15
289/6 00 00 15
288/1 00 00 78
288/9 00 00 64
288/12 00 00 27
295/17 00 02 11
295/18A 00 00 94
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1257
| जिला : ीकाकु लम जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं आं आं आं प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश राज्य : राज्य : | |||||
| म म म म ंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
294/4A 00 00 71
296/11 00 00 37
297/6A 00 00 49
297/7 00 00 22
297/19 00 00 33
297/18 00 00 58
302/15 00 00 83
302/8 00 00 51
302/14 00 00 31
307/8 00 00 79
307/9 00 00 25
309/10 00 00 11
309/9 00 02 36
309/14A 00 04 14
310/6 00 00 85
311/9 00 01 14
310/18 00 01 06
310/20 00 02 00
310/21 00 00 11
308/19B 00 00 41
309/8 00 00 81
295/10 00 00 21
296/12 00 00 11
288/2 00 00 11
298/8 00 02 03
302/17 00 00 31
310/22 00 02 23
309/13 00 01 12
308/18 00 00 51
नंदिगाम सुभ{{^{{FOOTNOTE *}}}}ापुरम 52/1 00 03 59
1258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला : ीकाकु लम जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं आं आं आं प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश राज्य : राज्य : | |||||
| म म म म ंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
49/10A 00 01 85
45/13 00 01 96
45/14 00 01 92
45/11 00 00 31
45/15 00 02 37
44/8 00 01 39
44/7 00 00 66
44/6A 00 00 52
44/6B 00 02 05
44/5 00 00 46
44/4 00 04 68
43/15 00 01 11
42/4 00 03 49
42/9 00 00 46
42/5 00 00 11
42/6 00 01 40
42/7 00 01 28
42/11 00 00 55
42/12 00 01 30
52/7 00 00 21
52/8 00 00 11
नंदिगाम पोलावरम 29/3A 00 00 86
28/3G 00 00 33
28/3H/3 00 02 28
28/3H/1 00 01 94
32/1 00 01 64
32/2 00 00 61
31/1 00 00 71
20/3 00 00 68
19/1E 00 02 21
नंदिगाम बे+िपल्लि 100/16A 00 00 72 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1259
| जिला : ीकाकु लम जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं आं आं आं प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश राज्य : राज्य : | |||||
| म म म म ंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
100/20 00 00 51 200/9B 00 00 73 200/12 00 00 18 200/18 00 00 10 199/2 00 00 08 199/10 00 00 67 198/16 00 04 63 203/19 00 00 42 205/1 00 01 54 187/11 00 02 46 181/8 00 00 32 200/2b 00 00 11 198/3 00 02 53 181/3 00 04 36 205/8 00 00 21 198/11 00 01 22 198/14 00 00 81 198/5 00 04 25 198/4 00 06 68 199/5 00 00 21 187/3 00 00 31 100/23 00 01 22 100/25 00 00 11
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 430.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
1260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
SURVEY
NO.
(3) (4) (5) (6)
NANDIGAM KOTTA AGRAHARAM 41/7 00 03 11
41/9 00 12 78
40/4 00 00 26
40/9 00 03 07
39/10 00 00 37
23/4 00 00 39
23/7 00 00 13
22/7 00 01 01
22/8 00 02 39
20/4 00 04 79
19/3 00 01 18
19/4 00 01 07
18/4 00 00 41
55/3 00 01 22
54 00 00 37
53/4 00 03 25
72/1 00 00 11
58/11 00 00 10
58/12 00 01 47
58/16 00 01 04
41/8 00 06 68
40/5 00 02 43
18/5A 00 00 21
NANDIGAM TURAKALA KOTA 141/2 00 00 64
142/18 00 00 60
142/16 00 14 63
142/14 00 01 83
143/5 00 00 63
145/7 00 01 14
146/5 00 01 35
146/6 00 00 70
127/4 00 01 04
127/8 00 01 48
142/17 00 00 11
NANDIGAM VISSAMPALLI 49/20 00 00 19
49/21 00 00 68
49/22 00 00 25
53/14 00 03 62
53/7 00 00 27
54/5a 00 02 15
54/10 00 00 10
104/4 00 01 82
104/3 00 00 14
103/6 00 06 78
49/14 00 03 44
49/13 00 04 25
49/12 00 00 92
52/5A 00 00 81
52/5B 00 04 86
52/5C 00 00 81
53/11 00 04 15
53/8 00 02 53
54/5B 00 07 09
54/7 00 08 20
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1261
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
67/4 00 00 42
67/8 00 00 22
67/9 00 00 87
63/17B 00 01 66
61/8 00 00 69
61/9 00 00 83
61/10 00 00 81
61/25 00 00 81
61/23 00 00 57
60/15 00 01 77
43/6 00 00 41
43/5 00 00 28
43/7 00 00 75
43/9 00 00 70
43/24A 00 01 03
43/24B 00 00 92
44/9 00 00 87
53/1 00 02 05
87/14 00 03 83
89/30 00 00 38
89/32 00 01 75
63/11 00 01 22
NANDIGRAM SANTOSAPURAN 41/7 00 02 41
41/11 00 02 90
40/6A 00 00 57
NANDIGAM LATTIGAM 39/1 00 00 28
39/3 00 01 03
39/5 00 00 44
37/5 00 00 71
35/2 00 01 35
35/5 00 00 15
35/13 00 00 33
32/10 00 00 11
32/9 00 00 22
14/13 00 00 31
14/17 00 00 52
14/18 00 00 57
30/3A/1A 00 00 25
30/3B 00 00 86
26/1 00 20 40
21/1 00 03 43
14/12 00 00 51
30/3A 00 00 21
NANDIGAM CHINALAVUNIPALLI 289/4 00 01 72
1262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
NANDIGAM CHINALAVUNIPALLI 288/9 00 00 64
288/12 00 00 27
295/17 00 02 11
295/18A 00 00 94
295/15 00 00 97
295/13B 00 00 51
295/14B 00 00 90
295/14D 00 01 19
295/9 00 01 04
294/4A 00 00 71
296/11 00 00 37
297/6A 00 00 49
297/7 00 00 22
297/19 00 00 33
297/18 00 00 58
302/15 00 00 83
302/8 00 00 51
302/14 00 00 31
307/8 00 00 79
307/9 00 00 25
309/10 00 00 11
309/9 00 02 36
309/14A 00 04 14
310/6 00 00 85
311/9 00 01 14
310/18 00 01 06
310/20 00 02 00
310/21 00 00 11
308/19B 00 00 41
309/8 00 00 81
295/10 00 00 21
296/12 00 00 11
288/2 00 00 11
298/8 00 02 03
302/17 00 00 31
310/22 00 02 23
309/13 00 01 12
308/18 00 00 51
NANDIGAM SUBHADRA PURAM 52/1 00 03 59
52/4 00 02 36
49/4 00 03 95
49/5 00 05 81
49/7B 00 02 99
49/10B 00 00 68
49/10A 00 01 85
45/13 00 01 96
45/14 00 01 92
45/11 00 00 31
45/15 00 02 37
44/8 00 01 39
44/7 00 00 66
44/6A 00 00 52
44/6B 00 02 05
44/5 00 00 46
44/4 00 04 68
43/15 00 01 11
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1263
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
SURVEY
NO.
(3) (4) (5) (6)
NANDIGAM SUBHADRA PURAM 42/4 00 03 49
42/9 00 00 46
42/5 00 00 11
42/6 00 01 40
42/7 00 01 28
42/11 00 00 55
42/12 00 01 30
52/7 00 00 21
52/8 00 00 11
NANDIGAM POLAVARAM 29/3A 00 00 86
28/3G 00 00 33
28/3H/3 00 02 28
28/3H/1 00 01 94
32/1 00 01 64
32/2 00 00 61
31/1 00 00 71
20/3 00 00 68
19/1E 00 02 21
18/1A 00 03 47
32/5A 00 00 11
NANDIGAM BEJJIPALLI 100/16A 00 00 72
100/16B 00 00 20
100/24 00 00 68
100/20 00 00 51
200/9B 00 00 73
200/12 00 00 18
200/18 00 00 10
199/2 00 00 08
199/10 00 00 67
198/16 00 04 63
203/19 00 00 42
205/1 00 01 54
187/11 00 02 46
181/8 00 00 32
200/2b 00 00 11
198/3 00 02 53
181/3 00 04 36
205/8 00 00 21
198/11 00 01 22
198/14 00 00 81
198/5 00 04 25
198/4 00 06 68
199/5 00 00 21
187/3 00 00 31
100/23 00 01 22
100/25 00 00 11
[F. No. 11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2019
dk- vk- 431-&dsUnzh ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds Ik"pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1687 rkjh[k 26 uoEcj 2018] tks Hkkjr ds jkti= rkjh[k 1 fnlEcj 2018] esa izdkf"kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ'V Hkwfe esa mÙkj izns"k jkT; esa rglhy% nsofj;k] ftyk% nsofj;k esa iVuk&eksfrgkjh&cSrkyiqj 'kk[kk ikbiykbu }kjk isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbZi ykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk"k; dh ?kks'k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 22 fnlEcj 2018 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (1264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ ns nh gS (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik"pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbZiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu"p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk "kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks'k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ'V Hkwfe esa ikbZiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk "kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ"k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks'k.kk ds izdk"ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbZiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
| rglhy % nsofj;k | ftyk % nsofj;k | jkT; % mRrj izns'k | |||
| ekStk@xzke | losZ@Cykd la- ¼IyksV la-½ | lc&Mho &la- | {ks=Qy | ||
| gsDVs;j | ,;j | oxZ ehVj |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| dqle©fu rIik % dpqvkj | 184 | 00 | 00 | 63 | |
| jkmrikj rIik % dpqvkj | 455 | 00 | 00 | 36 | |
| pdek/k¨ mQZ efB;k rIik % dpqvkj | 76 27 31 | 00 00 00 | 13 00 07 | 18 65 92 | |
| ljS;k | 77v | 00 | 00 | 20 | |
| rIik % dpqvkj | 77c 70 68 66 | 00 00 00 00 | 04 00 00 01 | 35 95 64 80 | |
| iMjh rIik % lqj©yh | 73 | 00 | 00 | 60 | |
| ?kVSyk xkth rIik % dpqvkj | 443 467 465 281 | 00 00 00 00 | 00 03 12 00 | 36 00 00 80 | |
| cM+gjk rIik % dpqvkj | 539 538 | 00 00 | 07 00 | 50 36 | |
| i¨[kj fHkaMk rIik % x¨cjbZ | 48 46 47 72 | 00 00 00 00 | 06 06 06 11 | 30 00 00 00 | |
| x©jk rIik % x©jk | 1014 221 | 00 00 | 30 00 | 96 70 | |
| cjkjh rIik % /krqjk | 254 253 252 72 | 00 00 00 00 | 00 04 04 11 | 60 70 00 00 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)16/2018-ओआर-I/ई-26860]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 431.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 1687 dated the 26th November, 2018, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1265 Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India dated the 1st December, 2018 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying 'Patna – Motihari - Baitalpur Branch Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Tehsil : Deoria, Deoria District in the state of Uttar Pradesh by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 22nd December 2018.
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
| Tehsil : Deoria | District : Deoria | State : Uttar Pradesh | |||
| Mouja / Village | Survey/Block No. | Sub-Div-No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| KUSMAUNI TAPPA: KACHUAR | 184 | 00 | 00 | 63 | |
| RAUTPAR TAPPA: KACHUAR | 455 | 00 | 00 | 36 | |
| CHAKMADHO | 76 | 00 | 13 | 18 | |
| URF MATHIYA TAPPA: KACHUAR | 27 31 | 00 00 | 00 07 | 65 92 | |
| SARAIYA TAPPA: KACHUAR | 77A 77B 70 68 66 | 00 00 00 00 00 | 00 04 00 00 01 | 20 35 95 64 80 | |
| PADARI TAPPA: SURAULI | 73 | 00 | 00 | 60 | |
| GHATAILA GHAZI TAPPA: KACHUAR | 443 467 465 281 | 00 00 00 00 | 00 03 12 00 | 36 00 00 80 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| BADAHARA | 539 | 00 | 07 | 50 | |
| TAPPA: KACHUAR | 538 | 00 | 00 | 36 | |
| POKHAR BHINDA TAPPA: GOBARAI | 48 46 | 00 00 | 06 06 | 30 00 | |
| 47 72 | 00 00 | 06 11 | 00 00 | ||
| GAURA TAPPA: GAURA | 1014 221 | 00 00 | 30 00 | 96 70 | |
| BARARI TAPPA :DHATURA | 254 253 252 72 | 00 00 00 00 | 00 04 04 11 | 60 70 00 00 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)16/2018-OR-I/E-26860]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2019
dk- vk- 432-&dsUnzh ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds Ik"pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1686 rkjh[k 26 uoEcj 2018] tks Hkkjr ds jkti= rkjh[k 1 fnlEcj 2018] esa izdkf"kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ'V Hkwfe esa mÙkj izns"k jkT; esa rglhy% HkkVij jkuh ftyk% nsofj;k esa iVuk&eksfrgkjh&cSrkyiqj 'kk[kk ikbiykbu }kjk isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbZi ykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk"k; dh ?kks'k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 22 fnlEcj 2018 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ ns nh gS (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik"pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbZiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu"p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk "kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks'k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ'V Hkwfe esa ikbZiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk "kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ"k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks'k.kk ds izdk"ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbZiykbZu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbZiykbZu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
| rglhy % HkkVij jkuh | ftyk % nsofj;k | jkT; % mRrj izns'k | |||
| ekStk@xzke | losZ@Cykd la- ¼IyksV la-½ | lc&Mho &la- | {ks=Qy | ||
| gsDVs;j | ,;j | oxZ ehVj |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| HkBgh tehu rIik % cfyou | 31 | 00 | 05 | 88 | |
| jrfl;k rIik % cfyou | 913 | 00 | 00 | 36 | |
| idfM+;k dqaUM rIik % cfyou | 243 | 00 | 06 | 51 | |
| fldfV;k nhukpd rIik % cfyou | 198 | 00 | 00 | 48 | |
| xt gM+ok rIik % xskrek | 681 581 589 575 | 00 00 00 00 | 12 04 11 08 | 89 02 00 00 | |
| rglhy % HkkVij jkuh | ftyk % nsofj;k | jkT; % mRrj izns'k | |||
| ekStk@xzke | losZ@Cykd la- ¼IyksV la-½ | lc&Mho &la- | {ks=Qy | ||
| gsDVs;j | gsDVs;j | gsDVs;j | |||
| VM+ok rIik % xskrek | 477 352 353 | 00 00 00 | 01 02 13 | 04 70 50 | |
| 344 350 345 | 00 00 00 | 10 10 08 | 00 00 50 | ||
| cyMhgk rIik % xskrek | 33 | 00 | 01 | 45 | |
| cjkÃikj ik.Mss rIik % xskrek | 900 899 | 00 00 | 03 01 | 64 37 | |
| c³dk xkao rIik % gosyh | 557 691 708 683 | 00 00 00 00 | 11 00 00 01 | 07 20 36 45 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)16/2018-ओआर-I/ई-26860]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 432.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 1686 dated the 26th November, 2018, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India dated the 1st December, 2018 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying 'Patna – Motihari - Baitalpur Branch Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Tehsil : Bhatpar Rani, Deoria District in the state of Uttar Pradesh by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 22nd December 2018.
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
1268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
| Tehsil :Bhatpar Rani | District : Deoria | State : Uttar Pradesh | |||
| Mouja / Village | Survey/Block No. | Sub-Div-No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Bhathahi Jamin Tappa : Balivan | 31 | 00 | 05 | 88 | |
| Ratsiya Tappa : Balivan | 913 | 00 | 00 | 36 | |
| Pakdiya Kund | 243 | 00 | 06 | 51 | |
| Tappa : Balivan | |||||
| Sikatiya Dinachak Tappa : Balivan | 198 | 00 | 00 | 48 | |
| Gaj Hadwa Tappa : Gautama | 681 581 589 575 | 00 00 00 00 | 12 04 11 08 | 89 02 00 00 | |
| Tadwa Tappa : Gautama | 477 352 353 344 350 345 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 01 02 13 10 10 08 | 04 70 50 00 00 50 | |
| Baldiha Tappa : Gautama | 33 | 00 | 01 | 45 | |
| Baraipar Pandey Tappa : Gautama | 900 899 | 00 00 | 03 01 | 64 37 | |
| Barka Gaon Tappa : Haweli | 557 691 708 683 | 00 00 00 00 | 11 00 00 01 | 07 20 36 45 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)16/2018-OR-I/E-26860]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आआआआ. 433. 433. 433. 433————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1269और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिmना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाशापटनम - 530004, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| िजला : िवशाखापटनम राज्य : आं राज्य : आं प्रदेश िजला : िवशाखापटनम िजला : िजला : प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
611 00 00 07 310 00 00 02 312/1 00 00 21 308 00 01 81 315/3 00 00 03 296/1 00 00 06 294 00 00 09 317/3 00 00 21 285 00 00 09 284 00 00 15 265 00 00 06 266 00 00 03 271 00 00 01 178 00 00 04 176 00 00 50 169 00 00 05
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव1270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 433.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
611 00 00 07 310 00 00 02 312/1 00 00 21 308 00 01 81 315/3 00 00 03 296/1 00 00 06 294 00 00 09 317/3 00 00 21 285 00 00 09 284 00 00 15 265 00 00 06 266 00 00 03 271 00 00 01 178 00 00 04 176 00 00 50 169 00 00 05 170 00 00 04
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 434434434434....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में
पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1271और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिmना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाशापटनम - 530004, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% सव% सव% सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
291/4 00 00 42
291/6 00 04 12
290/1 00 00 91
290/2 00 02 16
290/4 00 02 17
290/5 00 02 70
290/6 00 01 93
290/11 00 00 66
289/2 00 06 12
288/1 00 02 04
288/2 00 01 32
290/7 00 00 41
288/3 00 02 03
पलासा गुडारि 280/9 00 00 38
280/10 00 09 51
275/18B 00 03 65
275/18A 00 01 22
280/4 00 01 62
पलासा कोयुजोला 298/4 00 11 26 1272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% सव% सव% सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
पलासा कोयुजोला 297/5 00 00 87
297/6 00 00 22
297/10 00 02 07
297/8 00 00 29
297/9 00 00 25
297/2 00 02 81
317/3 00 00 38
332/1 00 04 17
317/9 00 11 74
293/5 00 01 83
पलासा इ'ापाड़- 273/5 00 01 54
273/3 00 00 12
पलासा मेगिलिपाड़- 259/11 00 00 18
259/7 00 00 19
260/1 00 01 86
255/5 00 01 71
256/4 00 01 22
255/4 00 01 37
239/1 00 03 82
259/1 00 00 11
258/11 00 00 11
144/16 00 02 64
239/2 00 00 71
पलासा सुन्नाड़ा 144/16 00 03 04
144/4 00 10 16
145/18 00 04 66
145/17 00 02 57
145/15 00 01 32
145/14 00 02 34
145/12 00 02 08
149/17 00 01 05
149/15 00 00 93
149/14 00 00 30
148/8 00 00 45
148/9 00 01 10
148/4 00 00 28
128/6 00 05 06 128/4B 00 07 09[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1273
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% सव% सव% सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
128/4A 00 00 61
128/4C 00 02 72
पलासा शासानाम 164/1 00 00 11
164/3 00 01 46
166/1 00 08 42
167/7 00 01 31
168/14 00 02 32
179/9 00 00 17
179/8 00 01 24
179/7 00 01 32
179/5 00 01 46
178/3 00 02 68
178/11 00 00 64
178/10 00 01 28
174/1A 00 02 25
167/9A 00 00 61
167/8A 00 03 04
167/4 00 07 90
पलासा राजागोपालापुरम 52/8 00 01 86
51/6 00 03 37
51/1 00 05 04
49/6 00 02 05
पलासा उदयापुरम 278/3 00 01 45
276/1 00 01 31
276/2 00 03 64
पलासा ईदुरापल्लि 20/3A 00 00 48
20/3B 00 00 39
20/8 00 00 11
20/17 00 01 20
20/11 00 00 16
21/14 00 02 34
21/15 00 02 11
36/1 00 00 11
35/7 00 00 17
35/6 00 00 57
33/22 00 00 94 35/15B 00 00 871274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% सव% सव% सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
35/15D 00 00 14
33/29 00 00 37
39/6 00 00 48
35/15C 00 01 02
36/12 00 00 21
35/15 00 01 22
पलासा के दारिपुरम 13/1 00 06 21
13/3 00 00 12
13/4 00 00 29
13/16 00 00 37
13/18 00 00 25
15/5 00 00 45
15/6 00 01 79
32/25 00 00 37
32/24 00 00 50
32/30 00 00 56
32/28 00 01 42
71/10 00 01 25
71/2 00 00 31
71/4 00 00 11
44/14 00 01 44
44/7 00 00 69
45/1 00 00 39
45/2 00 00 38
45/3 00 00 19
45/4 00 00 22
42/20 00 00 33
42/23 00 00 36
47/14 00 00 49
47/12 00 00 66
47/11 00 00 17
55/5 00 00 92
55/1 00 00 33
55/14 00 00 21
54/18 00 00 35[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1275
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% सव% सव% सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
51/9 00 00 72
51/10 00 00 19
71/11 00 00 21
32/23 00 00 11
पलासा बंतुकोत्तू(cid:10) 88/11 00 02 29
89/2G 00 02 01
89/2H 00 00 65
89/2F 00 00 21
164/1 00 01 84
163/5 00 00 46
163/6 00 00 59
163/12 00 01 20
163/13 00 00 68
163/14 00 00 26
167/8 00 03 69
167/6 00 00 13
167/1 00 01 26
169/15 00 00 16
170/2 00 03 13
170/6 00 00 96
170/7 00 02 75
171/8 00 01 02
176/7 00 00 33
171/11 00 00 64
176/9 00 00 51
178 00 09 08
180/3C 00 00 12
180/1C 00 03 75
180/3A 00 06 49
210 00 12 06
209/4 00 00 15
209/1B 00 00 81
203/4C 00 00 27
204/1A/1 00 02 62
167/13 00 00 11
1276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% सव% सव% सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
163/15 00 01 62
170/3 00 03 24
204/1A/3 00 11 13
204/1B/1 00 08 20
204/1B/3 00 00 11
205/1B/1 00 11 54
205/1A/1 00 01 8 3
88/9 00 01 72
पलासा पेद्दानारायणापुरम 118/10 00 04 94
118/6 00 03 68
120/4 00 01 24
121/2 00 01 27
122/3 00 00 38
122/1 00 11 25
118/7 00 04 15
पलासा अमलाकु िड़या 30/19 00 00 16
30/17A 00 00 20
30/18 00 02 03
30/11 00 16 03
30/8 00 00 64
30/13 00 00 44
30/6 00 00 54
30/2 00 00 97
34/13 00 00 43
34/3B 00 01 16
35/3E 00 00 32
36/14D 00 01 42
36/15 00 00 16
36/16 00 00 29
36/18A 00 02 54
36/19A 00 01 02
37/11 00 00 31
37/4C 00 00 27
37/5 00 00 66
38/1G 00 00 73
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1277
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आं प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% सव% सव% सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
42/2 00 00 30
43/4A 00 00 46
43/2 00 00 18
17/14 00 00 42
17/5 00 00 35
17/4B 00 00 33
17/4A 00 00 18
17/3 00 00 18
14/1C 00 00 72
14/1A 00 00 24
13/13 00 00 61
13/7 00 00 21
13/3B 00 01 23
13/3C 00 01 13
13/2 00 00 18
5/8B 00 01 02
43/9 00 00 21
43/10 00 00 61
5/2 00 00 81
6/1B 00 02 43
पलासा मोदुगुलापु'ि 12 00 11 03
| िजला : िवशाखापटनम िजला : िवशाखापटनम राज्य : आं राज्य : आं प्रदेश िजला : िजला : प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं डल का ं म म डल का नामनामनामनाम डल का ं डल का ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
यलामंिचिल कृ ष्णापुरम 216/9X 00 01 62
211/2 00 00 18
200/3 00 00 53
200/2 00 00 57
204/34C 00 01 74
204/33 00 00 06
204/17D 00 04 37
201/1 00 00 35
1278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| िजला : िवशाखापटनम िजला : िवशाखापटनम राज्य : आं राज्य : आं प्रदेश िजला : िजला : प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं डल का ं म म डल का नामनामनामनाम डल का ं डल का ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
175/2H 00 00 05
175/2C 00 00 04
175/4A 00 00 05
175/4B 00 00 02
118/6 00 00 08
118/15 00 06 78
118/14 00 04 23
118/23 00 00 05
यलामंिचिल पदमानाबाराजुपेटा 144/1D 00 00 50
150/2G 00 07 24
150/2C 00 07 19
150/2H 00 03 14
151 00 08 14
128/6 00 01 93
129/6 00 00 18
129/5 00 01 32
129/2 00 06 75
130/2 00 00 61
130/1 00 06 08
137/7 00 01 93
यलामंिचिल पुलापरित 67 00 00 03
64/2 00 00 01
64/3 00 00 06
62 00 11 24
61 00 01 13
125/1A-6 00 03 95
126/3F-6 00 01 15
126/3F-5 00 01 52
126/3F-4 00 01 70
126/3E 00 00 13
यलामंिचिल एटिकोप्पाका 264 00 07 28[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1279
| िजला : िवशाखापटनम िजला : िवशाखापटनम राज्य : आं राज्य : आं प्रदेश िजला : िजला : प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं डल का ं म म डल का नामनामनामनाम डल का ं डल का ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
279/15 00 00 07 279/10 00 00 06 279/11 00 00 33 279/9 00 00 03 278/4 00 00 01 277 00 00 01 275 00 01 10
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 434.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the State of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
291/4 00 00 42 291/6 00 04 121280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. |
290/11 00 00 66
289/2 00 06 12
288/1 00 02 04
288/2 00 01 32
290/7 00 00 41
288/3 00 02 03
PALASA GUDARI 280/9 00 00 38
280/10 00 09 51
275/18B 00 03 65
275/18A 00 01 22
280/4 00 01 62
280/5 00 01 12
PALASA KOYUJOLA 298/4 00 11 26
298/7 00 02 45
297/5 00 00 87
297/6 00 00 22
297/10 00 02 07
297/8 00 00 29
297/9 00 00 25
297/2 00 02 81
317/3 00 00 38
332/1 00 04 17
317/9 00 11 74
293/5 00 01 83
PALASA ITTAPADU 273/5 00 01 54
273/3 00 00 12
PALASA MEGILLIPADU 259/11 00 00 18
259/7 00 00 19
260/1 00 01 86
255/5 00 01 71
256/4 00 01 22
255/4 00 01 37
239/1 00 03 82
259/1 00 00 11
258/11 00 00 11
144/16 00 02 64
PALASA SUNNADA 144/16 00 03 04 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1281
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. |
145/15 00 01 32
145/14 00 02 34
145/12 00 02 08
149/17 00 01 05
149/15 00 00 93
149/14 00 00 30
148/8 00 00 45
148/9 00 01 10
148/4 00 00 28
129 00 13 52
128/15 00 15 38
128/6 00 05 06
128/4B 00 07 09
128/5 00 01 22
128/4A 00 00 61
128/4C 00 02 72
PALASA SASANAM 164/1 00 00 11
164/3 00 01 46
166/1 00 08 42
167/7 00 01 31
168/14 00 02 32
179/9 00 00 17
179/8 00 01 24
179/7 00 01 32
179/5 00 01 46
178/3 00 02 68
178/11 00 00 64
178/10 00 01 28
174/1A 00 02 25
167/9A 00 00 61
167/8A 00 03 04
167/4 00 07 90
PALASA RAJAGOPALA PURAM 52/8 00 01 86
51/6 00 03 37
51/1 00 05 04
49/6 00 02 05
PALASA UDAYAPURAM 278/3 00 01 45
PALASA IDURAPALLI 20/3A 00 00 481282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. |
20/8 00 00 11
20/17 00 01 20
20/11 00 00 16
21/14 00 02 34
21/15 00 02 11
36/1 00 00 11
35/7 00 00 17
35/6 00 00 57
35/14 00 00 58
33/22 00 00 94
35/15B 00 00 87
33/27 00 00 82
35/15D 00 00 14
33/29 00 00 37
39/6 00 00 48
35/15C 00 01 02
36/12 00 00 21
35/15 00 01 22
PALASA KEDARIPURAM 13/1 00 06 21
13/3 00 00 12
13/4 00 00 29
13/16 00 00 37
13/18 00 00 25
15/5 00 00 45
15/6 00 01 79
32/25 00 00 37
32/24 00 00 50
32/30 00 00 56
32/28 00 01 42
71/10 00 01 25
71/2 00 00 31
71/4 00 00 11
44/14 00 01 44
44/7 00 00 69
45/1 00 00 39
45/2 00 00 38
42/23 00 00 36[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1283
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. |
47/12 00 00 66
47/11 00 00 17
55/5 00 00 92
55/1 00 00 33
55/14 00 00 21
55/18 00 00 22
55/16 00 00 31
54/19 00 00 24
54/18 00 00 35
53/1 00 01 50
51/9 00 00 72
51/10 00 00 19
71/11 00 00 21
32/23 00 00 11
PALASA BANTU KOTTURU 88/11 00 02 29
89/2G 00 02 01
89/2H 00 00 65
89/2F 00 00 21
164/1 00 01 84
163/5 00 00 46
163/6 00 00 59
163/12 00 01 20
163/13 00 00 68
163/14 00 00 26
167/8 00 03 69
167/6 00 00 13
167/1 00 01 26
169/15 00 00 16
170/2 00 03 13
170/6 00 00 96
170/7 00 02 75
171/8 00 01 02
176/7 00 00 33
171/11 00 00 64
176/9 00 00 51
178 00 09 08
1284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. |
209/1B 00 00 81
203/4C 00 00 27
204/1A/1 00 02 62
167/13 00 00 11
176/4 00 00 41
165/15 00 00 11
170/8 00 01 32
170/5 00 01 22
162/12A 00 00 81
163/15 00 01 62
170/3 00 03 24
204/1A/3 00 11 13
204/1B/1 00 08 20
204/1B/3 00 00 11
205/1B/1 00 11 54
205/1A/1 00 01 83
88/9 00 01 72
PALASA PEDDANARAYANAPURAM 118/10 00 04 94
118/6 00 03 68
120/4 00 01 24
121/2 00 01 27
122/3 00 00 38
122/1 00 11 25
118/7 00 04 15
PALASA AMALAKUDIA 30/19 00 00 16
30/17A 00 00 20
30/18 00 02 03
30/11 00 16 03
30/8 00 00 64
30/13 00 00 44
30/6 00 00 54
30/2 00 00 97
34/13 00 00 43
34/3B 00 01 16
35/3E 00 00 32
36/14D 00 01 42
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1285
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. |
37/4C 00 00 27
37/5 00 00 66
38/1G 00 00 73
39/3 00 00 14
40/20E 00 02 33
41/19 00 00 52
41/13C 00 00 50
41/6B 00 00 52
42/2 00 00 30
43/4A 00 00 46
43/2 00 00 18
17/14 00 00 42
17/5 00 00 35
17/4B 00 00 33
17/4A 00 00 18
17/3 00 00 18
14/1C 00 00 72
14/1A 00 00 24
13/13 00 00 61
13/7 00 00 21
13/3B 00 01 23
13/3C 00 01 13
13/2 00 00 18
5/8B 00 01 02
43/9 00 00 21
43/10 00 00 61
5/2 00 00 81
6/1B 00 02 43
PALASA MODUGULAPUTTI 12 00 11 03
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
211/2 00 00 18 200/3 00 00 53 200/2 00 00 57
204/33 00 00 061286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
201/1 00 00 35
201/2 00 00 74
202/1 00 00 79
175/1A 00 00 01
175/2F 00 00 04
175/2G 00 00 01
175/2H 00 00 05
175/2C 00 00 04
175/4A 00 00 05
175/4B 00 00 02
118/6 00 00 08
118/15 00 06 78
118/14 00 04 23
118/23 00 00 05
YELAMANCHILLI PADMANABHARAJUPETA 144/1D 00 00 50
150/2G 00 07 24
150/2C 00 07 19
150/2H 00 03 14
151 00 08 14
128/6 00 01 93
129/6 00 00 18
129/5 00 01 32
129/2 00 06 75
130/2 00 00 61
130/1 00 06 08
137/7 00 01 93
YELAMANCHILLI PULAPARTHI 67 00 00 03
64/2 00 00 01
64/3 00 00 06
62 00 11 24
61 00 01 13
125/1A-6 00 03 95
126/3F-6 00 01 15
126/3F-5 00 01 52
126/3F-4 00 01 70
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1287
| DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
279/6 00 00 05 279/15 00 00 07 279/10 00 00 06 279/11 00 00 33 279/9 00 00 03 278/4 00 00 01 277 00 00 01 275 00 01 10
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 435.435.435.435.————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिmना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाशापटनम - 530004, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| िजला : िवशाखापटनम राज्य : आं राज्य : आं प्रदेश िजला : िवशाखापटनम िजला : िजला : प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| एस. रायवरम | ज ंगुलुvवेलम्पालेम | 100 | 00 | 00 | 04 |
| 125 | 00 | 02 | 61 | ||
| 303/1 | 00 | 00 | 89 | ||
| 304 | 00 | 00 | 11 | ||
| 306/3 | 00 | 00 | 32 | ||
| एस. रायवरम | व ेमागिरि | 28 | 00 | 06 | 48 |
| एस. रायवरम | व ेमागिरि | 31/1 | 00 | 00 | 02 |
| 31/3 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| 31/2 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| 31/4 | 00 | 00 | 04 | ||
| 31/5 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 35/8 | 00 | 00 | 06 | ||
| 46/2F | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| 46/2D | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 43/1 | 00 | 02 | 36 | ||
| 42/2 | 00 | 00 | 71 | ||
| 41/2 | 00 | 00 | 21 | ||
| 137/2 | 00 | 00 | 24 | ||
| 128 | 00 | 02 | 05 | ||
| 126 | 00 | 00 | 19 | ||
| 144 | 00 | 00 | 9 | ||
| 148 | 00 | 00 | 57 | ||
| 147 | 00 | 00 | 04 | ||
| 152 | 00 | 00 | 53 | ||
| 154 | 00 | 02 | 95 | ||
| एस. रायवरम | प ेटासूदिपुरम | 50/4A | 00 | 00 | 54 |
| 50/2 | 00 | 02 | 95 | ||
| 48 | 00 | 03 | 48 | ||
| 110/1A | 00 | 04 | 96 | ||
| 113 | 00 | 51 | 30 | ||
| 114/2 | 00 | 26 | 30 | ||
| 121/2 | 00 | 25 | 70 | ||
| 121/3 | 00 | 05 | 46 | ||
| 122 | 00 | 02 | 83 | ||
| 324/1 | 00 | 09 | 26 | ||
| 328/2 | 00 | 01 | 80 | ||
| 338/1 | 00 | 00 | 17 |
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 435.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| S.RAYAVARAM | JANGULURU VELAMPALEM | 100 | 00 | 00 | 04 |
| 125 | 00 | 02 | 61 | ||
| 303/1 | 00 | 00 | 89 | ||
| 304 | 00 | 00 | 11 | ||
| 306/3 | 00 | 00 | 32 | ||
| S.RAYAVARAM | VEMAGIRI | 28 31/1 | 00 00 | 06 00 | 48 02 |
| 31/3 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| 31/2 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| 31/4 | 00 | 00 | 04 | ||
| 31/5 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 35/8 | 00 | 00 | 06 | ||
| 46/2F | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| 46/2D | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 43/1 | 00 | 02 | 36 | ||
| 42/2 | 00 | 00 | 71 | ||
| 41/2 | 00 | 00 | 21 | ||
| 137/2 | 00 | 00 | 24 | ||
| 128 | 00 | 02 | 05 | ||
| 126 | 00 | 00 | 19 | ||
| 144 | 00 | 00 | 9 | ||
| 148 | 00 | 00 | 57 | ||
| 147 | 00 | 00 | 04 | ||
| 152 | 00 | 00 | 53 | ||
| 154 | 00 | 02 | 95 | ||
| S.RAYAVARAM | PETASUDIPURAM | 50/4A | 00 | 00 | 54 |
| 50/2 | 00 | 02 | 95 | ||
| 48 | 00 | 03 | 48 | ||
| 110/1A | 00 | 04 | 96 | ||
| 113 | 00 | 51 | 30 | ||
| 114/2 | 00 | 26 | 30 | ||
| 121/2 | 00 | 25 | 70 | ||
| 121/3 | 00 | 05 | 46 | ||
| 122 | 00 | 02 | 83 | ||
| 324/1 | 00 | 09 | 26 | ||
| 328/2 | 00 | 01 | 80 | ||
| 338/1 | 00 | 00 | 17 |
[F. No. 11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
1290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 436436436436....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना,चौथी मंजिल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिmना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाखापटनम - 530004, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश प्रदेश | |||||
| म म ं ं म म डल का नाम ं ं | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
158/15 00 00 10 158/4 00 00 42 158/6 00 01 16 170/13 00 01 39 170/15 00 00 28 170/16 00 01 39 170/10 00 00 24 170/19 00 01 39 171/2 00 01 33 169/1 00 00 19 214/2 00 00 38 214/9 00 00 38 214/33 00 00 84[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1291
नंदिगाम आकु लारघुनाधापुरम 219/17 00 00 31
220/12 00 01 28
220/13 00 00 81
214/10 00 00 11
214/34 00 00 81
220/18 00 00 11
आमुदालावलासा कनुगुलावलासा 221/11 00 02 13
221/8 00 00 34
221/6 00 01 14
220/10 00 01 58
220/12 00 02 54
220/7 00 00 57
220/5 00 01 07
219/6 00 00 24
219/8 00 02 11
219/2 00 00 73
217/6 00 02 87
217/7 00 01 48
217/12 00 00 97
220/12 00 01 28
162/8 00 01 15
159/3 00 01 64
159/1 00 01 72
157/40 00 00 71
157/41 00 03 04
157/42 00 00 41
आमुदालावलासा किलवरम 241/3 00 01 13
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 436.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
1292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTCComplex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
NANDIGAM
158/3 00 00 98
158/15 00 00 10
158/4 00 00 42
158/6 00 01 16
170/13 00 01 39
170/15 00 00 28
170/16 00 01 39
170/10 00 00 24
170/19 00 01 39
171/2 00 01 33
169/1 00 00 19
214/2 00 00 38
214/9 00 00 38
214/33 00 00 84
210/13 00 00 12
210/12 00 00 07
210/10 00 00 17
219/15 00 00 58
219/17 00 00 31
220/12 00 01 28
220/13 00 00 81
214/10 00 00 11
214/34 00 00 81
220/18 00 00 11
AMADALAVALASA KANUGULAVALASA 221/11 00 02 13
221/8 00 00 34
221/6 00 01 14
220/10 00 01 58
220/12 00 02 54
220/7 00 00 57
220/5 00 01 07
219/6 00 00 24
219/8 00 02 11
219/2 00 00 73
217/6 00 02 87
217/7 00 01 48
217/12 00 00 97
162/8 00 01 15
159/3 00 01 64
159/1 00 01 72
157/40 00 00 71
157/41 00 03 04
157/42 00 00 41
AMADALAVALASA KALIVARAM 241/3 00 01 13
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1293नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
काकाकाका....आआआआ. 437. 437. 437. 437....————के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम एवं खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम में उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम,1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसमे इसके पxात उक्त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1813 तारीख
03.08.2017 िजसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 32, भाग-II, खfड 3, उप-खfड (ii) तारीख 12.08.2017 मे किया गया है, द्वारा उस अिधसूचना में संलz अनुसूची में विनिZदष्ट ओिड़शा राज्य के तहसील : िपिपिल, िजला : पुरी की भूिम में, ओिड़शा राज्य में पारादीप से तेलंगाना राज्य में हैदराबाद तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड के द्वारा _ियान्वित किए जा रहे "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना" के संबंध में पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के िलये उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने के िलये अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त राजपत्र अिधसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थ{। और उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी नें के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है। और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर िवचार करने के पxात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूिम पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलये अपेक्षित है, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अर्जन करने का विनिxय किया है।
अत:, अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हए, एतद् द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अिधसूचना से संलz अनुसूची में विनिZदष्ट भूिम में पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार अMजत किया जाता है।
और के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार उक्त अिधिनयम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए, यह निद|श देती है कि उक्त भूिम में उपयोग का अिधकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार में िनिहत होने के बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड में िनिहत होगा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| तहसील तहसील---- िपिपिल तहसील तहसील िपिपिल | िजला िजला ---- पुरीपुरीपुरीपुरी िजला िजला | राज्य राज्य –––– ओिड़शा राज्य राज्य ओिड़शा | ||
| गाँवगाँवगाँवगाँव काकाकाका नामनामनामनाम | प्लॉट प्लॉट नंनंनंनं.... प्लॉट | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वर्ग वर्ग मीटर वर्गवर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
390 00 04 18 364 00 05 38 364/2960 00 00 55 364/2969 00 00 30 364/2976 00 00 61 364/2983 00 00 61 364/2709 00 05 28 357 00 05 53 356 00 04 81 355 00 04 29 353 00 06 05 329 00 07 281294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िसउला 328 00 14 65
320 00 00 10
258 00 02 55
248 00 01 48
232 00 10 09
246 00 00 75
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)236/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13717]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S. O. 437.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 32, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 12.08.2017 vide S.O. Number 1813 dated 03.08.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) hereinafter referred to as the said Act, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil- Pipili, District-Puri in Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Hyderabad in the State of Telengana by Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public, And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report to the Central Government;
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
| Tehsil : PIPILI | District : PURI | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
SIULA 366 00 07 66
390 00 04 18
364 00 05 38
364/2960 00 00 55
364/2969 00 00 30
364/2976 00 00 61
364/2983 00 00 61
357 00 05 53 [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1295
SIULA 353 00 06 05
329 00 07 28
328 00 14 65
320 00 00 10
258 00 02 55
248 00 01 48
232 00 10 09
246 00 00 75
[F. No. 11025(11)236/2017-OR-I/E-13717]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आआआआ. . . . 438438438438....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूिम में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिmना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, िवशाखापटनम - 530004, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची अनुसूची
| िजला : िवशाखापटनम राज्य : आं राज्य : आं प्रदेश िजला : िवशाखापटनम िजला : िजला : प्रदेश | |||||
| म म म म ंडल का नाम | ाम का नाम | सव नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
116 00 00 04 78/5A 00 00 01 78/3C 00 00 13 78/3A 00 00 05
24 00 00 061296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
रामबिल्लि राजाला 21/1A 00 00 05
28/12 00 00 03
15/7 00 00 58
15/6 00 00 68
78/2A1 00 00 10
78/4 00 00 61
रामबिल्लि मुराकाड़ा 5 00 00 04
रामबिल्लि कोत्ताबोलु 267 00 00 08
252 00 00 14
250 00 00 63
3 00 02 23
5 00 00 02
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 438.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : VISAKHAPATNAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
116 00 00 04 78/5A 00 00 01 78/3C 00 00 13 78/3A 00 00 05 79/1A 00 00 02 76/4 00 00 02[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1297
RAMBILLI RAJALA 15/6 00 00 68
78/2A1 00 00 10
78/4 00 00 61 RAMBILLI MURAKADA 5 00 00 04 RAMBILLI KATTABOLU 267 00 00 08
252 00 00 14
250 00 00 63
3 00 02 23
5 00 00 02
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 439439439439....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, िजसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी के . ए. एस जेन्निसन, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, प्लॉट संख्या 33, कनका दुर्गा ऑफिसर्स कॉलोनी, गुvनानक नगर मेन रोड विजयवाड़ा-520008, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| िजला: राज्य: आन् िजला:वेस्टवेस्टवेस्टवेस्ट गोदावरी िजला: िजला: गोदावरी राज्य: आन् प्रदेप्रदेप्रदेप्रदेशशशश राज्य: आन् राज्य: आन् | |||||
| म ं डलमंडलमंडलमंडल का नाम का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्र फल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
51/8 00 00 41
51/9 00 10 93
कामावरपुकोटा रामन्नापालेम 64/2 00 44 52
75/4 00 31 17
13/1 00 23 68
कामावरपुकोटा गुन्टुपल्लि 121/2 00 28 74 366 00 16 191298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
को(cid:127)यालागुदेम राजवाराम 562 00 04 50
560/1 00 14 57
560/2 00 10 12
562/6 00 49 38
577 00 33 59
पोलावरम गुताला 797 00 31 17
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 439.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person, who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. K.A.S Jennyson, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 33, Kanaka Durga officer's Colony,Gurunank Nagar Main Road, Vijayawada - 520008 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| District : West Godavari | State : Andhra Pradesh | ||||
| Name of Mandal | Name of Village | Survey No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Kamavarapukota Mankenapalli 57/7 00 04 46
51/8 00 00 41
51/9 00 10 93
Kamavarapukota Ramannapalem 64/2 00 44 52
75/4 00 31 17
13/1 00 23 68
66/1 00 07 69
Kamavarapukota Guntupalli 121/2 00 28 74
366 00 16 19
Koyyalagudem Rajavaram 562 00 04 50
560/1 00 14 57
560/2 00 10 12
562/6 00 49 38
577 00 33 59
Polavaram Gutala 797 00 31 17
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 440440440440....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में
पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल
कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1299और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी के . ए. एस जेन्निसन, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, प्लॉट संख्या 33, कनका दुर्गा ऑफिसर्स कॉलोनी, गुvनानक नगर मेन रोड विजयवाड़ा-520008, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| राज्य: आन् जिला: कृ ष्णा राज्य: आन् प्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेशप्रदेश राज्य: आन् राज्य: आन् | |||||
| म ंडलमंडलमंडलमंडल का नाम का नाम | ाम का नाम | सव नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्र फल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| ए.कोंडू | माधवरम वेस्ट | 194 | 00 | 04 | 05 |
| म ैलवरम | दासुल्लापालेम | 108/1 | 00 | 09 | 71 |
| र े3ीगूडेम | *वरम | 263/1 | 00 | 02 | 02 |
| र े3ीगूडेम | म ुचिनापल्ली | 104/1 | 00 | 16 | 10 |
| विस्संनापेट | त ेल्लदेवरपल्लि | 337/1 | 00 | 23 | 97 |
| 337/2 | 00 | 36 | 93 | ||
| 339 | 00 | 33 | 70 | ||
| 384 | 00 | 28 | 71 | ||
| 85 | 00 | 28 | 77 | ||
| जी.कोन्डूरू | च ेवुटु | 58/1B1C | 00 | 03 | 71 |
| 54/2A | 00 | 13 | 97 | ||
| 54/3A | 00 | 08 | 14 | ||
| 53/2C | 00 | 44 | 30 | ||
| जी.कोन्डूरू | कोन्डूरू | 45/1 | 00 | 09 | 28 |
| 47 | 00 | 76 | 35 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 440.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
1300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person, who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. K.A.S Jennyson, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 33, Kanaka Durga officer's Colony,Gurunank Nagar Main Road, Vijayawada - 520008 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| District : Krishna | State : Andhra Pradesh | ||||
| Name of Mandal | Name of Village | Survey No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
A konduru Madhavaram West 194 00 04 05 Mylavaram Dasullapalem 108/1 00 09 71 Reddigudem Rudravaram 263/1 00 02 02 Reddigudem Muchinapalli 104/1 00 16 10 Vissanapet Telladevarapalli 337/1 00 23 97
337/2 00 36 93
339 00 33 70
384 00 28 71
85 00 28 77 G Konduru Chevuturu 58/1B1C 00 03 71
54/2A 00 13 97
54/3A 00 08 14
53/2C 00 44 30 G Konduru Konduru 45/1 00 09 28
47 00 76 35
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ.आ.आ.आ. 441441441441....————कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंh प्रदेश राज्य में
पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के _ियान्वयन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपjरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और कें (cid:15)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से ऊपाबX अनुसूची में वMणत है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Bए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी Uक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वMणत भूमि में हितबX है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के
राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इmीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन
बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में Dी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंh प्रदेश), इंिडयन[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1301 ऑयल कॉपjरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंिजल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिmना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाखापटनम - 530004, आंh प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : जिला : ीकाकु लम राज्य : आंआंआंआं प्रदेश प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | #ाम का नाम | सव% नम्बर | क्ष क्ष े े क्ष क्ष त्रफल े े | ||
| ह ह े े ह ह क्टेयर े े | एयरएयरएयरएयर | वगर्मीटर |
टे(cid:20)लि चाकिपल्ले 62/14 00 00 16
62/3 00 03 44
62/6 00 00 10
62/7 00 00 20
72/6 00 00 18
99/11 00 00 93
99/24 00 00 19
99/23 00 01 94
100/5 00 00 05
100/7 00 00 58
100/15 00 00 07
100/10 00 01 39
100/12 00 01 73
100/28 00 00 04
101/6 00 00 79
101/7 00 00 60
101/8 00 00 51
101/25 00 00 01
112/10 00 00 04
112/15 00 00 51
112/12 00 00 17
112/19 00 00 11
111/1 00 00 19
111/5 00 00 15
120/25 00 00 76
120/18 00 05 701302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
टे(cid:20)लि चाकिपल्ले 120/17 00 01 94
120/12A 00 02 81
120/11 00 01 02
125/8 00 00 11
125/9 00 00 07
125/5 00 00 25
126/13 00 05 90
126/12 00 00 09
126/5 00 00 05
113/26 00 00 61
100/8 00 00 61
114/6 00 01 22
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 441.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
| SCHEDULE | |||||
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
TEKKALI CHAKIPALLE 62/14 00 00 16
62/3 00 03 44
62/6 00 00 10
62/7 00 00 20
72/6 00 00 18
99/11 00 00 93
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941
1303
TEKKALI CHAKIPALLE 100/15 00 00 07
100/10 00 01 39
100/12 00 01 73
100/28 00 00 04
101/6 00 00 79
101/7 00 00 60
101/8 00 00 51
101/25 00 00 01
112/10 00 00 04
112/15 00 00 51
112/12 00 00 17
112/19 00 00 11
111/1 00 00 19
111/5 00 00 15
120/25 00 00 76
120/22 00 02 84
120/19 00 01 72
120/20 00 00 11
120/18 00 05 70
120/17 00 01 94
120/12A 00 02 81
120/11 00 01 02
125/8 00 00 11
125/9 00 00 07
125/5 00 00 25
126/13 00 05 90
126/12 00 00 09
126/5 00 00 05
113/26 00 00 61
100/8 00 00 61
114/6 00 01 22
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2019
dk- vk- 442-&dsUnzh ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds Ik"pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gSa½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 1681 rkjh[k 26 uoEcj 2018] tks Hkkjr ds jkti= rkjh[k 1 fnlEcj 2018] esa izdkf"kr dh xbZ Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ'V Hkwfe esa mÙkj izns"k jkT; esa rglhy% lyseiqj] ftyk% nsofj;k esa iVuk&eksfrgkjh&cSrkyiqj 'kk[kk ikbiykbu }kjk isVªksfy;e ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbi ykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds vius vk"k; dh ?kks'k.kk dh Fkh %
vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 22 fnlEcj 2018 rd miyC/k djk nh xbZ Fkh (
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks fjiksVZ ns nh gS (1304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik"pkr~ vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij fd mä Hkwfe ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu"p; fd;k gS (
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk izn~Ùk "kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks'k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ'V Hkwfe esa ikbZiykbZu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk izn~Ùk "kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ"k nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks'k.kk ds izdk"ku dh rkjh[k ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs"ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mÙkjnk;h gksxh vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fo#) dksbZ okn nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
vuqlwph
| rglhy % lyseiqj | ftyk % nsofj;k | jkT; % mÙkj izns'k | |||
| ekStk@xzke | losZ@Cykd la- ¼IyksV la-½ | lc&Mho &la- | {ks=Qy | ||
| gsDVs;j | ,;j | oxZ ehVj | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| numj rIik % HkkVuh | 1068 1069 1075 1074 1073 1084 1082 1080 1087 1088 1092 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 10 01 05 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 | 55 47 36 72 11 66 58 64 75 54 45 | |
| lojsth rIik % HkVuh | 530 529 457 | 00 00 00 | 03 14 00 | 93 55 36 | |
| feJ©yh nhf{kr rIik % ?kkVh | 1025 985 | 00 00 | 03 02 | 70 80 | |
| Hkjgs pkSjk rIik % ?kkVh | 1281 | 00 | 02 | 85 | |
| r uqvk s rIik % ?kkVh | 305 304 303 302 301 300 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 01 06 02 07 03 02 | 19 99 95 83 96 10 | |
| thjklks rIik % cjlhikj | 369 | 00 | 01 | 99 | |
| veok rIik % lfB;kao | 84 | 00 | 00 | 36 | |
| ijklh;k djdVgh rIik % lfB;kao | 439 438 | 00 00 | 01 00 | 71 36 | |
| [ktwjh djkSrk rIik % lfB;kao | 636 | 00 | 02 | 21 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)16/2018-ओआर-I/ई-26860]
शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1305
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2019
S.O. 442 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 1681 dated the 26th November, 2018, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India dated the 1st December, 2018 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying 'Patna – Motihari - Baitalpur Branch Pipeline' for the transportation of Petroleum Products in Tehsil : Salempur, Deoria District in the state of Uttar Pradesh by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 22nd December 2018.
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline.
SCHEDULE
| Tehsil : Salempur | District : Deoria | State : Uttar Pradesh | |||
| Mouja / Village | Survey/Block No. | Sub-Div-No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Danaur Tappa : Bhatni | 1068 1069 1075 1074 1073 1084 1082 1080 1087 1088 1092 | 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 | 10 01 05 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 | 55 47 36 72 11 66 58 64 75 54 45 | |
| Savreji Tappa : Bhatni | 530 529 457 | 00 00 00 | 03 14 00 | 93 55 36 | |
| Mishrauli Dixit Tappa : Ghati | 1025 985 | 00 00 | 03 02 | 70 80 | |
| Bharhe Chaura Tappa : Ghati | 1281 | 00 | 02 | 85 | |
| Tenua Tappa : Ghati | 305 304 303 302 301 | 00 00 00 00 00 | 01 06 02 07 03 | 19 99 95 83 96 | |
| 300 | 00 | 02 | 10 | ||
| Jiraso Tappa : Barsipar | 369 | 00 | 01 | 99 | |
| Amava Tappa : Sathiyav | 84 | 00 | 00 | 36 | |
| Parasiya Karkatahi Tappa : Sathiyav | 439 438 | 00 00 | 01 00 | 71 36 | |
| Khajuri Karaunta Tappa : Sathiyav | 636 | 00 | 02 | 21 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)16/2018-OR-I/E-26860]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
(cid:28)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:28)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:28)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय(cid:28)म एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 443443443443....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स महाप्रबंधक राष्ट्रीय रासायनिक एंड फ(cid:129)टलाइजर्स, मु ंबई, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय
मु ंबई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 28/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 23.01.19 को प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-42011/32/2017----आईआर (डीयू)]
राजें(cid:15) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 1st February, 2019
S.O.443.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers, Mumbai and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 23.01.19.
[No. L-42011/32/2017-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/28 of 2017
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF RASHTRIYA CHEMICAL & FERTILIZERS
AND M/S. AMEYA ENTERPRISES
1. The General Manager [HR & Admn.)/CMD, Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers, Administrative Building, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 074.
2. M/s. Ameya Enterprises, House No. 4, Shivmurat Chawl, Kajiwadi, Andheri, Mumbai – 400 099.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The General Secretary, General Employee's Association Tel. Rasayan Bhawan, Tilak Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 014.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1307APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Absent FOR THE WORKMEN : Absent
Mumbai, dated the 21th December, 2018
AWARD
1. This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-42011/32/2017 – IR (DU) dated 02.06.2017. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd., Mumbai in not considering the date of birth of the following 4 workmen as per the Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate issued by the Competent authority for the purpose of retiring them from service as contract workmen presently employed through M/s. Ameya Enterprises, is just & proper ? "
2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
3. On going through Roznama it appears that the notices were served to both parties. However, the union has not filed statement of claim since long. Union remained absent. Therefore there is no statement of claim to substantiate the claim under reference.
4. For want of evidence the reference is liable to be rejected with no order as to costs.
ORDER
Reference is rejected for want of evidence.
Date: 21.12.2018
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 444444444444....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स िनदेशक,राष्ट्रीय रासायनिक प्रयोगशाला, पुणे, और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय पुणे के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 297/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 13.02.19 को प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-42011/29/2010----आईआर (डीयू)]
राजें(cid:15) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019
S.O. 444.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 297/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Pune, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, National Chemical Labouratory, Pune and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 13.02.19.
[No. L-42011/29/2010-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST LABOUR COURT, PUNE
(Presided over by : Kalpana N. Phatangare)
Reference [IDA] No.: 297/2010
Exh. No.: 101 The Director, National Chemical Laboratory, Pashan, Pune - 411 008
… First Party1308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
Shri. Arun Sopan Nimhan, Near Datta Mandir, Sus Road, Shikshak Colony, Pashan, Pune – 411 021.
… Second party
Appearances :
Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar for first party,
Adv. Mr. N. A. Kulkarni for second party.
AWARD
(Passed on this 16th AUGUST 2018 )
1) The present Reference is sent by Appropriate Government i.e. Government of India, Ministry of Labour through Under SEcretary for the adjudication over the demand of second parties that :-
"How far the management of National Chemical Laboratory, Pune is justified in not regularising the services
of the 28 workers (list enclosed) who joined as casual labourers and coverted to contract labour ? To what
relief they are entitled to and from which date they are eligible for regularisation, continuity of service and
back wages ?"
2) Brief facts of the 'Statement of Claim' Exh.:-5 are as follows :-
It is submitted that second party workmen are working with first party without any break for the period varying between 10 to 21 years. It is submitted that the second party workmen are working in different Departments of 'National Chemical Laboratory' [N. C. L. for sake of brevity] and most of them are initially employed directly by the 'N. C. L.' as a Casual or a Temporary and subsequently later on an intervening Contractor was sought to be introduced for the sole purpose to deny the permanency and regularisation to second party workmen. As a paper arrangement, second party workmen have been shown as the employees employed through a contractor, even – though a contractor is nothing but a name lender. The paper arrangement of a contractor remained in existence till 2006. After 2006 till date second party workmen are employed by the 'N. C. L.' and payment is also being made by the N. C. L.
3) It is submitted that paper arrangement was made by floating a dummy contractor solely with a view to deprive the status and privileges of permanency to second party workmen, though they are working for substantially long period. The chart showing the continuous service put in by each of the second party workmen and nature of duties performed by said workmen is annexed herewith and is marked as an 'Annexure – A'. The said nature of duties primarily contains cleaning, sweeping and in respect of gardening etc.
4) It is submitted that in the years 1990 and 1995 the 'N. C. L.' has floated a Scheme of regularisation of the services of the employees, in pursuant to directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But however, second party workmen have not been regularised in the services even till date though they are working for more than 12 years or so. It is submitted that some candidates were made permanent and were given benefits and status of regularisation though they are juniors to some of the second party workmen. Thus, the approach of N. C. L. is not only discriminatory but also high–handed. It is submitted that contract entered into between N. C. L. and with one M/s. Esses Enterprises is sham and bogus. The contract was entered into for which a stamp was purchased on 25.02.1993; whereas an Agreement was purportedly signed on 24.02.1993.
5) It is submitted that second party workmen are in possession of certificate issued by the concerned Officers of N. C. L. and contractor has no role to play, except to come on last day of every month in order to collect wages from N. C. L. and disburse wages to second party workmen. There was no control or supervision of any nature from the Contractor on the work of the Second Party Workmen. In fact, all the tests, such as economic, organization, control and supervision are the tests made out by N. C. L. and not of a contractor.
6) It is submitted that role of Contractor started in 1990 and most of the second party workmen were being paid prior to 1990 directly by N. C. L. The Provident Fund Contributions of second party workmen are also being paid by N. C. L. There is no control or supervision of any nature by contractor. In fact, the control and supervision was of officers of N. C. L. By keeping second party workmen as Casuals, Temporary and continuing them as casuals and Temporary for years together, N. C. L. has engaged into unfair labour practices under Section 2 (ra) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Item No. 10 of Schedule V of the said Act.
7) It is submitted that second party workmen approached Central Administrative Tribunal (C. A. T. for sake of brevity) for seeking regularisation in services by filing Application bearing Original Application No.:- 189/2000. Thereafter, C. A. T. heard the matter and by its Judgment and an order dated 23.04.2001 dismissed the Application holding that the second party workmen should have approached to the Authorities under The Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1971 and C. A. T. has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said issue.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 13098) It is submitted that being aggrieved by said Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2001 of C. A. T., the second party workmen filed a Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.:- 1770 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai challenging the Judgment and the order dated 23.04.2001 of the C. A. T. The said Writ Petition came up for final hearing before the Hon'ble High Court on 13.07.2009 and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant a liberty to second party workmen to raise an Industrial Dispute seeking regularisation and permanency of their services in the establishment of N. C. L.
9) It is submitted that second party workmen, thereafter, raised a Demand by their letter dated 30.09.2009. Thereafter, N. C. L. appeared in the proceedings before Conciliation Officer and submitted that ther eis no employer – employee relationship between N. C. L. and second party workmen. Second party workmen submitted their Rejoinder on 18.09.2009 to Conciliation Officer and denied that, there was no employer – employee relationship. It is submitted that N. C. L. is not an 'Industry' under Section 2 (j) of The I. D. Act, 1947. But it was pointed out that in a case of one Mr. D. M. Pillay and others in a Reference No. 46/2001, it was held by the Industrial Tribunal that, N. C. L. is an indusrty under Section 2 (j) of The I. D. Act, 1947.
10) It is submitted that thereafter, Conciliation Officer recorded failure on 22.02.2010 and referred the matter to an Appropriate Government for a reference. In pursuant to notice issued by this Court, second party workmen are submitting the present 'Statement of Claim'. Therefore, it is prayed that may be pleased to hold and declare that the National Chemical Laboratory has indulged in unfair labour practices under Section 2 (ra) of The I. D. Act, 1947 read with Item No. 10 of Schedule IV of the said Act. Further it prayed that first party may be directed to make the second party workmen as permanent whose names are mentioned in Annexure 'A'. They be directed to give all the benefits of permanency to second party workmen after completion of their 240 days continuous service or after completion of one year as the case may be. Hence, prayed to allow the Reference.
11) First party appeared and filed its 'Written Statement' vide Exh.:-7. At the outset, it is submitted that the present reference is misconceived and bad in law. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this reference as the first party is not an 'Industry' as defined under the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reference is also defective as the employer of second party i.e. M/S. Essess Enterprises is not made a party to Reference.
12) It is submitted that second party being engaged / employed by M/s. Essess Enterprises which was a registered contractor at the relevant time, cannot claim regularization in the service of first party as there is no employer–employee relationship between the second party and the first party. Second party was brought into the premises of first party by M/s. Essess Enterprises in capacity of license Contractor under The Contract Labour Abolition Act and first party is also having license as a principal employer under the very same Act. It denied that first party introduced contract system with the purpose of denying permanency of second party.
13) It is submitted that appointment in the services of first party is based on selection process and there are rules and procedures of selection. Second party are seeking through their demand to subvert the selection process and seek employment through the back door. Second party is seeking abolition of a contract which is validly entered into between first party and employer of second party.
14) It is submitted that second party are employees of contractor M/s. Essess Enterprises. The said contractor had undertaken various miscellaneous work of first party in the premises of first party. It is submitted that first party is governed by various rules and regulations made by Council of Scientific & Industrial Research under the Ministry of Science and Technology. The qualifications and other considerations for regular employment are specified in these rules. The second party cannot claim regularisation in the services of first party without fulfilling the criteria laid down for selection.
15) It is submitted that N. C. L. is one of the constituents of National Laboratories under the auspices of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) with Headquarters at New Delhi. CSIR is an Autonomous Body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is basically engaged in Research and Development of Chemical Science with a purpose to reach the benefits of programs of Chemical Sciences to the people. There are more than 700 permanent employees with it. The work of first party is not in the nature of business but is purely in the nature of scientific research for the welfare of the State. First party is not engaged in any business and it does not earn any profit. The purpose of activities of first party is to reach the knowledge of chemical science to the people of India. First party as a constituent of CSIR is established only to implement the objectives of CSIR. It is a non profit making body engaged in activities to supplement the sovereign activities of the Government of India.
16) It is submitted that Central Civil Service Rules are applicable to employees of CSIR first party as such, the employees of CSIR and first party are akin to Civil servants. Employees of First party are of different categories. These categories are listed in the recruitment rules and are what is known as sanctioned categories. First party is governed by the directions of Government and as far as the recruitment are concerned, there is a direction as on today banning new recruitment due to which even permanent categories are not recruited. Apart from regular work, first party has miscellaneous work which is done through contract workers. The said work is not of regular nature and hence, the employment of contract workers. The contractors are engaged for miscellaneous work and their employees have no claim of any nature with first party.
17) It is submitted that second party was initially engaged for such miscellaneous work by M/S. Deccan Industrial Services and thereafter by M/s. Essess Enterprises, Pune. They are employees of M/S. Essess Enterprises and they are paid their wages by the said contractor.
1310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Second party cannot be compared with the daily wage workers of the first party who are conferred with temporary status. The service conditions of second party are governed by the rules applicable to contractor. Denying all the contentions made by the second party workmen, first party prayed to answer the Reference in the negative with cost.
18) On the basis of facts and circumstances, issues are framed vide Exh.:-8. Those issues are for my determination. Those issues along with their findings and reasons thereon are as follows :-
FINDINGS
ISSUES
1) Whether the second party is an 'Industry'
…. Yes.
within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?
2) Whether there is employer–employee …. Yes.
relationship between first party and
the second party ?
3) Whether the second party is a workman …. Yes.
within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of
The Industrial Disputes Act ?
4) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to …. Yes.
try this matter ?
5) Does the second party prove that first …. Yes.
party has engaged in unfair labour
practices under Section 2 (ra) of The
Industrial Disputes Act, read with item
No. 10 of Schedule IV of the Said Act ?
6) Whether the second party is
…. Yes.
entitled to the reliefs as sought ?
7) What Order ? Reference is answered
Partly in affirmative.
REASONS
19) Perused documents filed along with Schedule and on the record. To substantiate his claim, second party examined themselves vide different exhibits and enclosed documents. The evidence is closed vide pursis Exh.:-95. The first party has examined its witness Mr. Rajashekhar Shivsharnappa Malge vide Exh.:-98. It closed it's oral evidence vide Exh.:-100. Heard argument of both the sides.
AS TO ISSUE NO.1 TO 7 :-
20) All issues are interlinked with each other. Therefore, those are decided simultaneously. It is argued by Ld. Counsel Mr. N. A. Kulkarni on behalf of second party workmen that Central Government has sent this Reference to adjudicate. The Schedule is for regularisation and not for reinstatement of the second party workmen. For his contentions, he has relied upon Section 10 (4) of The I. D. Act, 1947. Section 10 (4) of The I. D. Act, 1947 reads as thus:-
(4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to [a labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this
Section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for
adjudication, (the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be), shall confine its
adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 131121) It is argued on behalf of second party that Section 10 (4) empowers this Court to regularise the the 28 employees i.e. second party in Annexure 'A' of this Reference. They were working with first party from 10 to 21 years without any break. First second party workmen were treated casual / temporary then told that they are working on contract basis employee till 2006. They were taken back in the employment of NCL. Thus, there was just a paper arrangement in respect of employment of the employment of second party. There was no break in the employment of the services of these workmen. They were doing gardening, sweeping, cleaning duties.
22) Second party workmen stated that in the year 1990 and 1995 N. C. L. has floated a Scheme of regularization of services of employees, in pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thereafter, second party workmen approached Central Administrative Tribunal (C. A. T. for sake of brevity) for seeking regularisation in services by filing Application bearing Original Application No.:- 189/2000. Thereafter, C. A. T. heard the matter and by its Judgment and an order dated 23.04.2001 dismissed the Application holding that the second party workmen should have approached to the Authorities under The Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1971 and C. A. T. has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said issue.
23) Second party being aggrieved by said Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2001 of C. A. T., the second party workmen filed a Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.:- 1770 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai challenging the Judgment and the order dated 23.04.2001 of the C. A. T. The said Writ Petition came up for final hearing before the Hon'ble High Court on 13.07.2009 and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant a liberty to second party workmen to raise an Industrial Dispute seeking regularisation and permanency of their services in the establishment of N. C. L.
24) Thereafter, second party workmen raised dispute before the Central Conciliation Officer. After failure of the same, the present Reference was forwarded for adjudication of the demands of the second party. It is argued by Ld. Advocate for second party that Section 2 (r) (A) was introduced later on. It is nothing but replica of The M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 provisions. Employer will have to prove the genuineness or sham / bogus contract. There is not question of all being ever being impleaded M/s. Esses Enterprises. Employer has not shown produced any documentary evidence to that effect. Here is a important question that when first party is alleging that second party workmen are employees of contractor. But first party has not issued summons to the alleged contractor.
25) Second party submitted that though the first party denying that it is an 'Industry'. But on behalf of second party, it is argued that the second party workmen were working for gardening, cleaning, sweeping etc. in the premises of first party. Therefore, second party workmen are not directly related to the work of the N. C. L. as a scientist. But they are doing miscellaneous work in the premises of the first party Company. Therefore, for atleast the work which second party workmen were doing, first party is held to be an 'industry' because second party were doing work in the premises of first party. Second party were examined themselves and they prayed for regularization of their services atleast from the date of this Reference.
26) It is argued by Ld. Counsel on behalf of first party that N. C. L. is a Research Institute and involved in the chemical research. It is purely a organization of Government of India and doing sovereign functions. The service conditions of the employees working in the first party Laboratory are governed by Central Civil Service Rules applicable to it. These employees are public servants.
27) It is argued by Ld. Advocate for first party that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment 120 workers were regularized and rest were left out. As per the Reference Order second party workmen will have to answer that how far management of N. C. L. is justified in not regularizing the casual labours. Further it is argued that if the prayer clause of Reference is seen there is prayer of declaration of unfair labour practice whereas the Reference is for regularization of the second party workmen. Further it is argued that this Court cannot go outside the Reference Order.
28) It is argued by Ld. Advocate for first party that he is agitating mainly on the point that as the N. C. L. is doing sovereign functions of Government of India it cannot be said as 'Industry' as defined under Section 2 (j) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further the second party workmen are employees working on contract basis as there is prescribed procedure for the recruitment of the employees of the N. C. L. and for miscellaneous work there is contract system. There is also no existence of employer – employee relationship between first aprty N. C. L. and Second Party Workmen. The present matter is filed under The I. D. Act, 1947. It is filed for regularization of the second party workmen whereas the prayer of Reference is for declaration of unfair labour practice.
29) It is main contention of Ld. Counsel for first party that the first party N. C. L. has taken objection that miscellaneous work in the premises of first party is done through contract basis. Employees like second party workmen were doing work of cleaning, sweeping, washing etc. through contract basis and there is no direct relationship between first party and second party. He further relied on the admission given by the witness Mr. Valmiki – Second party that he has given every information to his Ld. Counsel.
30) In view of above said discussions, it can be seen that second party workmen were taken as casual employees. Thereafter, they were taken on contract basis for miscellaneous work. These employees are not directly taken for work of research, therefore, there is no question about whether first party N. C. L. is an 'Industry' or not due to work done by second party workmen. Through this second party workmen, N. C. L. was doing systematic activities, with the help of these second party workmen. Hence, there is no doubt about its status. First party has not taken much objection regarding the regularization of the second party workmen.
1312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]34) In view of discussions made herein above issue Nos. 1 to 6 are answered in the affirmative. Thus, the reference deserves to be allowed for the regularization of the second party. In view of peculiar circumstances of the matter, parties to bear their own costs. In view of said findings, in answer to issue No. 4, following order is passed :
ORDER
1) The Reference is answered in the affirmative.
2) It is hereby declared that First Party is an 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of The Industrial disputes Act, 1947.
3) It is hereby declared that second Party is a 'Workmen' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of The Industrial disputes Act, 1947.
4) It is hereby declared that this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Reference.
5) It is hereby declared that first party N. C. L. is engaged in unfair labour practice and it is directed to desist from the same.
6) It is hereby directed to the first party that it should regularize the services of all the second party workmen from date of filing of Reference.
7) Parties to bear their own costs.
DATE :- 16.08.2018. KALPANA N. PHATANGARE, Presiding Officer PUNE. MIM
| Argued on | 10.08.2018 |
| Judgment dictated on | 16.08.2018 |
| Judgment transcribed on | 20.08.2018 |
| Judgment checked and signed on | 21.08.2018 |
नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 445445445445....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स मुख्य पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल, जयपुर और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 37/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 28.01.19 को प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-40012/98/2011----आईआर (डीयू)]
राजें(cid:15) जोशी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 14th February, 2019
S.O. 445.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Post Master General Jaipur and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 28.01.2019.
[No. L-40012/98/2011-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1313 vuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/k
f/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vdsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vdsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vdsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj f/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj f/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lhlhlhlh----thththth----vkbZvkbZvkbZvkbZ----VhVhVhVh---- izdj.k laizdj.k laizdj.k laizdj.k la---- 37@201237@201237@201237@2012
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
1- ujirflag iq= Jh fjNiky flag] iksLV &ekyklh ok;k lkyklj ftyk pw: jktLFkku
2- [khaoflag iq= Jh izse flag] iksLV gjnkl dk ckl] ok;k >kM+yh] ftyk lhdj jktLFkku
3- nkrkj flag iq= Jh pSu flag IykV ua- 4] t; Hkokuh uxj]
[kkrhiqjk t;iqj jktLFkku
---izkFkhZx.k
cukecukecukecuke
1- Hkkjr la?k }kjk lfpo] fMikVZesUV vkWQ iksLV~l] v'kksd ekxZ] ikfyZ;kesUV LVªhV] ubZ fnYyh
2- phQ iksLV ekLVj tujy] jktLFkku lfdZy vkWfQl] ljnkj iVsy ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqj
3- iksLV ekLVj tujy] jktLFkku lfdZy vkWfQl] ljnkj iVsy ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqj
---vizkFkhZx.k
mifLFkr %&
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh v:.k 'kekZ & vfHkHkk"kd vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh ,l- ,l- u:dk & vfHkHkk"kd
iapkV
fnukad % 18- 01- 2019
1- Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky; }kjk fnukad 9-2-2012 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ o 2 ¼,½ ds vUrXkZr fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks lUnfHkZr fd;k x;kA^^ Whether the action of the management of Chief Post Master General, Raj. Circle, Jaipur has violated the provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 in case of Shri Narpat Singh & others (Shri Khiv Singh And Datar Singh), Security guards while terminated their services w.e.f. 1/04/2011 ? Whether it is legal and justified ? What relief they are entitled to ?** izkFkhZx.k dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k x;k fd os vius nkos dk vfHkdFku bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k 15 fnol dh vof/k esa izLrqr djsaA fnukad 1-6-2012 dks izkFkhZx.k us vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k] ftlds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSA
2- izkFkhZx.k dks foi{kh la[;k 2 phQ iksLV ekLVj tujy jktLFkku lfdZy t;iqj }kjk flD;ksfjVh xkMZ ds in ij fnukad 1-8-2010 ls 200 :i;s izfrfnu osru ij ekSf[kd :i ls fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZx.k dks osru ekfld fn;k tkrk FkkA ;g fu;qfDr fdlh fuf'pr le;kof/k ds fy, ugha FkhA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tk;sxk½ esa nh xbZ Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa izkFkhZx.k vkSj foi{kh fu;kstd m|ksx dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSA foi{kh us izkFkhZx.k dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ,oa iwoZ lwpuk fn;s fnukad 1-4-2011 ls lsok ls gVk fn;k tks voS/k gSA izkFkhZx.k us foi{kh ls ekSf[kd ,oa fyf[kr fuosnu lsok essa okil ysus gsrq fd;s ysfdu dksbZ ifj.kke ugha fudykA izkFkhZx.k us 1-8-2010 ls 31-3-2011 rd fujUrj lsok dj foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA foi{kh us izkFkhZx.k dks lsok ls gVkus ds ckn vU; O;fDr;ksa dks lqj{kk&xkMZ ds in ij fu;qfDr nh gS] fdUrq izkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ volj ugha fn;kA izkFkhZx.k dks u rks ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k] u uksfVl vof/k dk osru fn;k vkSj u gh NaVuh dk eqvkotk fn;kA izkFkhZx.k 1-4-2011 ls csjkstxkj gSA foi{kh us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] th] rFkk ,p ,oa fu;e 77 o 78 dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k dh fnukad 1-4-2011 ls dh xbZ lsokeqfDr dks voS/k Bgjk;k tk;s rFkk izkFkhZx.k dks leLr ykHk ,oa lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk 1-4-2011 ls iqu% lsok esa fy;k tk;saA
3- foi{khx.k dh vksj ls izfrmRrj esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd Je ea=ky; }kjk ;g fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq xyr cukdj Hkstk x;k gSA izkFkhZx.k dks foi{khx.k us flD;ksfjVh xkMZ ds in ij fdlh fu;qfDr vkns'k ls fu;ksftr ugha fd;k] u gh dksbZ lafonk gqbZA vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izkFkhZx.k rFkk foi{khx.k Jfed ,oa fu;kstd dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrs gSA izkFkhZx.k 31-7-10 dks iksLV ekLVj tujy dk;kZy; ds v/kh{kd ls feys rFkk ekSf[kd vuqjks/k fd;k fd ch-,l-,u-,y- dk;kZy; esa mudh lsok lekIr dj nh gS Mkd foHkkx dk;kZy; ifjlj dh lqj{kk O;oLFkk gksexkMZ izgfj;ksa }kjk djokus tk jgk gS] tc rd gksexkMZ miyC/k uk gkas rc rd 200 :i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls dkWUVªsDpqvy cSfll ,oa dk;Z vkmVlksflZax cSfll ij yxk fy;k tkosaA rRi'pkr iqfyl egkfuns'kd gksexkMZ ls lqj{kk izgjh miyC/k djkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA muds }kjk gksexkMZ miyC/k djokus ds ckn izkFkhZx.k dh lsok Lor% lekIr gks x;hA bl izdkj foi{khx.k us dksbZ voS/k dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZx.k dh fu;qfDr fdlh p;u izfØ;k ls fu;ekuqlkj ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZx.k us fu;fer :i ls 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZx.k1314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] gksexkMZ ds vkus ij Loa; gh gV x;sA blfy;s NaaVuh ugha dh xbZA vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku bl izdj.k ij ykxw ugha gksrs] vr% nkok fujLr fd;k tkosaA
4- izkFkhZx.k us vfrfjDr dFku izLrqr djrs gq, oknksRrj esa fd;s x;s dFkuksa dks xyr crk;k gS vkSj ;g dgk gS fd vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku mHk;i{k ij ykxw gksrs gSA izkFkhZx.k dks NaVuh fd;s tkus ds dkj.k /kkjk 25 ,Q] th] rFkk ,p dk laj{k.k izkIr gSA vr% nkok Lohdkj fd;k tkosaA
5- izkFkhZx.k us vius lk{; esa nkrkj flag] [khaoflag ,oa ujir flag ds 'kiFki= izLrqr dj izys[kh; lk{; Hkh izLrqr dhA
6- foi{khx.k dh vkSj ls lk{; esa eksgEen bnjhl valkjh] dk;kZy; v/kh{kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k x;kA fnukad 4-1-2019 dks mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh x;hA rnqijkUr fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ us ,d izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj ;g lwfpr fd;k fd izkFkhZ [khaoflag lsokfuo`Rr dh vk;q ikj dj pqdk gSA blfy;s vf/kdj.k }kjk izkFkhZ ds vfHkHkk"kd dks bl lEcU/k esa izys[kh; izek.k izLrqr djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA bl funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 8-1-2019 dks izkFkhZ [khaoflag us viuh tUefrfFk ds izek.k Lo:i vk/kkj dkMZ] iSu dkMZ rFkk lsUVªy fjtoZ iqfyl QkslZ dh fMLpktZZ cqd izLrqr dh] ftldh QksVksizfr;ka vfHkys[k ij j[kh xbZ gSaA izkFkhZ [khaoflag us l'kiFk ;g dgk gS mldh tUefrfFk 10-9-1954 gSA bl dFku dh iqf"V izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izys[kksa ls gksrh gSA bl izdkj ;g izekf.kr gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ [khaoflag lsokfuo`Rr dh vk;q dks ikj dj pqdk gSA
7- fnukad 4-1-2019 dks eSaus mHk;i{k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdZ lqus] lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;k rFkk izkFkhZx.k dh vkSj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s fuEukafdr fofu'p;ksa esas ikfjr fof/k ij euu fd;kA
¼1½ ¼2014½ 15] s.c.c. 313 rki'k dqekj ikWy cuke ch-,l-,u-,y- o vU;
¼2½ 2015 ykW lqV ¼s.c.½ 357 xksjh'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku
¼3½ 2006 ¼111½ ,Q-,y-vkj- 571 ¼,e-ih-½ jktho flUgk cuke ,l-ch-ch-th-ih- dkWyst] Hkksiky
¼4½ ¼2003½ 6] s.c.c. 528 Hkkjr gSoh bysfDVªd fyfeVsM cuke LVsV vkWQ ;w-ih- o vU;A
8- izkFkhZx.k dk ;g rdZ gS fd mudks ekSf[kd vkns'k ls 1-8-2010 ls 31-3-2011 rd lqj{kk izgjh ds in ij lsok esa j[kk FkkA bl rF; dh iqf"V foi{khx.k }kjk tkjh dh xbZ jlhnksa ¼A.C.G.-17½ ls gksrh gSA izkFkhZx.k us fujUrj lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ 243 fnu foi{khx.k ds v/khu dk;Z fd;kA foi{khx.k us 1-4-2011 dks izkFkhZx.k dks fcuk dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl& osru ,oa izfrdj fn;s lsok ls gVk fn;kA mUgksuas izkFkhZx.k dh txg vU; gksexkMZ dks lsok esa fy;k rFkk izkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ vf/keku ugha fn;kA ;g fLFkfr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] th] rFkk ,p ,oa fu;e 77 o 78 dk Li"V mYya?ku n'kkZrh gSA
9- fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd foi{khx.k us ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks gksexkMZ ds miyC/k gksus dh vof/k rd ds fy;s ekSf[kd :i ls nSfud osruHkksxh ds :i esa j[kk Fkk] T;ksfg gksexkMZ miyC/k gq, izkFkhZx.k dh lsok lekIr gks x;hA mUgksusa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru vFkok izfrdj dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k D;ksafd izkFkhZx.k dh NaVuh ugha dh xbZA
10- mHk;i{k ds rdksZa ds fopkj ds i'pkr bl izdj.k esa fuEufyf[kr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq, gS %&
¼1½ D;k izkFkhZx.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ ds vUrxZr deZdkj rFkk vizkFkhZx.k /kkjk 2 ¼th½ ds vUrxZr fu;kstd gS \
¼2½ D;k izkFkhZx.k us lsok ls gVk;s tkus dh frfFk 1-4-2011 rd iwoorhZ 12 dSys.Mj ekl dh dkykof/k esa vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS \
¼3½ D;k vizkFkhZx.k us izkFkhZx.k dks 1-4-2011 ls lsokeqDr djrs gq, voS/k NaVuh dh rFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dh vis{kkuq:i iqjksHkkO; 'krksZa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k rFkk vU; O;fDr;ksa dks fu;ksftr djus ds iwoZ izkFkhZx.k dks lsok esa j[kus gsrq vf/keku nsrs gq, iqu% LFkkfir ugha fd;k \
¼4½ vuqrks"k %&
mHk;i{k ds rdksZa] lk{;] fof/kd izkfo/kkukaas rFkk fu.kZ;t fof/k ds foospu ds mijkUr izR;sd fcUnq ij fofu'p; bl izdkj gSA
11- fcUnq la[;k 1 %& vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ ds vUrxZr deZdkj ls ,d ,slk O;fDr vfHkizsr gS tks fdlh m|ksx esa HkkM+s ;k ikfjrksf"kd ds fy;s dksbZ 'kkjhfjd ¼dq'ky ;k vdq'ky] rduhdh] fyfidh; ;k i;Zos{k.kh;½ dk;Z djus ds fy;s fu;ksftr gSA izkFkhZx.k us vius vfHkopuksa o lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mUgs foi{kh us flD;ksfjVh xkMZ ds in ij 1-8-2010 ls 200 :i;s izfrfnu ij lsok esa ekSf[kd :i ls fu;ksftr fd;kA foi{khx.k us vius izfrmRrj ,oa lk{; esa bl rF; dks ;g dgdj Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k muds dk;kZy; v/kh{kd ls feys o 200 :i;s izfrfnu ij lqj{kk izgjh ds :i esa dk;Z djus dk izLrko fd;kA bl izzLrko dks foi{kh us ;g dgdj Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks tc rd gksexkMZ miyC/k ugha gks tkrs rc rd dkWUVªsDpqvy ,oa dk;Z vkmVlksaflZx csfll ij yxk fy;kA mUgsa fdlh fu;qfDr vkns'k ls fu;ksftr ugha fd;k FkkA ;g lafonk ekSf[kd gh FkhA
12- vf/kfu;e esa **deZdkj** dh tks ifjHkk"kk nh xbZ gS] mlesa ;g Li"V dj fn;k x;k gS fd fu;kstu ds fucU/ku vfHkO;Dr vFkok izyk{ksr fdlh Hkh :i esa gksa] ;fn fdlh O;fDr us fdlh m|ksx esa HkkMs vFkok ikfjrksf"kd ds fy;s dksbZ 'kkjhfjd dk;Z fd;k gS rks og O;fDr deZdkj gh gksxkA bl fof/kd fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k] pwWafd foi{kh }kjk 200 :i;s izfrfnu dh nj ls lqj{kk izgjh ds :i eas 1-8-2010 ls ekSf[kd lafonk ds vk/kkj ij lsok esa j[ks x;s rFkk 1-8-2010 ls 31-3-2011 rd mUgsa 200 :i;s izfrfnu dh nj ls ikfjJfed dk Hkqxrku Hkh fd;k x;kA lk{; esa izLrqr dh x;h A.C.G.-17 jlhnksa ls Hkh ;g rF; izekf.kr gksrk gSA foi{kh ds lk{kh eksgEen bnjhl valkjh us viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks etnwjh Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa foHkkx }kjk is'k dh xbZa jlhnsa lgha gS rFkk A.C.G.-17 ifji= ds ek/;e ls tks Hkqxrku dk fooj.k is'k gS] og lgh gSA foi{kh dh ;g LohdkjksfDr bl vksj Li"V bafxr djrh gS fd foi{khx.k us izkFkhZx.k ls lqj{kk izgjh ds :i esa 'kkjhfjd dk;Z djok;k ftlds izfrQy Lo:i 200 :i;s izfrfnu dh nj ls ikfjJfed dk Hkqxrku Hkh fd;kA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1315 foi{khx.k dsUnz ljdkj ds Mkd foHkkx ds v/khu vf/kdkjh gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k dk deZdkj gksuk vkSj foi{kh dk fu;kstd gksuk lk{; ds foospu ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA
13- fcUnq la[;k 2 %& izkFkhZx.k us vius lk{; esa ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd 1-8-2010 ls 31-3-2011 rd mUgksusa fu;kstd ds v/khu fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk bl nkSjku ,d Hkh vodk'k ugha fy;kA bl izdkj mUgksuas 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZx.k ds lk{; esa iznf'kZr A.C.G.-17 jlhnksa ds voyksdu ls ¼ftUgsa foi{khx.k us lk{; esa lgh gksuk Lohdkj djrs gq, dksbZ [k.Mu ugha fd;k gS½ ;g rF; Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks 1-8-2010 ls 31-3-2011 rd dh vof/k dk iw.kZ ikfjJfed izR;sd ekg esa lEiw.kZ fnolksa dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA fdlh Hkh fnu ds ikfjJfed dh dVkSrh ugha dh xbZ gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k dk mDr vof/k esa fujUrj dk;Zjr gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA dk;Z fnolksa dh lax.kuk djus ij 1-8-2010 ls 31-3-2011 rd dqy 243 fnu laxf.kr gksrs gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ch dh vis{kkuq:i mUgsa lsok ls gVk;s tkus dh frfFk 1-4-2011 ds iwoorhZ 12 dSys.Mj ekl dh dkykof/k esa vizkFkhZx.k ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd ¼243 fnu½ dh fujUrj lsok fd;k tkuk Hkh lk{; ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA
14- fcUnq la[;k 3 %& izkFkhZx.k us vius lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd fu;kstd us fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ,oa fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds mUgsa 1-4-2011 dks lsok ls gVk fn;kA mUgksus fu;kstd dks iqu% lsok esa ysus gsrq izkFkZuk i= Hkh fn;s fdUrq mUgsa lsok esa ugha fy;k x;kA blds foifjr foi{khx.k us ;g dgk gS fd pwafd izkFkhZx.k dks ek= gksexkMZ miyC/k gks tkus dh vof/k rd dk;Z djus gsrq j[kk x;k Fkk] gksexkMZ dh lsok,a izkIr gksrs gh izkFkhZx.k Lor% lsok ls gV x;s] bl izdkj mudh NaVuh ugha dh xbZA fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd foi{khx.k us ;g dgk gS fd 1-4-2011 dks izkFkhZx.k pwafd ekSf[kd lafonk ,oa iwoZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij lsok ls gV x;s Fks blfy;s vf/kfu;e /kkjk 25 ,Q ds vUrxZr of.kZr 'krksZa dh vuqikyuk fd;k tkuk fof/kr visf{kr ugha FkkA os Lohdkj djrs gS gh izkFkhZx.k dks u rks dksbZ uksfVl fn;k x;k] u gh uksfVl vof/k dk osru fn;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZx.k dks NaVuh izfrdj Hkh ugha fn;k x;kA
15- lk{; ds lexz foospu ds mijkUr ;g rF; Li"V :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks foi{khx.k us 1-8-2010 ls 31-3-2011 rd lqj{kk izgjh ds :i esa 200 :i;s izfrfnu dh nj ls ekSf[kd :i ls fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk bl izdkj fu;ksftr gksus ds mijkUr izkFkhZx.k us foi{khx.k ds vf/ku 243 fnu rd fujurj lsokjr jgdj dk;Z fd;k ,oa izfrQy es ikfjJfed izkIr fd;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k mudks lsok ls gVk;s tkus dh frfFk ls iwoorhZ ,d o"kZ dh dkykof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd fujUrj lsok dj pqds FksA blfy;s foi{khx.k }kjk ;fn izkFkhZx.k dks 1-4-2011 ls lsok esa ugha j[kk tkuk okfUNr Fkk rks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr NaVuh ds fy;s iqjksHkkO; 'krksZa dk vuqikyu fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z FkkA bu 'krksZa esa ,d efgus dh iwfoZd fyf[kr lwpuk ;k ,d ekg dh etnwjh dk Hkqxrku rFkk NaVuh ds le; ns; 15 fnu ds vkSlr osru ds rqY; izfrdj dk Hkqxrku fof/kr ,ao visf{kr Fkk] tks Lohd`r :i ls foi{khx.k }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl rF;kRed ifjn`'; esa foi{khx.k }kjk /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA foi{khx.k dh ;g LohdkjksfDr Hkh gS fd mUgksuas lqj{kk izgfj;ksa dh dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ D;ksafd gksexkMZ miyC/k gks x;s Fks rFkk mUgha ls dke fy;k tk jgk FkkA bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks lsok ls gVkrs le; foi{khx.k us vfUre fu;qDr gksus okys O;fDr dks izFke lsokeqDr djus ds fu;e dk ikyu ugha fd;kA foi{khx.k us izkFkhZx.k ds vfrfjDr vU; O;fDr;ksa ¼gksexkMZ½ dks lqj{kk izgjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djus ds iwoZ] lsokeqDr fd;s x;s izkFkhZx.k dks fu;qfDr esa vf/keku Hkh ugha fn;kA bl izdkj foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ¼th½ ,oa ¼,p½ rFkk vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr cus fu;e 77 o 78 ds vkns'kkRed izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;kA
16- fcUnq la[;k 4 %& ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; rki'kdqekj ikWy cuke Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM o vU; esa ;g dgk gS fd vfof/k iw.kZ lsok lekfIr izekf.kr gksus ij iw.kZ osru lfgr lsok esa fujUrjrk ,oa iqu%LFkkiu ,d lkekU; fu;e gS rFkk bldk fojks/k djus okys i{kdkj dks bldh vioknkRed ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks izekf.kr djuk gksxkA bl fLFkfr esa vf/kdj.k dks leLr lqlaxr] rF;ksa ij fopkj ds mijkUr foosdkf/kdkj dk iz;ksx djuk pkfg;sA
17- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us gh xksjh'akdj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ds fu.kZ; esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ¼th½ ,oa ¼,p½ ds vkns'kkRed izko/kkuksa dk vikyu djrs gq, izR;FkhZ }kjk deZdkj dh lsok lekIr fd;k tkuk fof/k dh n`f"V ls 'kwU; gSA
18- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ** fujUrj lsok dks foosfpr djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd fujUrj lsok ls rkRi;Z lsoklekfIr dh frfFk ls iwoZorhZ 12 ekg dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dh lsok ls gSA
19- bl fof/kd fLFkfr esa ;g ekxZn'kZu izkIr gksrk gS fd vfof/kiw.kZ lsoklekfIr dk rF; izekf.kr gksus ij izkFkhZ dh iw.kZ etnwjh lfgr lsok esa fujUrjrk ,d lkekU; fu;e vo'; gS fdUrq izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vf/kdj.k dks ;g U;kf;d foosdkf/kdkj vo'; gh izkIr gS fd og lsok esa iquLFkkZiu ds lkFk etnwjh fnyok;s tkus ;k fodYi esa ,deq'r izfrdj iznku djus ds oSdfYid vuqrks"k dk ;qfDr;qDr ifj{k.k dj ldsaA
20- izkFkhZx.k us vius nkos vkSj 'kiFki= esa ;g dgk gS fd 1-4-2011 ls vc rd os csjkstxkj gaSA vU;= dgha ij Hkh fu;kstu esa ugh gSa vkSj mUgsa dksbZ oSdfYid dk;Z ugha fey ik;k gSA foi{khx.k us ;|fi ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZx.k dk ;g dFku xyr gS fd os csjkstxkj gSA fdUrq lk{; ds nkSjku foi{khx.k us ;g rF; izekf.kr ugha fd;k gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks dgha vU;= oSdfYid fu;kstu miyC/k gks x;k gksA
21- izkFkhZ ujir flag us vius izfrifj{k.k esa lsokeqfDr ds ckn Loa; ds HkkbZ ds lkFk jguk dgrs gq, ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mldk ikfjokfjd [kpkZ 100&150 :i;s izfrfnu gS] fdUrq Loa; ds 'kkjhfjd :i ls LoLFk ,oa l{ke gksrs gq, Hkh mldk ;g dguk fd 2011 ls vc rd ukSdjh gsrq dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;k u gh fdlh ls jkstxkj dk vuqjks/k fd;k] vfo'oluh; o vLoHkkfod yxrk gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku ;g n'kkZrk gS fd ;k rks og vlR; dFku dj jgk gS vFkok og LosPN;k Je lk/ku }kjk vkthfodk miktZu ds izfr vfuPNqd jgk gSA izkFkhZ nkrkjflag us ;|fi dke izkIr djus ds iz;kl djuk vkSj vlQy1316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] jguk of.kZr fd;k gS fdUrq ,slk dksbZ mYys[k mlus vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa ugha fd;k gSA vfHkopuksa ds vHkko esa ,slh ekSf[kd lk{; fdlh izdkj fo'oluh; ugha gSA izkFkhZ [khaoflag us ncs 'kCnksa esa eghus esa 5 ls 15 fnu rd etnwjh izkIr gksuk tks fd 250 :i;s ls 325 :i;s izfrfnu rd gS fey tkus dh LohdkjksfDr dh gSA bl fLFkfr esa ;g fu"df"kZr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZx.k us volj miyC/k gksrs gq, dksbZ jkstxkj ;k ukSdjh LoSPN;k ugha dh u gh miyC/k Je lk/ku dk mi;ksx djrs gq, vkthfodk miktZu fd;kA
22- izkFkhZ [khaoflag izLrqr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lsokfuo`fRr dh vk;q dks ikj dj pqdk gS rFkk 'ks"k nksuksa izkFkhZx.k us viuh vk;q dk rF; m)?kkfVr gh ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZx.k us nkos ds vfHkdFku o lk{; 'kiFk i= esa Hkh Loa; dh vk;q dk mYys[k ugha fd;kA ;g lEHko gS fd 'ks"k nksuksa izkFkhZx.k Hkh viuh lsokfuo`fRr ds fudV gh gksA
23- ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd izkFkhZx.k nSfud osru Hkksxh lqj{kk izgjh ds :i esa lsok esa j[ks x;s FksA izkFkhZx.k dks foi{khx.k us gksexkMZ dh miyC/krk gksus dh vof/k ¼tks fd vfuf'pr Fkh ½ ds fy, lsok esa fy;k FkkA ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k dh fu;qfDr foi{khx.k }kjk fofgr p;u izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k djrs gq, ugha dh xbZ FkhA ;g Hkh lEHko gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks lsok esa fy;s tkrs le; gh os lsok essaa izos'k dh vf/kdre vk;q lhek dks ikj dj pqds gksasA izkFkhZx.k us ek= 243 fnu dh y?kq vof/k esa gh dk;Z fd;k gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us eSustesUV ,p-,e-Vh- fyfeVsM cuke ?ku';ke 'kekZ 2018 ,y-,y-vkj- 1285 ds fu.kZ; esa ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS dh ;|fi vfof/kiw.kZ lsokeqfDr dk d`R; Je U;k;ky; dks Jfed dh lsok esa fujUrjrk o iquLFkkZiu gsrq l'kDr djrk gS fdUrq ;g /;ku esa j[krs gq, fd Jfed ,d vkdfLed lgk;d ds in ij ,d o"kZ dh y?kq vof/k ds fy;s gh lsok esa jgk gSA Jfed dk lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha gS] oju ,d eq'r izfrdj ipkl gtkj :i;s fnyokuk mfpr gSA bl fu.kZ; ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj Jfed dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ¼ch ½ ds vUrxZr ekfld osru U;kf;d dk;Zokgh ds yEcu ds nkSjku fu;kstd }kjk fn;k tkrk jgk FkkA
24- ekuuh; iatkc gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; jkefd'ku cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] lhthvkbZVh fgalkj] 2018 ,y-,y-vkj- 253 esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd tc Jfed nSfud osruHkksxh gks] fu;kstu fofgr izfdz;k ds vuq:i u gks ,oa lsok dh vof/k y?kq gks rks] deZdkj dh lsokeqfDr voS/k gksus ij Hkh mls ,deq'r izfrdj dk Hkqxrku izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk ldrk gSA
25- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 , ds vUrxZr bl vf/kdj.k dks lsok esa fujUrjrk o etnwjh Hkqxrku ds LFkku ij ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuq:i vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k iznku djus dh 'kfDr;ka iznRr gSA
26- mi;qZDr lk{; o fof/k ds foospu ds vuqlkj eSa izkFkhZx.k dh foi{khx.k }kjk dh xbZ lsok lekfIr dks vfof/kiw.kZ izekf.kr ekurs gq, Hkh bl izdj.k dh fof'k"V ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izkFkhZx.k dks lsok esa etnwjh lfgr iquLFkkZfir djus ds LFkku ij ,deq'r izfrdj fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k iw.kZ le>rk gw¡A
vkns'k
27- vr% izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr nkos ds vfHkdFku dks vkfU'kd :i ls Lohdkj djrs gq, foi{khx.k }kjk 1-4-2011 dks izkFkhZx.k dh] dh xbZ lsok lekfIr dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ¼th½ ,oa ¼,p½ rFkk fu;e 78 ds izfrdwy gksus ls voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA bl lsokeqfDr ds voS/k gksus ds mijkUr izR;sd izkFkhZ :i;s 1]00]000@& ¼#i;s ,d yk[k ek=½ foi{khx.k ls ,deq'r izfrdj ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS A
28- mijksDr izfrdj nks ekg dh vof/k esa foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks Hkqxrku fd;k tkos vU;Fkk bl jkf'k ij izkFkhZx.k 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksxsaA
29- iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fjQjsUl dk mRrj
mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA
30- iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk;A
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 446446446446....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स महाप्रबंधक हिदुस्तान एरोनॉटिक्स िलिमटेड, कोरापुट उड़ीसा, और एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय
भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 29/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 15.10.18 को प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/81/2017----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 8th March, 2019
S.O. 446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1317 Court Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Koraput Orissa, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.10.18.
[No. L-42012/81/2017-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 29/2018
Date of Passing Order – 4th September, 2018
Between: 1. M/s. S.I.S. India Private Limited, Plot No. 561/4652(B), 1st Floor, Vevekananda Marg, Bhubaneswar Pin – 750 019, Odisha.
2. The Director, NISER Project, At./Po. Jatni, Dist. Khurda, Odisha, Pin-752 031 …1st Party-Managements
AND
Miss Laxmipriya Kandi, D/o. Jatadhari Kandi, At. Saintu, Dt. Jagatsinghpur, Odisha – 754 103. … 2nd Party-Disputant
Appearances:
None … For the 1st Party-Managements Miss. L. Kandi … For herself the 2nd Party-Disputant
ORDER
The disputant workman is present whereas, no one appears on behalf of the Management on repeated calls. Filing his I.D. proof like office Addahar card in support of proof for her identity the disputant orally submits that she is no more interested to prosecute the dispute raised by her before the labour machinery as there was an amicable out of court settlement. She orally makes a prayer for closure of the adjudication process.
It is seen from the record that the dispute with the schedule "Whether the action by the management of M/s. Security & Intelligence Services (India) Limited contractor of National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), Jatni in terminating the service of Laxmipriya Kandi, who had worked as Lady Security Guard from 30.8.2016 till her termination on 29.8.2017 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to" has been referred to this Tribunal for its adjudication vide letter No. L. 42012/81/2017 (IR(DU), dated 11.04.2018. After filing of his statement of claim the disputant is not willing to prosecute the matter on account of amicable settlement between the parties. As the disputant is not interested to proceed with the case and in the absence of the materials I am constrained to hold that nothing remains pending for adjudication before this Tribunal for which the dispute has been referred to. As such, keeping in view the submissions made by the 2nd party the reference is disposed of without any award for non-prosecution by the disputant. The copy of the order be sent as per rule to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, for necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 447447447447....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स महाप्रबंधक हिदुस्तान एरोनॉटिक्स िलिमटेड, कोरापुट उड़ीसा, और एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय
भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 04/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 15.10.18 को प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-14011/21/2017----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी1318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 8th March, 2019
S.O. 447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Koraput Orissa, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.10.18.
[No. L-14011/21/2017-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 04/2018
Date of Passing Order – 4th September, 2018
Between:
The General Manager, M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., At./Po. Sunabeda, Dist. Koraput, Odisha – 764 020
… 1st Party-Management
AND
The President, Biju Aeronautics Employees Union, HAL, Po. Sunabeda, Dist. Koraput. Pin – 764 020.
… 2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
None … For the 1st Party-Management Shri S.P. Sabut … For the 2nd Party-Union
ORDER
The disputant workman is present whereas, no one appears on behalf of the Management on repeated calls.
Filing his I.D. proof like office I. card in support of proof for his identity the disputant orally submits that he is no more interested to prosecute the dispute raised by him before the labour machinery as there was an amicable out of court settlement. He orally makes a prayer for closure of the adjudication process.
It is seen from the record that the dispute with the schedule "Whether the action by the management of HAL, Sunabeda in transferring Sh. Amulya Ratna Mallick, ex-President of the Union and 04 others (Shri S.P. Sabat, President of the Union, S.P. Rout, Tulu Behera Sosipatra Bhatra) members of the Biju Aeronautics Employees Union from HAL, Sunabeda to other places of HAL out of Odisha attracting the provision of Unfair Labour Practice to be read with item (7) of the Fifth Schedule of I.D. Act, 1947 is legally justified? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to" has been referred to this Tribunal for its adjudication vide letter No. L. 14011/21/2017 (IR(U), dated 09.01.2018. After filing of his statement of claim the disputant is not willing to prosecute the matter on account of amicable settlement between the parties. As the disputant is not interested to proceed with the case and in the absence of the materials I am constrained to hold that nothing remains pending for adjudication before this Tribunal for which the dispute has been referred to.
As such, keeping in view the submissions made by the 2nd party the reference is disposed of without any award for non- prosecution by the disputant. The copy of the order be sent as per rule to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, for necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1319
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 448448448448....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली, और एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-
1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 38/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 4.20.19 को प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 448.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 4.20.19.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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
DID No.34/2017
Shri Ram Sagar S/o Shri Pohkar Sagar, R/o D-144, Radice Lane, Delhi Inter City, Delhi – 110 017
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Ram Sagar (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2- A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a helper with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 10.05.2013 and his last drawn wages was Rs.9,048.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period1320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a helper with the management since 03.08.2007. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 03.08.2017. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 03.08.2007 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
" 13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1321ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Ram Sagar, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of 50% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 449449449449....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली, और एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-
1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 38/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 4.2.19 को प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 449.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 4.2.19.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer1322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
DID No.38/2017
Shri Mool Chand S/o Shri Khoob Chand, R/o House No.135, Mess Quarter, Khemar Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi – 110 094
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Mool Chand (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a helper with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 10.05.2013 and his last drawn wages was Rs.9,048.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a helper with the management since 10.05.2013. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 10.05.2013. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1323 any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 10.05.2013 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
" 13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
(i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
(ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering1324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Mool Chand, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of 50% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 450450450450....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स अध्यक्ष,रेलवे और डाक कर्मचारी संघ, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात), और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम
न्यायालय-1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 16/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 18.01.19 को
प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-40011/27/2010----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 450.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2010) 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 President, Association of Railway and Post Employees, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 18.02.19.
[No. L-40011/27/2010-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 05th February, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 16/2010
1. The General Manager,
Post and Telegraph Department, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Office,
Gandhinagar Division, Sector 30, Gandhinagar (Gujarat)
..First Parties
V/s
The President, The Association of Railway and Post Employees, 4, Alap Flats,Near Swaminarayan Chowk, Jawaharnagar, Vasna Road,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1325 …Second Party Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007 For the First Parties : Shri P.M. Rami For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak & Shri Chintan Gohel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/27/2010–IR(DU) dated 31.05.2010 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Post and Telegraph Department in terminating the services of Shri Abdulbhai Sulemanbhai Sindhi w.e.f. April, 2007 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
1. The reference dates back to 31.05.2010 and received on 14.06.2010 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on 04.04.2011 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on 12.03.2012.
3. The second party union The President, The Association of Railway and Post Employees, 4, Alap Flats, Near Swaminarayan Chowk, Jawaharnagar, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as "union" in his statement of claim has alleged that the second party workman Abdulbhai Sulemanbhai Sindhi, hereinafter referred to as "workman" has been working as casual labour (Group D) since 1989 and worked till the date of termination i.e. April, 2005. His services were terminated without following due procedure of law and also without giving him notice, paying notice pay or retrenchment compensation in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as "Act". The first parties The General Manager, Post and Telegraph Department, Khanpur, Ahmedabad and The Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office, Gandhinagar Division, Sector 30, Gandhinagar, hereinafter referred to as "first party" also retained the junior casual labour while terminating him in violating the provisions of Section 25 G of the Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, hereinafter referred to as "Rules". He has further alleged that the first party while conducting fresh recruitments did not give him the opportunity of re-employment in violation of Section 25 H and N of the Act. Thus he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.
4. The first party in his written statement Ex. 12 submitted that this workman was engaged as Postman Group D/EDA in the leave vacancy for only 3 days from 17.09.1998 to 19.09.1998. He never worked for 240 days in the period of engagement. Thus no provision of Industrial Law was violated and the reference is fit to be dismissed.
5. The second party vide list Ex. 18 submitted the papers showing that he was engaged as EDA. He has also moved an application Ex. 15 for mandamus to be issued to first party to submit the seniority list of casual labours which was disposed of with a direction to the parties to place the documents which were never submitted by the first party on the ground of being not traceable.
6. The second party also submitted documents vide list Ex. 21 which are reproduced as under:
| Serial No. | List of documents |
| 1 | Copy of certificate issued by the Post Master (HSG-I) Kalol dated 12.06.2004 |
| 2 | A letter of senior Superintendent of Post Office dated 19.01.2005 approval for the post of Postman |
| 3 | Representation of second party workman (03.09.2004) |
| 4 | Acknowledgement slip for the aforesaid representation dated 03.09.2004 |
| 5 | Representation of second party workman (04.09.2006) |
| 6 | Acknowledgement slip for the aforesaid representation dated 04.09.2006 |
| 7 | Vouchers of payment of salary to second party workman |
| 8 | Instructions of Head Post Master, Kalol for payment of salary |
| 9 | Acquaintance Roll (Payment of salary) |
| 10 | ACG-17 Vouchers |
| 11 | Money order receipt |
| 12 | Application for leave for extra departmental agents (Page No. 1 to 28) |
7. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i. Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Post and Telegraph Department in terminating the services of Shri Abdulbhai Sulemanbhai Sindhi w.e.f. April, 2007 is legal and justified?
ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?
1326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]8. 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. 8 and in his examination-in-chief in the said affidavit reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim but in his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember the day and month of the joining of service. It is wrong to say that he did work only for 3 days. He was not given any appointment letter. He did not pass any examination for recruitment. He used to work in the leave vacancy.
9. The first party submitted the affidavit Ex. 20 of his witness named Bhadreshkumar Kantilal Mehta, Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Gandhinagar reiterating the averments made in the written statement denying all the averments and evidence of the workman. He, in his cross-examination, has stated that he knows the handwriting of Sub- post Master who issued the certificate Ex. 18/2 to 18/4. These documents are genuine but these documents reveal that the workman worked from 17.09.1998 to 19.09.1998 i.e. only for 3 days. These documents Ex. 18/2 to 18/4 are submitted by the second party workman relying thereon. Thus on the basis of these documents, it can be believed that this workman worked only for 3 days.
10. I perused the oral and documentary evidence and considered the arguments of the parties. This is a case where the workman has not worked for more than 240 days. Thus a workman who worked only for 3 days on a leave vacancy has not been given any right in the Industrial Disputes Act for any relief; therefore the reference has no force. Both the issues are decided against the workman and the reference is liable to be rejected.
11. Thus the reference is dismissed. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 451451451451....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स आयोजन सिचव, रेलवे और डाक कर्मचारी संघ, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात), और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के
संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं
Dम न्यायालय-,1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 549/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को
18.02.19 को प्राप्त Bए थे ।
[सं. एल-40011/1/2003----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 451.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 549/2004) 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 Organising Secretary, Association of Railway and Post Employees, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 18.02.19.
[No. L-40011/1/2003-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 07th February, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 549/2004
1. The Chief Post Master General, Gujarat Circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
2. The Superintendent Engineer (Construction), Postal Civil Circle, Naranpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
3. The Executive Engineer (Construction), Postal Civil Division, P & T Administration Building, 6th Floor, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009 …First Parties[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1327
V/s
The Organising Secretary, The Association of Railway and Post Employees, 15, Shashi Apartment, Near Anjali Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007
…Second Party
For the First Parties : Shri B.J. Ujjaini
For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak and Shri Chintan Gohel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40011/1/2003–IR(DU) dated 31.03.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of CPMG, Ahmedabad in not regularising the services of Shri Jayantibhai M. Vaghela after having rendered more than 16 years service, with consequent benefits is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
1. The reference dates back to 31.03.2003 and received on 16.04.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 10 on 19.04.2012 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 21.01.2013.
3. The advocate for the first party submitted a purses Ex. 17 that the workman sweeper Jayantibhai M. Vaghela has already been regularised in service from 10.02.2014. The copy of order is also enclosed with the purses vide Ex. 18. Thus the second party workman does not want to prosecute the case in the light of the aforesaid order.
4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of office memorandum of the first party Ex. 17 and 18. The documents Ex. 17 and 18 shall be the part of the award.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 452452452452....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 31/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 452.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer1328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR
COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
DID No. 31/2017
Shri Vir Singh S/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o Gali No.5, Sangam Vihar, Jharoda, Delhi
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Vir Singh (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a cook with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 17.03.2009 and his last drawn wages was Rs.13,000.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a cook with the management since 17.03.2009. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 17.03.2009. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1329 was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 17.03.2009 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
" 13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
(i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
(ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
1330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Vir Singh, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 453453453453....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम
न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 29/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को
प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 453.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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
DID No.29/2017
Shri Shambhu Nath Yadav S/o Shri Daulat Ram Yadav, R/o 47, Village Dabhiyar, Post Kumbhapur, PS Dabhiyar, Distt. Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Shambhu Nath Yadav (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1331 right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub- section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a helper with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 21.02.2009 and his last drawn wages was Rs.9,048.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a helper with the management since 21.02.2009. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 21.02.2009. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 21.02.2009 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
" 13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in1332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
(i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
(ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Shambhu Nath Yadav, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of 50% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आआआआ. . . . 454454454454....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम
न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 33/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को
प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1333
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 454.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNA-CUM LABOUR
COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
DID No. 33/2017
Shri Ramniwas S/o Shri Rampal R/o P-28/8, Timarpur, Delhi – 110 094
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Ramniwas (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a mali with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 15.07.2009 and his last drawn wages was Rs.9,048.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 10.06.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 10.06.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Thereafter, an application was moved of behalf of legal representatives of Shri Ramniwas, who unfortunately expired on 26.02.2018, for substitution of her name in the array of parties. Thereafter, Ms.Anita tendered her affidavit as1334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] evidence, besides documents, to support the claim. Ms.Anita also tendered additional evidence to further buttress the claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a mali with the management since 15.07.2009. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 15.07.2009. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 15.07.2009 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
"13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
(i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
(ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1335 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Ramniwas, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of 60% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 455455455455....————औद्योगिक विवाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम
न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 30/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को
प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 455.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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
DID No.30/2017
Shri Bhagwat Singh S/o Shri Khem Singh, R/o Village Nahad, Post Korla, Thana & Zilla Almora, Uttarakhand
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.)1336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Bhagwat Singh (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2- A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a cook with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 08.08.2013 and his last drawn wages was Rs.13,000.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a helper with the management since 21.02.2009. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 08.08.2013. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 08.08.2013 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1337 purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
" 13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Bhagwat Singh, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of650% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer1338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 456456456456....————औद्योगिक विवाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स रिलायंस अ(cid:131)वाल फनसिटी मॉल, कड़कड़डूमा, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-
1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 255/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bआ
था।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 456.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 255/2018) 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 Raliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., Aggarwal Funcity Mall, Karkardooma, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 07.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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.255/2018
Shri Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Om Prakash R/o House No.A-4/302, Nand Nagar, Delhi 110 093
Through
All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Registration No.3025), 170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 019
…Workman
Versus
1. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., 1st Floor, Aggarwal Funcity Mall, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 032
2. M/s S/G. Encon Pvt. Ltd., B.S.-138, Sector 70 NOIDA, Zila Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Pankaj Kumar (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2- A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant averring that he was working with M/s Reliance Infocomm. Ltd.(in short the management) through M/s S.G. Encon Pvt. Ltd.(in short the contractor) from 23.08.2015 as Filed worker at a monthly wage of Rs.17,000.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management and gave no chance of complaint. No memo or charge sheet was ever served on him. The claimant was deprived of genuine labour facilities, i.e. bonus, yearly leave, double overtime, increments, wage slip etc. He demanded for the above legal[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1339 facilities which irked the management and the management started paying his wages through vouchers. On objecting to the same, he was threatened to be thrown out of the job. However, when he reported for duties on 13.10.2017, the management without assigning any reason, all of a sudden, terminated his services. His earned wages for the period 01.10.2017 to 12.10.2017 and bonus and overtime for the period 23.08.2015 to 12.10.2017 have not been paid to him. Demand notice was sent to the management on 14.10.2017 but the management did not respond to the same. The management did not appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner despite issuance of notice. The claimant is unemployed till date. Finally, it has been prayed that the claimant may be reinstated in service with full back wages.
3. Thereafter, the case was listed for filing of written statement by the managements. However, it was stated by Shri Munish Kumar, Manager of M/s S.G. Encon Private Ltd. that the matter is under settlement. On 09.01.2019, management filed Memorandum of Understanding Ex.C-1 between M/s. S.G. Encon Pvt. Ltd and the claimant, duly signed by both the parties, stating that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 is being paid as full and final settlement. Statement of Shri Pankaj Kumar recorded separately. Cheque No.006411 dated 17.09.2018 for Rs.1,50,000.00 is Ex.C-2. In view of the Memorandum of Understanding Ex.C-1, there remains no grievance between the parties. The claim now stands settled amicably vide Memorandum of Understanding Ex.C-1 and cheque Ex.C-2, which shall form integral part of this Award. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : January 24, 2019
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 457457457457....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम
न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 36/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को
प्राप्त Bआ था।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 457.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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
DID No.36/2017
Shri Dinesh Singh Bisht S/o Shri Amar Singh Bisht, R/o C-1/825A, Gali Ni.14, Main Som Bazar Road, Teesra Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi 110 090
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman1340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Dinesh Singh Bisht (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2- A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a helper with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 31.07.2009 and his last drawn wages was Rs.9,048.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a helper with the management since 31.07.2009. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 31.07.2009. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 31.07.2009 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1341 9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
" 13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Dinesh Singh Bisht, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of 60% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer1342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 458458458458....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम
न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 32/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को
प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 458.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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
DID No.32/2017
Shri Ram Raj S/o Shri Ram Baksh, R/Village Joli Meerganj, Post Gossain Ganj, Zilla Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Ramraj (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a mali with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 26.09.2006 and his last drawn wages was Rs.9,048.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1343 obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a mali with the management since 26.09.2006. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 26.09.2006. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 26.09.2006 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
" 13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
1344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Ramraj, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of 60% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 459459459459....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स आयोजन सिचव, रेलवे और डाक कर्मचारी संघ, अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के
संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं
Dम न्यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 14/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को
18.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-40012/117/2002----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 459.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2006) 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 Organising Secretary, Association of Railway and Post Employees, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 18.02.2019.
[No. L-40012/117/2002-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1345
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 07th February, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No- 14/2006
1. The Chief Post Master General,
Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ahmedabad City Division,
Ashram Road, Old PMG House, Near Akashwani,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380009 …First Parties
V/s
The Organising Secretary,
The Association of Railway and Post Employees,
15, Shashi Apartment, Near Anjali Cinema, Vasna Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007 …Second Party
For the First Parties : Shri A.S. Saiyed
For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak and Shri Chintan Gohel
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/117/2002– IR(DU) dated 03.02.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Chief Post Master General/Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Dashrathbhai Muljibhai Parmar w.e.f. 01.04.1994 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
1. The reference dates back to 03.02.2006 and received on 13.02.2006 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 26.06.2006 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 14.08.2007.
3. Since then despite giving dozen of opportunities to lead evidence, the second party workman did not prefer to lead evidence. Moreover, Shri Chintan Gohel, advocate for the second party workman states that the workman has not been in his contact since then.
4. Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case.
5. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Chief Post Master General/Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Shri Dashrathbhai Muljibhai Parmar w.e.f. 01.04.1994 is justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer1346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 460460460460....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी, टेलीफोन एक्सजेंच, जेतपुर राजकोट (गुजरात) और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं
Dम न्यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 614/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को
18.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-40012/215/1992----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 460.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 614/2004) 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 Sub- Divisional Officer, Telephone Exchange, Jetpur Rajkot (Gujarat) and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 18.02.2019.
[No. L-40012/215/1992-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 07th February, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 614/2004
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telephone Exchange, Jetpur, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360370
…First Party
V/s
Shri Rajesh B. Pathak, Near Old Bus Stand, Jetpur, Rajkot (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Parties : Shri H.R. Raval For the Second Party : Mrs. K.L. Kalwani
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/215/92–IR(DU) dated 04.03.1995 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, Telephone Exchange, Jetpur is justified in terminating the services of Shri Rajeshkumar B. Pathak? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
1. The reference dates back to 04.03.1995 and received on 15.03.1995 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 29.04.1997.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 13473. The second party workman was also examined on 01.07.1997 but he has been absent for cross-examination since then. Today on 07.02.2019, Mrs. K.L. Kalwani has moved an application Ex. 38 for withdrawal of the case.
4. Therefore, the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 461461461461....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम
न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 35/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को
प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O.461 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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
DID No. 35/2017
Shri Surender Singh S/o Shri Madhav Prasad, R/o 123, Gagan Vihar, C Block, PS Sahilpur, Tehsil & Zilla Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Surender Singh (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section1348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a mali general with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 28.11.2002 and his last drawn wages was Rs.9,048.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
4. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a helper with the management since 28.11.2002. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 28.11.2002. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 28.11.2002 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. (2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
"13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1349 equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Surender Singh, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of 60% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A.C. DOGRA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 462462462462....————औद्योगिक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रिसिपल, दौलत राम कॉलेज छात्रावास, मौरिस नगर, दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX
नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम
न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 37/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.02.2019 को
प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी1350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th March, 2019
S.O. 462.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Maurice Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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
DID No. 37/2017
Shri Subhash S/o Shri Nathu Singh, R/o House No.355, 33 Foota Road, Pushkar Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Phase 4, Karwawal Nagar, Delhi 110 094
Through
Shri Kapil Dev Pandey, General Secretary, Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh (Regd.) D-3/340, Gali No.6, Sonia Vihar, Delhi – 110 094
…Workman
Versus
The Principal, Daulat Ram College Hostel, Malkaganj road, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar, Delhi – 110 007
…Managements
AWARD
Present dispute has been raised by Shri Subhash (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.
2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant that he was working as a helper with Daulat Ram College Hostel (in short the management ) since 21.12.2015 and his last drawn wages was Rs.9,048.00. The claimant worked to the entire satisfaction of the management. The claimant was deprived of legal labour benefits, such as appointment letter, attendance card, leaves, pay slip, earned leave, overtime, bonus etc. When he insisted for the aforesaid benefits, that act enraged the authorities and he was not paid wages in time. On the pretext of paying his past wages, the management obtained his signatures on blank documents/vouchers. The services were finally terminated on 22.08.2016 and he was threatened with dire consequences in case he enters the premises of the management. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.08.2016 but the management failed to respond to the same. His earned wages for the period 01.06.2016 to 22.08.2016, leave encashment, overtime, bonus etc. have not been paid by the management. No charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Termination of services is violative of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and Rule 77 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. Notice was sent to the management by registered post on 22.02.2017 calling upon it to file its written statement on or before 13.04.2017. Neither the postal article was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected from 22.02.2017 to 13.04.2017. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that notice sent by registered post was served upon the contractor. None responded on behalf of the management despite service of the notice. Hence, the management was proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 13.07.2017. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the claimant was recorded.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 13514. Claimant tendered his affidavit as evidence, besides documents, to support his claim. The claimant tendered additional evidence to further buttress his claim.
5. I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant.
6. It is the case of the claimant that he was engaged as a helper with the management since 21.12.2015. It is also admitted by the management in their reply dated 01/07.12.2016 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the claimant was working on daily wage basis from 21.12.2015. However, no appointment letter/attendance card/leave book, pay slip or annual leave/overtime or bonus was issued as he was a daily wager/casual labour and hence not entitled to any benefits. The claimant, in order to prove his case has filed copy of his pass book of the account in which the salary was being credited. It is, thus, clear from detailed discussions made herein above, that the workmen herein are daily rated workers and are working regularly since their initial appointment.
7. This Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the management has not cared to participate in the proceedings despite issuance of notice. There is no evidence led to the contrary by the management so as to rebut the allegations contained in the statement of claim. This Tribunal, is, otherwise entitled to draw adverse inference against the management for not participating in the proceedings and entering into the witness box.
8. It is apparent from pleadings of the claimant that he has joined services with the college from 21.12.2015 onwards. It is pertinent to note here that the management, in its reply filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ex.WW1/3, has not denied the factum of engagement of the claimant who has come with the plea that services of the claimant were requisitioned as and when the need arose and he was never in the regular employment of the management. Management has also admitted before the ALC that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant. It is also clear from Ex.WW1/3 that the management does not possess attendance records of daily wagers from February 2010 to August 2016. Equally settled is the principle of law that it is not necessary to produce and prove the letter of appointment nor the same is necessary to prove the jural relationship of employer and employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the managements are engaging workmen without issuing any letter of appointment purposely so that such workmen may not claim status of 'workman' under the Act. Admittedly, claimant has also served the management with legal demand notice Ex.WW1/1 and thereafter matter was also taken before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
9. The action of the management in not serving any notice to the claimant before his termination or payment of one months' salary or notice in lieu thereof is in clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act. Section 25 F lays down the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of the workman and require the employer to give one month notice to the workman in writing or one month wages in lieu of such notice as well as retrenchment of compensation to such workman. This provision is mandatory and violation of the same would render action against the management under the law. The Hon'ble Apex court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industies Ltd. ( 2014 LAB.I.C. 2643 Supreme Court) interpreted the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and observed as under:
"13. ….. no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer until the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25 F of the Act are satisfied. In terms of Clause (a), the employer is required to give to the workman one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or pay him wages in lieu of the notice. Clause (b) casts a duty upon the employer to pay to the workman at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service of any part thereof in excess of six months. This Court has repeatedly held that Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity."
10. The claimant has, in his affidavit, clearly stated that he was not gainfully employed after his termination nor there is any evidence on record to show that claimant was doing any kind of job after his termination. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that claimant was out of job after his termination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" has held as under :
The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."1352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/ engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. It is thus clear from the ratio of the above authorities that compliance of provisions of Section 25 F is mandatory under the law and violation of the same would render action against the management to be illegal or void under the law.
13. The net result of the above discussion is that the action of the management in not allowing the claimant to do his duty amounts to termination and the same is held to be illegal under the law.
14. In view of the legal position discussed above, this court is of the firm view that Shri Subhash, the claimant, is entitled to 60% of the back wages instead of full back wages as well as reinstatement with continuity of service as action of the management in the case on hand, is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In case, the amount of 60% back wages is not paid by the management within one month from the date of publication of the Award, in that eventuality, the workman shall be entitled to recover the same with an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication, till its realization. An award is, accordingly, passed.
Dated : January 10, 2019
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 मार्च, 2019
काकाकाका.... आ. आ. आ. आ. 463463463463....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स जनरल मैनेजर, वलसाड टेलीकॉम डिस्ट्रिक्ट, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, वलसाड (गुजरात) और अन्य एवं उनके
कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 83/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो
के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 11.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-40012/144/2004----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 12th March, 2019
S.O. 463.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2005) 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, Valsad Telecome District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Valsad (Gujarat) and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 11.02.2019.
[No. L-40012/144/2004-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 22nd January, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 83/2005
The General Manager, Valsad Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Halar Road, Valsad (Gujarat) - 396001
…First Party[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1353
V/s
Smt. Nanduben Ishwarbhai Dimar, Res. At and Post Vesma, Bazar Faliya, Tal. Jalalpor, Navsari (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Parties : Shri H.R. Raval For the Second Party : Shri S.K. Kazi
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/144/2004– IR(DU) dated 21.12.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Valsad Telecom District, Valsad in terminating the services of Smt. Nanduben Ishwarbhai Dimar w.e.f. 01.11.2003 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman Smt. Nanduben Ishwarbhai Dimar is entitled?"
1. The reference dates back to 21.12.2004 and received on 05.01.2005 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to both the parties, the second party workwoman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on 23.01.2009 alleging that she was engaged as part time sweeper since long but her attendance was not marked in the muster roll and her attendance was marked since 01.07.1999 on monthly wages of Rs.2000/-. She was made regular in the month of August, 2000. She used to work more than 240 days in each and every calendar year but she was removed on 20.10.2003 without giving any notice and notice pay. Therefore, she has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.
3. The first party The General Manager, Valsad Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Halar Road, Valsad, hereinafter referred to as 'first party' submitted the written statement Ex. 19 on 19.09.2011 submitting that the averments made in the statement of claim are false, frivolous, illegal and untenable. No cause of action arises in the case. The second party workwoman was engaged as part time sweeper at Vesma Telephone Exchange for 2 hours a day w.e.f. 01.07.1999 receiving the official approval from BSNL Head Quarter, New Delhi. Later the department issued instructions vide communication no. 269-94/98-STN-2 dated 29.09.2000 giving directions that all the casual labours engaged after 01.08.1998 be discharged, therefore, this workwoman was removed as she has joined on 01.07.1999. Therefore, the reference is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. The copies of aforesaid order and notifications have been submitted by the first party. The second party workwoman has also submitted number of documents vide Ex. 31 regarding the communication of removal of her on 18.10.2003 and also removing the other workmen at other telephone exchanges vide letter dated 05.11.2003.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i. Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Valsad Telecom District, Valsad in terminating the services of Smt. Nanduben Ishwarbhai Dimar w.e.f. 01.11.2003 is legal, proper and justified?
ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?
6. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of these issues lies on the second party workman who submitted her affidavit Ex. 10 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim but she has not stated anything contrary in her cross-examination.
7. The first party examined one Shri Anwar Mohammad Patel vide affidavit Ex. 22 who reiterated the averments made in the written statement but in his cross-examination, he has admitted that this workwoman had been working under his overall administrative control. She was not given any appointment letter as she was a casual labour. She was not given notice or notice pay at the time of removal as daily wages sweeper. He has also admitted the work which this workwoman sweeper used to do still exist and so far no sweeper has been appointed till date. Thus the removal of daily wager without giving notice and paying notice pay is violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus she is entitled for reinstatement with lump-sum compensation of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand).
8. The issue no i and ii are decided accordingly. The first party is directed to reinstate the second party workwoman Nanduben Ishwarbhai Dimar along with Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as lump-sum compensation within 30 days from the publication of this award in the gazette.
9. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer1354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 464464464464....————औद्योिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स गुड ईयर सिक्योरिटी सMवसेस, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और
उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-1,
नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 39/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 26.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2019
S.O. 464.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Good Year Security Services, Dwarka, New Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 26.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA
COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 39/2017
Shri Jayprakash Saini S/o, Shri Kallu Ram Saini, C/o. Delhi Pradesh Factory & Dehari Mazdoor Congress, 627, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi 8.
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
1. M/s. Good Year Security Services, 203, Vikash Suriya Okard, Sector 11, Plot No.8, Ashirwad Chowk, Dwarka, New Delhi 75.
2. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi -01
… Management/Respondents
AWARD
This is a claim directly filed by the workman/claimant Jayprakash under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), with the averments that he was appointed by Management No.1 on the post of Security Guard in the month of December, 2009 and was deputed to work with the Management No.2. His last drawn wages were Rs.7000/- per month. The workman used to work sincerely, honestly and without any complaint to the Managements. Management No.1 and 2 used to take work for 10 hours per day but the Management no.1 has not paid over time wages and other legal facilities viz. ESI, PF, casual leave, yearly increment and minimum wages. Ultimately at the persistent demand of the workman, he was provided with PF and ESI facilities but the management No.1 got annoyed with him and in order to get rid of him, the Management No.1 illegally terminated the workman from services without any rhyme or reason on 18/1/2016 on the direction of Management No.2. The workman approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. A demand notice was sent to the Management through the Union but to no response. It is pleaded that the workman had worked continuously with the management since the day of his joining in December, 2009 till his illegal termination on 18/1/2016 and as such he worked for more than 240 days with the Management. It is also pleaded that after illegal termination, the workman searched for the job at many places but does not find any job and as such he is completely unemployed and dependent upon his family. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
2. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the Managements but none appeared on behalf of the Management No.1. Though Shri Ajay Ekka, UDC and Murari Kumar, LDC appeared on behalf of Management No.2 in response to[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1355 the notice issued and took time to file written statement, however, Management no.2 also opted not to participate in the proceedings and as such the case was proceeded ex parte against both the Managements vide order dated 2/8/2017.
3. In order to prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW1 & tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied on documents Ex.WW/1 to Ex.WW1/13.
4. I have heard Shri Ajit Singh, A/R for the workman./claimant and have gone through the record carefully.
5. I may mention that affidavit Ex.WW1/A filed by the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. He has filed on record copy of the complaint/representation dated 10/2/2016 which he had moved to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer; copy of demand notice Ex.WW1/2 sent to the Management No.1 and its postal receipts Ex.WW1/3 & Ex.WW1/4; claim petition filed before the Conciliation Officer as Ex.WW1/5; certificate Ex.WW1/6 issued by the Conciliation Officer regarding no settlement arrived at between the parties during the conciliation proceedings; copies of identity cards Ex.WW1/7 to Ex.WW1/11 issued by Management NO.1 M/s Good Year Security Services; copy of ESI card as Ex.WW1/12 and copy of PF statement as Ex.WW1/8. Perusal of these documents clearly substantiate the claim of the claimant/workman that it was the Management No.1 who had appointed him on the post of Security Guard in December, 2009 and he worked as such for more than six years. As such, it stands proved on record that there existed relationship of employer-employee exclusively between the Management No.1 and the claimant herein and that the claimant falls within the definition of "workman" as provided under Section 2(S) of the Act.
6. The version of the claimant that the Management No.1 illegally terminated his services on 18/1/2016 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act and that since then he is unemployed, has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. The Management No.1 has not come forward either to deny or rebut the allegations of the claimant/workman or to show that services of the claimant were retrenched/terminated after serving him a prior notice or payment of compensation in lieu of notice period as required under Section 25-F of the Act. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render whole action of the Management to be illegal and wrong under the law.
7. In his affidavit, the workman has specifically stated that worked for more than 240 days with the Management. It is also pleaded that after illegal termination, the workman searched for the job at many places but does not find any job and as such he is completely unemployed and dependent upon his family. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is gainfully employed somewhere else on full time/regular basis Even if it is assumed that the workmen is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make his both ends meet on daily wage basis, that would not itself amount to gainful employment. In the circumstances, it is held that action of the Management in terminating the service of the workmen is totally illegal and wrong and is in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
8. Now the residual question is whether workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. It depends on number of factors – whether workman was regular, temporary or daily wager; he was recruited in proper manner or whether his work is of regular and temporary nature; length of service or delay in approaching the Tribunal and whether termination is in gross violation of provisions of the Act.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
(i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
(ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/ employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the1356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
11. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be totally, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
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 :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year."
13. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2015) 9 SCC 345, titled as Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, on the question of reinstatement of workman after his retrenchment is declared void ab initio have held as under :-
20. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court in awarding reinstatement of the Appellate-workman in his post alongwith 50% back wages, which is erroneous in law as the High Court has not noticed the fact that the appropriate Government has referred the dispute to the Labour Court for its adjudication on the points of dispute referred to it. Since, there was non-compliance of the mandatory requirements as provided under the provisions of the Act by the Respondent-firm at the time of passing an order of termination against the Appellant-workman, therefore, the same has been held to be bad in law and as such it should have awarded full back wages to the workman from the date of termination till the date of passing the Award unless the employer proves that the workman was gainfully employed during the aforesaid period which fact is neither pleaded nor proved before the Labour Court.
21. Therefore, the impugned judgement of the High Court is bad in law as the normal rule to be followed by the Respondent-firm with regard to the termination of the services of the workman has not been done in the present case and further, the High Court has once again exceeded in its supervisory jurisdiction in exercise of its judicial review power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the Award of reinstatement with 50% back wages passed by the Labour Court and has instead awarded Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the Appellate –workman, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The High Court cannot exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and act as either original court or appellate court to set aside the finding of fact recorded o the points of dispute referred to the Labour Court on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record in favour of the workman as has been done in the instant case. The Award of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs awarded in place of reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the Labour Court, has been modified by the High Court without assigning any cogent and valid reason which is not only erroneous in law but suffers from error in law as well, as the same is contrary to the catena of decisions of this Court. On this ground itself, the impugned judgement of the High Court is liable to be set aisde and we pass an order to restore the Award passed by the Labour Court."
14. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2016) 6 SCC 541, titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and others, have ordered for the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages, where retrenchment of the service of the workman was in violation of Section 25(f)(a), (b) & (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
15. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and reinstatement held as under :-
"The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1357 with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman his dues in the form of full back wages."
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under :-
"In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award, dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today, be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner….."
16. Having regard to the background of the case, legal position as discussed above, coupled with the fact that the claimant was performing duty as a Security Guard – a job of regular/perennial nature of job, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into service, with 50 per cent back wages to the post held by him, inasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman by Management No.1 is per-se illegal. Award is passed accordingly against Management No.1.
Date : 22.2.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 465465465465....————औद्योगिक विवाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
चेयर मैन सह प्रबंधन निदेशक, कं टेनर कॉपjरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड नई दिल्ली (कॉन्सोर) और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी
के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 138/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
को 29.09.2018 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2018----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2019
S.O. 465.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 138/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chair Man-cum Management Director, Container Corporation of India (Concor) Ltd. New Delhi, and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 29.09.2018.
[No. L-42025/03/2018-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer1358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 138/2016
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Senior Assistant (C & O)/Concor, R/o. D-934 Tigri Colony New Delhi 110062.
…Workman
Versus
The Chairman cum Management Director, Container Corporation of India (Concor) Ltd., Concor Bhawan, C-3 Mathura Road, New Delhi 110076.
… Management
AWARD
This is a claim filed directly by the Workman/claimant Sanjeev Kumar under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), with the averments that the claimant/workman was employed as Senior Assistant (Commercial & Operation) and was posted at Inland Container Deport, Tughlakabad, Okhla, New Delhi, Northern region office of the Management. Service record of the workman was excellent as he was doing his duty even in adverse circumstances with utmost sincerity, honesty and full dedication and the management has acknowledged the same by giving the citations dated 15/2/1999 and 16/6/1999 with cash award for outstanding performance of the workman. On 13/1/99 the workman was deemed suspended for the period from 18/8/1998 to 5/9/98 and was also placed under suspension indefinitely w.e.f. 18/2/99 in view of contemplating the disciplinary proceedings. A chargesheet was issued to the workman vide memorandum dated 25/2/1999 and charges were framed against him in terms of Rule 14(3) of Scheduled of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 regarding unauthorized absence from duty inasmuch as he remained in police custody on 18th and 19th August, 98 and in judicial custody from 28/8/98 to 5/9/98 and was released on bail on 5/9/98. It has been averred that the Enquiry Officer Shri Manish Puri without following principle of natural justice conducted & completed the domestic inquiry and submitted his report dated 30/5/2000. Resultantly, the Management mechanically imposed punishment of "Removal from Service" upon the workman vide order dated 12/7/2000, without appreciating the materials on record and without considering the representation/submissions made by the workman against the Inquiry Report. The workman preferred an administrative appeal against the punishment order before the Departmental Appellate Authority which accepted the submissions of the workman and passed an order dated 13/9/2000, thereby the punishment of "Removal from Service" was kept in abeyance and directions were issued for de-novo inquiry after obtaining the authenticated certified/attested copies of FIR, arrest memo etc. But again the same Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 23/3/2001 with the same conclusion and same result, against which the workman also filed his representation/submissions before Departmental Appellate Authority, which set aside order (of removal from Service) dated 12/7/2000 and issued directions for de-novo inquiry against charges. Vide order dated 10/12/2001 Shri PS Nerwal was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the old charges listed in the memorandum dated 25/2/1999. It is averred that the order dated 10/12/2001 gave another lease of life to the dead chargesheet/ memorandum dated 25/2/99 and issued re-notified chargesheet which was also based without any material to support and without giving workman the opportunity to make submissions. The said inquiry was held at the corporate office of the Management situated in Le Meridian Commercial Tower, Raisina Road, New Delhi vide memorandum dated 31/12/2001. It has further been averred that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in complete violation of principle of natural justice and in a biased manner and consequently, the workman vide his memorandum dated 14/3/2002 and 25/3/2002 informed the Disciplinary Authority about the behavior and biased attitude of the Enquiry Officer with the request to take action. The workman received memo dated 2/4/2002 from the Inquiry Officer, intimating him the postponement of the inquiry fixed for 5/4/2002 till further advice. Thereafter the workman received an order dated 30/4/2002 of the disciplinary Authority, informing the workman that Shri P.S. Nerwal was re-appointed as Enquiry Officer but his representation dated 14/3/2002 and 25/3/2002 were rejected vide order dated 16/4/2002. During pendency of the inquiry proceedings, suspension of the workman was revoked by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 13./6/2002 but vide order dated 29/6/2002 the workman was transferred & posted at Jodhpur unit with malafide intention for harassing and victimizing the workman . Being aggrieved from the transfer order dated 29/6/2002, the workman filed Writ Petition Civil No.3990/2002 before the Hon'ble High Court and vide order dated 8/7/2002 Hon'ble High Court directed the Management to find out alternative place of posting of the workman within the radius of 100 km. and fixed the matter for 17/7/2002. The workman gave his acceptance to be posted at Ludhiana unit. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry on 27/5/2002 and 17/7/2002 at the back of the workman without intimating him the dates and in a biased manner and did not offer a single opportunity to the workman to cross examine the witness Shri Jaivir Singh Gill and finally the Enquiry Officer gave his report on 20/11/2002, against which the workman submitted his representation dated 26/5/2003. Thereafter, on the basis of order dated 26/3/2004 of Disciplinary Authority, the Management while imposing punishment of removal from service of the workman, filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before Industrial Tribunal for approval of its action. The[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1359 said application was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 2/3/2006. Thereafter, the workman moved the Hon'ble High Court vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.5316/2006 for enforcement of his rights to be taken back in service with consequential benefits. The said Writ petition was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 2-11-2006 with the observation that the workman has an efficacious remedy provided under the Act. Thereafter the workman filed an application under Section 33-A of the Act before the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal-ll, Delhi which was registered as ID No.11/2008/ The Tribunal was pleased to pass an Award dated 27/7/2001 thereby directed for reinstatement of the workman in service with back wages & consequential benefits. Against the said Award, the Management filed Writ Petition (C) No. 7387/2001 before Hon'ble High Court and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 10/10/2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court. Against that order, the Management preferred LPA NO. 943/2011 and the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court passed order dated 21/8/2012, thereby allowing the LPA of the Management & setting aside the order dated 10-10-2011 passed by the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7387/2001 as well as award dated 27/7/2011 passed in ID No. 11/2008 and directed the workman herein to raise the dispute in respect of his termination Thereafter the workman approached the Conciliation Officer who made efforts for reconciliation between the workman and management but to no success and ultimately, the Conciliation Officer issued certificate dated 25/4/2016, directing the workman to approach the Tribunal. In this background, the present claim petition has been filed by the Workman alleging that action of the Management is illegal; the workman has not been gainfully employed since the management did not allow him to join duties since 26/3/2004 and as such the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Prayer has been made and action of the Management imposing punishment of removal from service vide order dated 26/3/2004 to be not justified and/or alternatively, inquiry held by the Enquiry Officer Shri PS Nerwal be declared as wrong, malafide and perverse and further that, the Management be directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service alongwith full back wages and consequential benefits.
2. The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed reply thereo & took preliminary objections that in fact, the claimant/workman was removed from service vide order dated 26/3/2004 and the appeal filed by the workman was dismissed by the Ld. Appellate Authority vide order dated 29/6/2004 but no prayer challenging the order dated 26/3/2004 and/or order dated 29/6/2004 has been made in the claim petition and as such, the claim petition is not covered under Section 2-A of the Act. The claim petition is barred by time and hence liable to be rejected on this score It is alleged in para (f) of the preliminary objections that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition inasmuch as when the order of removal dated 26/3/2004 was passed, the claimant was admittedly posted and working at Ludhiana (Punjab). The claimant/workman was arrested on 18/8/98 and remained in custody from 18/8/98 to 5/9/98 i.e for more than 48 hours and as such he was required to be under deemed suspension in view of provisions of clause No.36.2 of Standing Orders. The claimant had not informed the office about his arrest and custody etc., rather with a view to conceal his arrest, he had applied for leave only on the ground of "personal". It has been alleged that proper charge sheet was issued to the claimant and proper enquiry has been held. Disciplinary Authority had passed the order of punishment of removal from service, upon the workman after giving him due opportunity to make his submissions. It is also alleged that the claimant has pursued his further studies and completed graduation in law and he is practicing in law. Prayer has been made for rejection of the claim petition.\
3. The claimant/workman filed rejoinder wherein he denied all theallegations made by the Management and reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition
4. Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties, framed three issues on 8/11/2016, whereas additionallssue No. 2-A was framed vide order dated 9/3/2017. The issues so framed by this Tribunal read as under
1) Whether the Domestic Inquiry held against the workman is not fair and perverse as same is also against regulation and principle of natural justice ?
2) Whether the management was not justified in not allowing the workman to join his duty ?
2-A) Whether the claim is not legally maintainable, the Court has no jurisdiction and the claim filed by the claimant is time barred as alleged ?
3) Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits ?
5. It is notable that issue No. 1 was treated as Preliminary issue and parties were called upon to produce evidence on these issues first The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/59. On the other hand, the Management in support of its case examined Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Senior Manager, as MW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/8. This witness has also tendered in evidence Enquiry proceedings as well as other documents relating thereto.
I would be discussing the same while giving my findings on aforesaid issue No.1.
Issue No.1
6. It was strongly urged by the workman/claimant that he was wrongly charge-sheeted under the Standing Orders, 1997 (Ex.WW1/6), whereas Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1993 (Ex.WW1/5) would be applicable to him being the workman/employee working in the Yard and that he was not governed by the Standing Orders 1997 Ex.WW1/6). The claimant was admittedly employed in the Yard at Tughlagabad and not in the workshop. Attention of this Tribunal was also invited to the counter affidavit (Ex.VWV1/7) filed by the Management as respondent No.2 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P(Civil) No. 142/97 titled as Container Corporation of India Employees Union Versus UOI & another, wherein there is reference to the fact that Disciplinary and Appeal Rules are applicable on those employees who are not working in the workshop. Therefore, entire action since issuance of chargesheet (Ex.WW1/9) till passing of the1360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] order of removal from service are not valid.
7. It was also urged by the workman/claimant that documents on which reliance was placed by the Management during the course of domestic enquiry were not supplied to him alongwith the chargesheet. Even witnesses were later on introduced in the said enquiry, though their names were not mentioned in the list when chargesheet was served upon him. Attention of this Tribunal was invited to the proceeding of domestic enquiry dated 27/5/2002 (Ex.\A/W1/30) to show that one Shri Jaivir Singh Gill, MHER of P S. Parliament Street, New Delhi whose name does not find mentioned in the List of witnesses relied upon by the Management, was examined by the Enquiry Officer at the back of the workman who being unwell, could not attend the inquiry proceedings on that day and in fact, no opportunity was granted to the workman to cross examine the witness..
8. It has been submitted that no opportunity for leading evidence in defence was afforded to the workman, as provided in para 42.13 of the Standing Orders (Ex.WW1/6). In nut shell, thrust of arguments advanced by the workman is that principle of natural justice was not adopted by the Enquiry Officer and that fair opportunity was not granted during the enquiry proceedings . The workman placed reliance on a number of authorities so as to buttress his submission that fair opportunity is required to be granted to the chargesheeted employee besides supplying him copies of all documents and list of witnesses alongwith chargesheet.
9. I may mention that during the course of arguments, reference was made by both the parties to the earlier litigation between the parties. Perusal of the record shows that against the order dated 26/3/2004 regarding termination of services of the workman, LPA was preferred before Hon'ble High Court which was decided against the workman on 21/8/2012 and against that order, the workman filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court ; which was decided on 29/4/2013.
10. On the other hand, A/R for the Management strongly urged that the Management adhered to the principle of natural justice and that all relied upon documents were supplied to the workman during the course of domestic enquiry proceedings and hence no prejudice has been caused to the workman. It has been submitted that the witness Jaiveer Singh was just a formal witness who was examined to prove entry in the Roznamcha and First Information Report regarding the case registered against the workman at the Police Station. Ld.A/R for the Management invited attention of this Tribunal to the proceedings dated 2/9/2002 before the Enquiry Officer to show that the workman himself did not lead any evidence despite the fact that he was asked to submit his defence evidence on 24/6/2002. 9/7/2002. 17/7/2002. 31/7/2002, 12/8/2002 and 26/8/2002 and hence, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry vide order dated 2/9/2002.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
12. Before I proceed to scan and analyse the enquiry report conducted against the workman/claimant herein, it is worthwhile to mention that when a departmental/domestic enquiry is conducted against an official, it can not be treated as a casual exercise and that the Inquiry Officer has to be wholly unbiased and should act as an Independent Adjudicator. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 772 had held as under :
"An inquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, eve in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved….
When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the Govt, servant, it can not be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also can not be conducted with a closed mind. The Inquiry Officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a Govt, servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."
13. Original Report of Enquiry against the workman alongwith the proceedings has been filed on record as Ex.MW1/3 (colly ). Perusal of its running page 52 viz. proceeding of enquiry conducted on 22/1/2002 against the workman, would show that when the workman informed the Enquiry Officer that he had no received copy of the chargesheet and enclosures thereof, the Presenting Officer was directed to provide the workman with the copy of the chargesheet and all relied upon documents and only then and there, the same were supplied to the workman. Record of domestic enquiry shows that two witnesses namely S.K. Tyagi, Terminal Manager, TKD (PW1) and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jain, Partner of M/s Arihant Industries, Okhla (PW 2) were examined before the Inquiry Officer on 9/5/2002 and 16/5/2002 respectively but the workman/charged official had refused to cross examine the witnesses, though he was afforded opportunity to do so. The conscience of this Tribunal was shaken to see the manner in which these witnesses were examined, inasmuch as all the questions to those witnesses were put by the Inquiry Officer (1.0.) himself and not by the Presenting Officer Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj who was very well present and was supposed to put questions to the witnesses to substantiate the charges framed against the charged official/workman here.
14. It is, thus, apparent from the face of record of enquiry proceedings that the Inquiry Officer did not act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth, rather he acted as a representative of the Management.
15. In the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case and the legal position as explained above, the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman can not be said to be in conformity with the principle of natural justice, fair play and fair hearing. As such the enquiry got conducted by the Management against the workman is held to be illegal and improper. This issue is decided accordingly.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1361Issue No.2-A
16. Ld. A/R for the Management strenuously contended that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition because when the order of removal dated 26/3/2004 was passed, the claimant was admittedly posted and working at Ludhiana (Punjab). On the other hand, the claimant who argued the matter personally, submitted that this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try the claim petition because all important events like issuance of charge- sheet, conducting the domestic enquiry ad passing the punishment order all are happened at Delhi.
17. I have carefully gone through the record and I am of the considered opinion that there is no force in the submission of the A/R of the Management, inasmuch as admittedly the affairs and activities of the Management Corporation are run & controlled from the office situated here in Delhi i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Apart from this, the domestic enquiry report Ex.MW1/3 clearly shows that the enquiry proceedings were conducted at Delhi against Shri Sanjeev Kumar, the claimant herein, relating to the misconduct during the period he was posted as Assistant (C&O), Northern Region at Tughlagabad, Delhi. The witnesses before the Inquiry Officer were examined at Delhi. As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the Management to argue that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the claim petition. Accordingly, it is held that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim petition.
18. It has also been argued on behalf of the Management that in fact, the claimant/workman was removed from service vide order dated 26/3/2004 and the appeal filed by the workman was dismissed by the Ld. Appellate Authority vide order dated 29/6/2004 but no prayer challenging the order dated 26/3/2004 and/or order dated 29/6/2004 has been made in the claim petition and as such, the claim petition is not covered under Section 2-A of the Act. The claim petition is barred by time.
19. Per contra, it has been argued by the claimant that the claim petition is well within time because the Special Leave Petition bearing No.7937 of 2013 preferred by him against the order dated 21/8/2012 passed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, was dismissed vide order dated 29/4/2013. Thereafter, the claimant had again preferred review application before Hon'ble High Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 27/3/2015.
20. Perusal of the record shows that the claimant was removed from service by the Management vide order dated 29/6/2004 on the basis of order dated 26/3/2004 of the Disciplinary Authority of the Management. The claimant had fiied a complaint bearing LCA/ID No.11/2008 under Section 33-A of the Act on the ground that the Management failed to seek approval of the punishment from the Tribunal regarding his removal from service. The said complaint was decided by the Tribunal vide Award dated 27/7/2011 (Ex.WW1/53). whereby the order dated 26/3/2003 of the Disciplinary Authority of CCIL removing the claimant from service was declared to be null and void and Management/CCIL was directed to pay all dues of Shri Sanjeev Kumar deeming him to have continued in service of CCIL Against the said Award, the Management/CCIL approached Hon'ble High Court vide Writ Petition No.7387/2011 but the Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11/10/2011 (Ex.WW1/54) dismissed the said petition. Then, the Management again moved Hon"ble High Court vide LPA No.943/2011 and the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21/8/2012 set aside the judgement of Learned Single Judge and quashed the order dated 27/7/2011 of the Industrial Tribunal which was passed on the application of claimant Sanjeev Kumar under Section 33- A of the Act. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition bearing No.7937 of 2013 was preferred by the claimant which was dismissed vide order dated 29/4/2013. Thereafter, the claimant had again preferred review application before Hon'ble High Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 27/3/2015.
21. It is fairly settled that provisions of Section 2-A of the Act enables a workman to approach Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, without requirement of reference by Govt, in the cases where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the serviced of an individual workman, for adjudication of the dispute after expiry of forty five days from the date he makes an application to the Conciliation Officer of the Appropriate Govt. However, clause (3) of Section 2-A of the Act clearly provides that such an application/claim shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of his/her discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service.
22. It appears that the claimant adopted a very casual approach for redressal of his grievance, inasmuch as the claim petition under Section 2-A of the Act was filed by him only on 5th July, 2016, though the Management had imposed punishment of his removal from service vide order dated 29/6/2004 on the basis of report dated 26/3/2004 of Disciplinary Authority. Even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments that the claimant had earlier moved a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act before the Tribunal, only in the year 2008, that is to say not before the expiry of three years from the date of his removal from service. As discussed in para 20 above, the Management/CCIL had filed LPA No.943/2011 before Hon'ble High Court against the judgement dated 10/10/2011 of Single Judge. While disposing & summing up of the said LPA, Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court in para 57 of the judgement dated 21/8/2012 had held as under :-
"Though we have earlier observed that the question of justifiability of the disciplinary action was also required to be gone into in Section 33-A proceedings but having now found that there was no dispute requiring any application under Section 33)2)(b), the complaint under Section 33-A itself would be not maintainable. The question thus, of the justifiability of the disciplinary action of removal from service being tested in Section 33A proceedings or the matter being required to be remanded for the said purpose, does not arise. The remedy now of Shri Sanjeev Kumar is only to raise a dispute qua his termination."
As mentioned above, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court had clearly held that the remedy available with Sanjeev Kumar (claimant herein) was only to raise a dispute qua his termination but he did not raise any dispute qua his termination. Rather, he preferred Special Leave Petition bearing No.7937 of 2013 before Hon'ble Supreme Court,1362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court The SLP was also dismissed vide order dated 29/4/2013. Thereafter, the claimant had again preferred review application before Hon'ble High Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 27/3/2015. Even then the claimant did not take steps at the earliest because he filed the instant claim petition under Section 2-A of the Act only on 5th July, 2016 i.e. after expiry of more than 15 months of the dismissal of his review application by the Hon'ble High Court. All this shows callousness on the part of the claimant/workman.
23. Before concluding I may mention that during the course of arguments, the claimant had heavily relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust Versus Swami Prakasanand & othrs, (1997) 6 SCC 778 to stress that order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing his SLP in limine operates as a final order between the parties and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court stands merged with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, the period of limitation be calculated from the order so passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is reiterated that the SLP so filed by the claimant herein against the order dated 21/8/2012 of the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29/4/2013. Even in such a situation, the claimant ought to have filed the present petition under Section 2-A of the Act, latest by 29-4-2016 which was not done by him, rather the present petition was filed only on 5/7/2016. It has been held in the case of Smt. Swapana Adhikari Versus State of West Bengal, 2014 LLR 498 (CaL.) that under no circumstances, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court can accept and decide such an application under Section 2-A of the Act after expiry of three years. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Ajaib Singh Versus The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Limited and another ,AIR 1999 SC 1351 has held that provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under the Limitation Act. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Itc Infotech India Ltd. Versus Mr Venkataramana Uppada (W.P. No. 27510/2015 -decided on 3/3/2016) held that the provisions of Section 2-A of the Act are mandatory and that on the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal etc., the right to invoke Section 2-A of the Act would stand extinguished.
24. Having regard to the legal position as explained above as well as the facts & circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered view that there is inordinate delay in moving the instant claim petition and it is held that the claim so filed by the claimant is patently barred by time and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. This issue is therefore decided accordingly against the claimant.
Issue No. 2 and 3
25. In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2-A above, these issues have become redundant and no findings are called for.
Relief
In the light of the aforesaid, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the present claim petition being hopelessly barred by limitation is liable to be dismissed. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 11.09.2018
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 466466466466....————औद्योगिक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स गुड ईयर सिक्योरिटी सMवसेस, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और
उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-1 नई
दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 40/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 26.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2019
S.O. 466.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The M/s. Good Year Security Services, Dwarka, New Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 26.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1363
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA
COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 40/2017
Shri Raj Kumar s/o. s/o, Shri Sultan Singh, C/o. Delhi Pradesh Factory & Dehari Mazdoor Congress, 627, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi 8
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
1. M/s. Good Year Security Services, 203, Vikash Suriya Okard, Sector 11, Plot No.8, Ashirwad Chowk, Dwarka, New Delhi 75.
2. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi -01
…Management/Respondents
AWARD
This is a claim directly filed by the workman/claimant Raj Kumar under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), with the averments that he was appointed by Management No.1 on the post of Security Guard in the month of December, 2009 and was deputed to work with the Management No.2. His last drawn wages were Rs.6000/- per month. The workman used to work sincerely, honestly and without any complaint to the Managements. His last drawn wages were Rs.6800/- per month. Management No.1 and 2 used to take work for 10 hours per day but the Management no.1 has not paid over time wages and other legal facilities viz. ESI, PF, casual leave, yearly increment and minimum wages. Ultimately at the persistent demand of the workman, he was provided with PF and ESI facilities but the management No.1 got annoyed with him and in order to get rid of him, the Management No.1 illegally terminated the workman from services without any rhyme or reason on 12/4/2016. The workman approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. A demand notice was sent to the Management through the Union but to no response. It is pleaded that the workman had worked continuously with the management since the day of his joining in December, 2009 till his illegal termination on 12/4/2016 and as such he worked for more than 240 days with the Management. It is also pleaded that after illegal termination, the workman searched for the job at many places but does not find any job and as such he is completely unemployed and dependent upon his family. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
2. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the Managements but none appeared on behalf of the Management No.1. Though Shri Ajay Ekk, UDC and Murari Kumar, LDC appeared on behalf of Management No.2 in response to the notice issued and took time to file written statement, however, Management no.2 also opted not to participate in the proceedings and as such the case was proceeded ex parte against both the Managements vide order dated 2/4/2017.
3. In order to prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW1 & tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied on documents Ex.WW/1 to Ex.WW1/8.
4. I have heard Shri Ajit Singh, A/R for the workman./claimant and have gone through the record carefully.
5. I may mention that affidavit Ex.WW1/A filed by the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. He has filed on record copy of the complaint/representation dated 26/4/2016 which he had moved to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer; copy of the certificate Ex.WW1/2 issued by the Conciliation Officer regarding no settlement arrived at during the conciliation proceedings; copies of identity cards Ex.WW1/3 to Ex.WW1/6 issued by Management NO.1 M/s Good Year Security Services; copy of ESI card as Ex.WW1/7 and copy of PF statement as Ex.WW1/8 for the period from
1/4/2010 to 1/5/2014. Perusal of these documents clearly substantiate the claim of the claimant/workman that it was the Management No.1 who had appointed him on the post of Security Guard in December, 2009 and worked for more than six years. As such, it stands proved on record that there existed relationship of employer-employee exclusively between the Management No.1 and the claimant herein and that the claimant falls within the definition of "workman" as provided under Section 2(S) of the Act.
6. The version of the claimant that the Management No.1 illegally terminated his services on 12/4/2016 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act and that since then he is unemployed, has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. The Management No.1 has not come forward either to deny or rebut the allegations of the claimant/workman or to show that services of the claimant were retrenched/terminated after serving him a prior notice or payment of compensation in lieu of notice period as required under Section 25-F of the Act. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are1364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render whole action of the Management Bank to be illegal and wrong under the law.
7. In his affidavit, the workman has specifically stated after illegal termination, the workman searched for the job at many places but does not find any job and as such he is completely unemployed and dependent upon his family. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is gainfully employed somewhere else on full time/regular basis. Even if it is assumed that the workmen is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make his both ends meet on daily wage basis, that would not itself amount to gainful employment. In the circumstances, it is held that action of the Management in terminating the service of the workmen is totally illegal and wrong and is in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
8. Now the residual question is whether workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. It depends on number of factors – whether workman was regular, temporary or daily wager; he was recruited in proper manner or whether his work is of regular and temporary nature; length of service or delay in approaching the Tribunal and whether termination is in gross violation of provisions of the Act.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/ employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
11. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be totally, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
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 :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1365 13. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2015) 9 SCC 345, titled as Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, on the question of reinstatement of workman after his retrenchment is declared void ab initio have held as under :-
20. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court in awarding reinstatement of the Appellate-workman in his post alongwith 50% back wages, which is erroneous in law as the High Court has not noticed the fact that the appropriate Government has referred the dispute to the Labour Court for its adjudication on the points of dispute referred to it. Since, there was non-compliance of the mandatory requirements as provided under the provisions of the Act by the Respondent-firm at the time of passing an order of termination against the Appellant-workman, therefore, the same has been held to be bad in law and as such it should have awarded full back wages to the workman from the date of termination till the date of passing the Award unless the employer proves that the workman was gainfully employed during the aforesaid period which fact is neither pleaded nor proved before the Labour Court.
21. Therefore, the impugned judgement of the High Court is bad in law as the normal rule to be followed by the Respondent-firm with regard to the termination of the services of the workman has not been done in the present case and further, the High Court has once again exceeded in its supervisory jurisdiction in exercise of its judicial review power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the Award of reinstatement with 50% back wages passed by the Labour Court and has instead awarded Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the Appellate –workman, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The High Court cannot exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and act as either original court or appellate court to set aside the finding of fact recorded o the points of dispute referred to the Labour Court on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record in favour of the workman as has been done in the instant case. The Award of compensation of Rs.2 lakhs awarded in place of reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the Labour Court, has been modified by the High Court without assigning any cogent and valid reason which is not only erroneous in law but suffers from error in law as well, as the same is contrary to the catena of decisions of this Court. On this ground itself, the impugned judgement of the High Court is liable to be set aisde and we pass an order to restore the Award passed by the Labour Court."
14. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2016) 6 SCC 541, titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and others, have ordered for the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages, where retrenchment of the service of the workman was in violation of Section 25(f)(a), (b) & (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
15. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and reinstatement held as under :-
"The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman his dues in the form of full back wages."
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018) MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under :-
"In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award, dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today, be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction, of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his termination, however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages which he would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner….."1366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 16. Having regard to the background of the case, legal position as discussed above, coupled with the fact that the claimant was performing duty as a Security Guard – a job of regular/perennial nature of job, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into service, with 50 per cent back wages to the post held by him, inasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman by Management No.1 is per-se illegal. Award is passed accordingly against Management No.1.
Date : 7.2.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 467467467467....————औद्योगिक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स अध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंध िनदेशक, भारतीय पर्यटन विकास निगम, नई दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के
संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं
Dम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 40/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 26.02.2019
को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2019
S.O. 467.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2012) 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 Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Tourism Development Corporation, Nagar, Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 26.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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. 40/2012
Shri Santosh & 9 others, represented by Shri S.S. Upadhyay, General Secretary, All India ITDC Mazdoor Janta Union C-48-49 Staff Quarters, Ashok Hotel , 50-B, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi – 110 021
…Workman
Versus
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Tourism Development Corporation, SCOPE Building, Core 8, 6th Floor, 6 Lodhi Road, New Delhi
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-42011/96/ 2011- IR(DU) dated 06.02.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial disputes, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of ITDC in not regularizing the services of Shri Santosh Kumar & 9 others (as per annexure enclosed) as demanded by All India ITDC Mazdoor Janta Union with all consequential benefits retrospectively is just, fair and legal?'[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1367 2. After receipt of the above reference, both the parties were put to notice and workmen herein filed statement of claim giving particulars of their employment with ITDC (in short management ) which is as under:
| S.No. | Name of Employee | Father's Name | Working since |
| 1. | Shri Santosh Kumar | Shri Sunil Kumar | 1999 |
| 2. | Shri Bharat Arya | Shri Jaswan Ram Arya | 2002 |
| 3. | Shri Karan Kanojiya | Late Jagdish Praad | 2003 |
| 4. | Shri Sumit Das | Late Bhagwaj Das | 2004 |
| 5. | Shri Deepak | Shri Narendra Singh | 2004 |
| 6. | Shri Monu | Shri Rajendra Singh | 2005 |
| 7. | Shri Ajit | Late Shri Ashok Mehta | 2004 |
| 8. | Shri Tarkeshwara Tiwari | Shri B.R. Tiwari | 2004 |
| 9. | Shri Jitendra Kumar | Shri Sunil Kumar | 2005 |
| 10. | Shri Amar Singh | Shri B.S. Mehta | 2005 |
3. Management, Vigyan Bhawan's VVIP Catering is a unit of ITDC, which is a public Sector undertaking and has its own standing orders. The management of Vigyan Bhawan has been changing the contractor from time to time and the management is using the services of the above claimants through M/s Beads Services Group and M/s Suraksha Security Agency and the claimants continued to work under them. The job carried out by the claimants is of perennial nature and they are working continuously 8 hours a day, including performing extra duties. Officials of the Hotel used to mark attendance of the claimants herein and also assigned work and job to the workmen, supervise their job and are working under administrative control of the management. As per Contract Labour Act, 1970, claimants are entitled to same wages to which their regular counterparts are getting in the same Department/category on regular basis. But the Hotel is paying minimum wages to them as declared by Delhi Government from time to time, which is in violation of the Contract Labour Act, 1970. The job carried out by the claimants is of perennial nature and is carried out through contractors. Management of Ashok Hotel is not registered with Labour Department and the so called contractors are also having no licence from Labour Department; as such contract between the management of Ashok Hotel and the contractor are sham, camouflage and not genuine. ITDC has an EPF Trust and the PF contribution is deposited in EPF Trust of ITDC and the PF of the employee concerned is retained by the contractor contrary to the decision of Delhi High Court in WP(C) 3762/78-2004. The claimants were deployed by the management after proper selection and interview and are working against the permanent posts lying vacant for years. The claimants have put in more than 240 days in each calendar year. Finally, it has been prayed that the claimants may be regularized in the minimum pay scale of Rs.4060- 5385 as revised from 01.01.2007 from the date they have been working with the management.
4. Claim was demurred by the management, who filed written statement thereto taking various preliminary objections. It has been alleged that the claim is misconceived, ill conceived and not tenable and is not maintainable against the management as the claimants are not employees of the management but of the contractors. There is no cause of action of the claimant against the management. Answering management is neither necessary party nor an appropriate party for adjudication of the claim. Liability towards the claimants, if any, is that of the contractor who has engaged the claimants. It is further averred that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the case. On merits, management has denied most of the averments made in the statement of claim. However, it has been admitted that the claimants were employees of the contractors and were employed at some point of time under the contract awarded to the contractor by the management. The said contracts were awarded purely on temporary basis for a period of one year. As such, the claimants are employees of the said contractor and not that of the management. It has been prayed that that the claim may be rejected.
5. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the claimants to the statement of defence filed by the management wherein the stand taken in the statement of claim was reiterated.
6. Against this factual background, this Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide an order dated 10.12.2015 framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the claimants are employees of M/s Suraksha Security Agency, the contactor or Indian Tourism Development Corporation?
(ii) Whether the contract between Indian Tourism Development Corporation and M/s. Suraksha Security Agency for providing VVIP Catering at Vigyan Bhawan is sham/bogus? It yes, its effects.
(iii) As in terms of reference
7. Claimant, in support of their claim, examined Shri Karan Kanojia (WW1), Shri Bharat Chand Arya (WW2), Shri Ajit Kumar (WW3), Shri Santosh Kumar (WW4), Shri Monu (WW5), Shri Rama Kant Awasthy (WW6), Shri Sumit (WW7), Shri Amar Singh (WW8), Shri Deepak (WW9), Shri Tarakeshwa r(WW10), Shri Jitender Kumar (WW11) whose affidavits are Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW11/A respectively. The claimant also relied on documents1368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/12, Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/10, Ex.WW3/1 to Ex.WW3/8, Ex.WW4/1 to Ex.WW4/33, Ex.WW5/1 to Ex.WW5/12, Ex.WW7/1 to Ex.WW7/11, Ex.WW8/1 to Ex.WW8/9, Ex.WW9/1 to Ex.WW9/8, Ex.WW10/1 to Ex.WW10/8 and Ex.WW11/1 to Ex.WW11/17 but WW6 did not rely on any documents. Management in order to rebut the case of the claimants, examined Shri Aditya Nanda, Manager(Hotel Operations) as MW1 whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he also relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex. MW1/3.
8. I have heard Shri S.S. Upadhyay, A/R for the claimant and Shri B.K.Singh, A/R for the management.
9. Affidavits filed by most of the workmen are on the similar lines. It is clear from perusal of the above affidavits that it is in consonance with the averments contained in the statement of claim. The claimants have been subjected to cross examination by the management and it has been admitted that no appointment letter was issued in their favour and they were engaged on the job by the management. They have further admitted that payment of salary was made to the claimants by the contractor after receiving the same from the management(Ashok Hotel). Contractor also used to deduct provident fund contribution from the wags of the claimant and as per rule, this contribution ought to have been deposited in the Trust Account. He has specifically denied that claimants were employees by M/s Suraksha Security Agency and clarified that employees of the management used to supervise the work of the claimants and assign job to them. Their attendance was also marked by the management and the claimants unemployed as on date.
10. It is necessary to mention at the outset that the contractor, M/s. Suraksha Security Services has not been examined either by the workman herein nor the management. Admittedly, M/s. Suraksha Security Services has not been arrayed as a party in the present reference. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed that the workman herein were deployed in F&B Service Department and looking after the job of service of the VIPs from the dates mentioned in Annexure A. Later on, their services were terminated and now they are not at all in employment of the management. It was also not disputed that annual contracts is being given by the management of Ashok Hotel from time to time to different contractors, though employees mostly remained the same.
11. Now, the vital question which requires consideration in the present case is whether the workmen were in the employment of the management or were deployed by M/s Suraksha Security Services from the date mentioned in Annexure A. Equally important is also the question whether agreement between the management and M/s Suraksha Security Service is genuine or the same is simply sham and a camouflage so as to deny status of workmen under the principal employer herein. It is also appropriate to refer to the statement of Shri Aditya Nanda, MW1, who specifically alleged in the affidavit that the claimants were employees of M/s Suraksha Security Services and presently with Mass Management. He has further averred that the management is registered under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Certificate of Registration dated 12.09.2006 of Suaksha Security Services is Ex.MW1/1. It is clear from the cross examination of this witness that he is an employee of ITDC and is working with the management since 01.07.2007. Thus, during the relevant period, i.e. period prior to termination of the claimants herein, he was not working with the management. It is, further, admitted that the claimant are working with the management as on date alongwith permanent employees and that the management is marking the attendance of the claimants herein. It is further clarified that in April 2012 contract of Suraksha Security Agency stands expired and at present contract is awarded to M/s Mass Management.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that this witness has admitted in his cross examination that he is looking after the catering work in Vigyan Bhawan, the claimants are also working with permanent employees and the overall control over the workers pertaining to catering was that of the management.
13. During the course of arguments, Shri Upadhyay, learned authorized representative appearing on behalf of the claimant place strong reliance upon the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered extensively various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Contract Labour Act, 1970 alongwith relevant notification issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, 1970. A critical appraisal of the above judgement would show that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the entire spectrum of the case law on the subject and held in para 107 as under:
107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes: (i) where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer were held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of a contractor the courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.
14. Ratio of the above judgement has been cited with approval in all the subsequent pronouncement by the various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and while making various conclusions, ratio of he law in Hussanbhai case (three judgements decision) was approved and ratio of the judgement in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 was partly overruled prospectively. It was also made clear that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour Ac nor any other provisions under the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication provides for[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1369 automatic absorption of the contact labour on issuance of notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section 1 of Section 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Mater is to be decided judiciously by the Industrial Adjudicator where a contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for the work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is merely a ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder:
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.
15. This Tribunal has to keep one thing in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act as well as Contract Labour Act. Essential and beneficial legislation of the scheme of the Contract Labour Act 1970 is to regulate conditions of workers under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate Government as provided under Section 10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of provisions of the Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to get itself registered under the Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.
16. In Durgapur Casual workers Union vs. Food Corporation of India(2015) 2 SCC 786, question of sham, bogus or such contract labour was considered by Hon'ble Ape Court and the management in the said case also came with the plea that the workmen were directly employed by the contractors as contract labour and as such, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workmen. Matrix of the case also shows that Food Corporation of India, i.e. the management had set up rice mill which was being run by successive contactors who have engaged contract labour. Rice mill was ultimately closed in the year 1990-91 and workers were employed by the Corporation as casual labour on daily basis. Later on, such workers raised an industrial dispute for regularization of their services as they were working under various contactors since long but were doing work for the management who was exercising supervisory control over them. Management also came with the pleading that demand of the workmen was in fact illegal and they were simply engaged as casual labour. Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court passed award in favour of the workman directing regularization of their services and their retrenchment by Food Corporation of India was held to be illegal. In intra court appeal, Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgement of the Single Judge, as such, matter was taken to the Hon'ble Apex Court who upheld the order of the Single Judge of the High Court as well as that of the Industrial Tribunal. It was also observed that FCI had committed unfair trade practice and terminated their services illegally instead of absorbing them. Contention of the management that their employment was to the contrary to the directions given by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi case was rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing as under:
"34. It is true that the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association vs. State of Karnataka (1990 2 SCC 396) arising out of industrial adjudication has been considered in Umadevi (3) (2006 (4) SCC1) and that decision has been held to be not laying down the correct law but a careful and complete reading of decision in Umadevi (3) leaves no manner of doubt that what this Court was concerned in Umadevi (3) was the exercise of power by the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the matters of public employment where the employees have been engaged as contractual, temporary or casual workers not based on proper selection as recognized by the rules or procedure and yet orders of their regularization and conferring them status of permanency have been passed.
35. Umadevi (3) is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of constitutional scheme.
36. Umadevi(3) does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of MRTU & PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victim of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exists. Umadevi (3) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of MRTU & PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV is established."1370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 17. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Management of Ashok Hotel vs Their Workmen decided on 19.02.2013 in WP(C) No.14828/2006 wherein similar question was involved. It was a case where various workmen were working continuously as safaiwala/Housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contactor who has entered into a contract with the principal employer, i.e. Ashok Hotel. Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the workmen upon ratio of the case in Steel Authority of India (supra) and contention of the management to the effect that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected. Further, contract in the said case was also held to be sham and camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer and the workmen.
18. In the case in hand also, situation is almost similar and there is ample evidence on record, as discussed above, to show that the workman herein were working under the direct supervision of the management. Work of catering at Vigyan Bhawan, as is evident from statement of MW1, is regular and perennial in nature. It is further clear that contract is being awarded to different contractors on yearly basis and in the year 2011 it was M/s Suraksha Security Services to whom contract of employment was given by the management. The said contract in the light of the ratio of the decision in Steel Authority of India coupled with evidence on record is held to be sham and a mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and the workman herein.
19. It is further clear from the critical appraisal of the above judgements that services of the workman is taken in connection with the work of the establishment, by the principal employer through contractor, in that eventuality, contractor merely acts as an agent or a broker on behalf of the principal employer and the workman in such a situation would continue to the a direct employee of the principal employer and not that of the agent or the broker. In the case in hand also, it is clear from the evidence on record, that the workmen herein were admittedly working in the Catering Department of the management regularly, though alleged to be in the employment of M/s Suraksha Security Service. Supervisory control upon them remained with that of the management.
20. Shri Nanda has admitted in his cross examination dated 02.06.2015 as well as during the course of arguments, that several posts of various categories are lying vacant in the establishment of the management and have not been filled up so far as the Central Government has not granted permission to fill up the same. In such a situation, one thing is crystal clear that though the work of the workman herein who were admittedly working in the catering job of the management is regular in nature, yet the management is running the job of catering by deploying workers through contractors.. It is further clear that management has adopted this devise so as to deprive the workmen of regular employment and deprive them of their permanent livelihood, which is totally against the spirit of Contract Labour Act, 1970 wherein it is clearly provided that when a work is regular or permanent in nature, there is no question of employing contract labour.
21. In view of the emphatic pronouncements made in the various rulings discussed above, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to hold that the claimants herein are also working since 2002 and their salaries have been revised from time to time, as such, there is relationship of employer-employee between the management and the claimants herein. Consequently, it is held that Shri Santosh Kumar and 9 others as mentioned in para 2 above, the claimants herein are entitled to be regularized in accordance with the Regulations/policy of the management applicable in this behalf. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 468468468468....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स प्रबंधन, राष्ट्रीय तकनीकी अनुसंधान संगठन, नई दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-
1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 162/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 26.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bए
थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2019
S.O. 468.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 162/2018) 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 Management, National Technical Research Organization, New Delhi and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 22.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1371
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. 162/2018
Shri Radha Krishan Yadav, S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, R/o House No.946, Block - C, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi – 110 023
…Workman
Versus
The Management, National Technical Research Organization, Block – III, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110 067
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-42012/03/2018-IR(DU) dated 21.03.2018 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 Shri Radha Krishan Yadav, who had worked as MTS on adhoc basis from 27.04.2009 to 30.08.2010 were terminated by the management of National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) on 30.08.2010 or the workman on being posted to Bhilai/Vishakhapatnam left on his volition, as claimed by the management? (2) It he has been terminated, then is the action of management of National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) in terminating his services fair, just & legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? (3) Is the workman also entitled to other dues as claimed of not being paid? If yes, what directions are necessary in this regard? "
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Radha Krishan Yadav, the workman, opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the workman as well as the management. Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, the workman opted to abstain from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the workman has neither put in 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 Radha Krishan Yadav, the claimant, from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on merits. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : February 14, 2019
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 469469469469....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
मेसर्स सीिनयर डीजीएम (एचआर और ए), भारत इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स िलिमटेड, गािजयाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश और अन्य एवं उनके
कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 151/2018) को प्रकाशित करती है जो
के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 26.02.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी1372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th March, 2019
S.O. 469.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 151/2018) 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 Senior DGM (HR & A), Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 26.02.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
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. 151/2018
i. The General Secretary, Bharat Electronic Shramik Trade Union (BESTU), C/o Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 010
ii. The General Secretary, Bharat Electronics Mazdoor Union (BEMU), C/o Bharat Electronics Limited. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 010
iii. The General Secretary, Bharat Electronics Production Karmik Union (BEPKU), C/o Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 010
iv. The General Secretary, Bharat Electronics Mazdoor Union (BMS), C/o Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 010
v. The General Secretary, Bharat Electronics Employees Union, (BEEU), C/o Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 010
…Workmen
Versus
The Senior DGM (HR & A), Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 010
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received vide letter No.L-42011/196/2017-IR(DU) dated 27.02.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial disputes, terms of which are as under:
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. Ghaziabad in proposing changes in the CMA(Contributory Medical Attenance) Rules in vogue in the company by issuing the notice dated 04.10.2013 under Section 9-A of the ID Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief are the Unions/concerned workmen entitled to? ''
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, the Unions/concerned workmen, opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the Unions/concerned workmen as well as the management. Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered nor was it observed by the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1373 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 Unions/concerned workmen. Despite service of the notice, the Unions/concerned workmen opted to abstain from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it is clear that the Unions/concerned workmen are not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
4. Since the Unions/concerned workmen have neither put in their appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove their cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. However, it will not debar the Unions/concerned workmen, 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 20, 2019
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 470470470470....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधििनयम 1947, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
भारतीय उष्णकटिबंधीय मौसम वि2ान संस्थान पासन, पुणे और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों
और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं Dम न्यायालय,
पुणे के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 12/2009) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 04.12.2018 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-42011/09/2009----आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के . ठाकु र, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2019
S.O. 470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Pune, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Indian Instuitute of Tropical Meterology Pashan, Pune and, Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 04.12.2018.
[No. L-42011/09/2009-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI. P.R. BHAVAKE-PATIL, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
REFERENCE (IT) NO. 12 OF 2009
CNR NO. MHIC120001372009
Indian Institute of Tropical Meterology Dr. Homi Bhabha Road Pashan, Pune 411 008
…First Party
And
Mr. Tushar Madhukar Khadake & 20 Others C/o. M.S. Sapkal 39, Aundh Road, Chandramani Sangh Khadaki, Pune
…Second Party
CORAM
: SHRI. P.R. BHAVAKE-PATIL, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNE.
APPEARANCES
: ►Smt. S.R. Mharolkar, Ld. Advocate for the First Party. ►Shri. Patel, Union Representative for the Second Party.
AWARD
(Dated 2nd November, 2018)
The reference is made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This dispute is between the management of Indian, Institute of Tropical Meterology, Pashan, Pune and its workmen.
1374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]The dispute between the parties is about the termination of services of Shri. TusharMadhukarKhadake and 20 others. The reference is made to find out that whether the action taken by the management of terminating the services of Shri. TusharKhadake and 20 other employees dated 17.4.2008 is legal and justified, and what relief the workmen are entitled to ?
2. Notices were issued to both the parties. The Second Party i.e. workmen have filed their statement of claim vide Exh. 14 and the First Party has filed its written statement at Exh. C-4. According to the First Party, they are workmen within the definition of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is employer-employee relationship between them. Without following due process of law their services have been terminated. Hence, the First Party be directed to reinstate them and pay them salary and other benefits from the date of termination i.e. 17.4.2008.
3. It is claimed by the Second Party that they were working as "Gardener" and "Sweeper" since last 1-18 years before termination of their services dated 17.4.2008. They have discharged their duties properly and with integrity. They were being paid monthly salary of Rs. 4,227/-. They have worked continuously for 240 days in a year. Even though they were treated as seasonal workmen. In fact they are permanent workmen. They are not made permanent. Without considering the seniority of the employees only 3-5 workmen are made permanent by the Officers of the First Party. Therefore, the Second Party had raised industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner. The First Party illegally transferred services of these workmen to the contractor. The Second Party has opposed for the same and raised industrial dispute. The act of contractors of First Party amounts to unfair labour practice. Therefore, all the workmen have become member of MavalTaluka General Sanghatana, District Pune, and raised grievances to the Government of India about their status and salary. As per agreement between both the parties before the DivisionalLabour Commissioner, Government of India, Pune, dated 18.1.2008, the First Party has paid arrears of salary for the month of October to December 2007 before the Divisional Labour Commissioner Pune, on 18.1.2008. So also the First Party has paid further salary from January 2008 to March 2008 through cheque dated 9.4.2008. The First party failed to pay wages since 1.4.2008 to 16.4.2008. The First Party restrained them to join their duties and thereby terminated their services. The First Party by taking policy decision have transferred their services to the contractor and thereby committed illegal acts. They have also violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act by transferring the services of the Second Party during pendency of the conciliation proceeding before the conciliator.
4. It is further contended that the First Party conducted its business through Board of Directors. The First Party has its private Board of Directors. They have accepted rules of the Central Government. In all about 300 workmen are working properly in the said establishment. They are given Sixth Pay benefits. On the other hand, the First Party is paying the minimum wages to the Second party. There is no equality in pay of the Second Party and other permanent workmen of the First party. The First Party has its business of making research on different projects and in the field of meterology in all its aspects including weather modification, with special reference to tropics and sub-tropics on the basis of funds provided by the Central Government. By making research on various aspects, the First Party is earning profits by sale of said products and therefore, it is an Industry within the meaning of the reported ruling in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.V. Rajappa and Others reported in 1978 (1) LLJ 349 and Allahabad Textiles Industries Research Association Vs. Mumbai Rajya reported in 1960 (2) LLJ 720. Hence, the reference be allowed and the reliefs claimed in the statement of claim be granted.
5. The First Party has strongly resisted claim of the Second party in its written statement at Exh. C-4. According to the First Party, the dispute is not legal, proper and maintainable. The First Party is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is an autonomous research organisation under the administrative control of Ministry of Earth Science. It is run under the executive control of Governing Council whose members are appointed by the Central Government. The Director who is the Chief Executive of the Institute is appointed by the Governing Council with the prior approval of the Central Government. It is run mainly from the funds received from the Government and grants, gifts, donations or other contributions approved by the Central Government. The annual budget of the Institute is drawn up as per the instructions and prior approval of the Central Government. The objects or the functions of the Institute are mainly to promote, guide and conduct research in the field of Meteorology in all its aspects, including weather modification with special reference to tropics and sub-tropics. It assists the scientific research. The Institute maintains and manages laboratories or other units wherein experiments are conducted and activities relating to design, development and construct special meteorological instrument for research are undertaken. It facilitates the research activities and the same are not made with any commercial purpose. It organises training facilities for advanced study and research in Meteorology and arranges lectures, seminars for diffusion of knowledge. The advanced study, and knowledge acquired through research conducted at the Institute is useful in weather prediction of the country. The knowledge acquired or results of research are not marketable. The activities of the institute cannot be called as business or trade as it is not producing or distributing services meant for satisfying human wants and needs. The Institute discharges Government functions and not a commercial enterprise. Therefore, the First Party is not an Industry within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. It is further contended that Standard Security Services is the employer of the Second Party. The Standard Security Services are not made party to this reference. The employees of the First Party comprises of five categories including research staff, scientific staff, technical staff, administrative staff and non technical maintenance staff. All the appointments, recruitments, in these cadres are to be made against the sanctioned posts as per the guidelines by advertising posts and inviting nominations from central as well as local Employment Exchange. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules are applicable to the employees of the First Party Institute. The Second party are not appointed by following recruitment process and they are not covered under any of the category of the employees of the First Party. There is no question of oral termination of the services of the Second Party on 17.4.2008. The Second Party are not[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1375 workmen of the First Party. The First Party denied that the Second Party have completed 240 days of continuous service with the First Party. The First party has also not made permanent to any of the employees i.e. 3 to 5 employees as alleged by the Second Party. The services of the Second Party were purely on contractual basis and the same came to an end when the contract came to an end due to expiry of the period i.e. on 31.3.2008. The workmen of the Second Party were also previously appointed as contingent Mazdoor in contingency and exigency of work on daily wages. They were not appointed on regular posts at any time. No such regular posts are available with the First Party. The Second party workmen were fully aware of all these things. The reference is false. It be rejected with costs.
7. From the above rival contentions of the parties, following issues have been framed by my learned pre-decessor. My findings thereon for the reasons given here-in-below are as follows:-
| ISSUES | FINDINGS |
| (1) Whether the First Party Institute is an Industry within the meaning of sec 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? | In the negative |
| (2A) Whether the concerned workmen were "workmen" of the First Party within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? | In the negative |
| (2B) Whether the services of the Second Party were terminated ? If yes, whether the termination was legal and justified ? | In the affirmative |
| (3) What Award ? | Reference stands rejected. |
REASONS
AS TO ISSUE NOS. 1 TO 2(B) :
8. This reference is contested by the First Party mainly on the issue that it is not an Industry. Much argument is also advanced on this point only. Undisputedly, the Second party workmen were appointed without any appointment order and for limited period. Though it is contended by the Second Party that they are working from 1 to 18 years continuously with the First Party as a Gardener and the Sweeper, except their oral evidence there is nothing on record to substantiate this fact. On the contrary, the First Party has admitted the appointment of the Second Party but purely on contractual posts. On the expiry of the contract period their services were automatically terminated. They were appointed as contingent Mazdoor and in case of contingency and exigency of work only on daily wages. Hence, there is no question of completing continuous work of 240 days in a year.
9. The Second Party adduced their oral evidence at Exh. U-32, U-33, U-34, and U-39. The First Party has adduced oral evidence of one Mr. Sunil Hendre – Registrar at Exh. C-10. The Second party has adduced oral evidence at Exh. U-46C. The ld. Union Representative of the Second Party – Mr. Patel argued that the First Party has not taken any permission of the Conciliation Officer u/s 43 and 43A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and have retrenched services of the Second Party. No retrenchment compensation is paid to them. It is in clear violation of section 11 (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no any control of Central Government on the First Party. The First Party is running business of prediction of weather. It is nothing but business of First Party. This business comes under the building and road construction department. It has no concern with the research. The employees are not appointed by nomination through Employment Exchange. The First Party has not produced on record muster roll and the salary register. The First Party has never raised any objection before the DivisionalLabour Commissioner that the Second Party are not workmen. For last 18 years the Second Party are working with the First Party. Hence, as per section 4(c) and (d) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 these workmen are entitled to become permanent workmen. The Factories Act is also applicable to the First Party. Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are also applicable to the First Party. There are no chances of getting another employment to these workmen. They have crossed their age of 35 years. Therefore, the First Party be ordered to grant them permanency and all the benefits and salary of the said post. It is also further argued that the agreement before the conciliation officer was in respect of arrears of salary only. Therefore, the reference be allowed.
10. The ld. Advocate for the First Party Mrs. Mharolkar argued that the rules of Gratuity and Pension are applicable to the employees of the Government. The First Party had raised objection before the Labour Commissioner about the status of these workmen. As per the contract between the First Party and Second Party the services of the Second Party came to an end on 31.3.2008 on the date of expiry of contractual period. Hence, there is no question ofcoming of the Second Party to the First Party since 1.4.2008 to 16.4.2008. So also there is no question of oral termination of services of Second Party on 17.4.2008. Hence, the reference raised by the Second Party is false. The First Party is not an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The work of research of prediction of weather is being done in the office of the First Party. There is no any production which can be sale by the First Party. Research is being given to the Government only. It is not used commercially. There is no evidence on record, placed1376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] by the Second Party to show commercial nature of the work of the First Party. The Second Party were not appointed on the regular post of five categories employees of the First Party. The Central Civil Services Rules are applicable to the employees of the First Party. The object of the First Party is given in Memorandum of Association. Funds are being provided by the Central Government. So also budget is sanctioned by the Government. There are rules of appointment of body members. The Second Party were working in contingency only. They were not working continuously for 18 years. No any appointment orders were given to them. The contractor is not made party who was the immediate employer of the Second party. The so-called application dated 22.2.2008 is not placed on record to show that they had applied for permanency. There is no question of violation of section 25-F and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Second Party were not appointed on sanctioned posts which are sanctioned by the Central Government. The ruling placed on record by the Second Party of Ahmedabad Textile Industries Research Association is in respect of research in textile which is a private business. But same fact is not here. Other rulings placed by the Second Party are not applicable.
11. The ld. Advocate – Mrs. Mharolkar for the First Party placed reliance on the reporting ruling in the case of Physical Research Laboratory Vs. K.G. Sharma reported in AIR 1997 SC 1855 and Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam and Others Vs. Theyyam Joseph reported in AIR 1996 SC 1271. She has also placed her reliance on another reported rulings.
12. Now the short question to be decided here is whether the First Party is an Industry or not ? The fate of other issues are depending on the decision of this issue.
13. Though the Second Party claims that it is Industry and contended number of factors to treat it as Industry, except the oral evidence of four witness no any other documentary evidence is placed on record to prove status of First Party to be Industry. It is not disputed by the Second Party that First Party is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is an autonomous research organisation under the administrative control of Ministry of Earth Science. It is run under the executive control of the Government counsel whose members are appointed by the Central Government. The Second Party has placed on record Annual Reports of the First Party alongwith list Exh. U-54 which shows that it is being run from the Central Government and from grants, gifts, donations and other contributions approved by the Central Government. The First Party has also brought on record in the oral as well as documentary evidence that the Annual Budget of the First Party is done as per instructions and prior approval of the Central Government. The object and the function of the Institute are mainly to promote, guide and conduct research in the field of meteorology in all its aspects including weather modification, tropics and sub-tropics. The Institute has maintained laboratories and other units wherein experiments are conducted and activities relating to design, development and to construct special meteorological instruments for research are undertaken in the field of meteorology. The First Party also failed to prove before this Court that the instruments prepared in the workshop of the First Party are sold commercially and First Party is engaged into commercial activities and business.
14. It also further reveals that the advance study, knowledge acquired through research conducted at the First Party Institute is useful in weather prediction of the country. The knowledge acquired or results of research are not marketable or do not have any commercial value. The activities conducted at the First Party Institute cannot be called as business or trade in absence of any positive evidence on record. The Institute is not producing or distributing services for the commercial purpose but for satisfying human wants and needs. It is discharging sovereign functions of the Government.
15. The ld. Representative for the Second Party placed his reliance mainly on the reported ruling in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Rajappa and Others reported in 1978 (I) LLJ Page 73 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"An industry is a continuity, is an organised activity, is a purposeful pursuit - not any isolated adventure,
desultory excursion or casual, fleeting, engagement motivelessly undertaken. Such is the common feature of a
trade, business, calling, manufacture – mechanical or handicraft based – service employment, industrial
occupation or avocation. For those who know English and are not given to the luxury of splitting semantic
hairs, this conclusion argues itself. The expression "undertaking" cannot be torn of the words whose company
it keeps. If birds of a feather flock together and nosciture a sociis is a commonsense guide to construction,
"undertaking" must be read down to conform to the restrictive characteristic shared by the society of words
before and after. Nobody will torture "undertaking" in section 2(j) to mean meditation or musheira which are
spiritual and aesthetic undertakings. Wide meanings must fall in line and discordance must be excluded from
a sound system.
Likewise, an "industry" cannot exist without co-operative endeavour between employer and employee. No
employer, no industry; no employee, no industry – not as a dogmatic proposition in economics but as an
articulate major premise of the definition and the scheme of the Act, and as a necessary postulate of industrial
disputes and statutory resolution thereof.
An industry is not a futility but geared to utilities in which the community has concern. And in this mundane
world where law lives now, economic utilities – material goods and services not transcendental flights nor
intangible achievements are the functional focus or industry. Therefore, no temporal utilities, no statutory
industry is axiomatic. If society in its advance, experience, subtle realities and assigns values to them,
jurisprudence may reach out to such collective good. Today, not tomorrow is the first charge of pragmatic
law of western heritage. So we are confined to material, not ethereal end products.
This much flows from a plain reading of the purpose and provision of the legislation and its western origin and
the ratio of all the rulings. We hold these triple ingredients to be unexceptionable.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1377The negation of profit motive is a tallying test against industry is clear.
As a working principle it may be stated that an activity systematically or habitually undertaken for the
production or distribution of goods or for the rendering of material service to the community at large or a part
of such community with the help of employees is an undertaking. Such an activity generally involves the co-
operation of the employer and the employees, and its object is the satisfaction of material human needs. It
must be organised or arranged in a manner in which trade or business is generally organised or arranged. It
must not be casual nor must it be for oneself nor for pleasure. Thus, the manner in which the activity in question
is organised or arranged, the condition of the co-operation between employer and employee necessary for its
success and its object to render material service to the community can be regarded as some of the features
which are distinctive of activities to which section 2(j) applies."
16. The Second Party also placed its reliance on another number of rulings as per Exh. U-68. However, with due respect, I hold that these rulings are not applicable to the case in hand.
17. The ld. Advocate Mrs. Mharolkar for the First Party rightly pointed out ruling reported in the case of The Workmen of the Indian Standards Institution Vs. The Management of the Indian Standards Institution reported in 1975 I LLJ Page 33 is not applicable to the present case as the Ahmedabad Research Centre was having private business. Such is the position in the present case.
18. The ld. Advocate Mrs. Mharolkar for the First Party placed her reliance on one reported ruling in the case of Physical Research Laboratory Vs. K.G. Sharma reported in AIR 1997 SC 1855. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held therein that the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) is an institution under the Government of India Department of Space carrying activities of research not for benefits or use of others. It is not engaged in Government activities and is not an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This ruling is perfectly applicable to the present case also as the Second Party failed to prove the commercial activity of the First Party. On the contrary, the First Party has brought on record that it is being run under the control of the Central Government. As per funds provided by the Central Government, it has no any commercial activity but the Institute gives research and prediction of weather to the Government only.
19. The ld. Advocate Mrs. Mharolkar for the First Party further placed her reliance on one another reported ruling in the case of Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam and Others Vs. Theyyam Joseph etc reported in AIR 1996 SC 1271. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held therein that :
"The welfare measures partake the character of sovereign functions and the traditional duty to maintain law
and order is no longer the concept of the State. Directive principles of State policy enjoin on the State diverse
duties under Part IV of the Constitution and the performance of the duties is constitutional function. One of the
duties of the State is to provide telecommunication service to the general public and an amenity, and so is one
essential part of the sovereign functions of the State as a welfare State. Postal and Telecommunication
Department are not therefore industry."
I hold that the same analogy is applicable to the case in hand also. The functions carried out by the First Party is nothing but the sovereign functions and for the benefits of the general public. Hence, in view of the above cited ruling, I hold that the First Party is not an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
20. I have also observed above that the Second Party are not appointed on regular sanctioned post by the Government. They were not working in the Research Institute but they were appointed on contract for doing the work outside the Research Institute. Admittedly, they were working as Gardener and Sweepers. They are not working in any of the category of the workmen of the Institute being appointed on regular sanctioned post. The oral evidence of the witness for the First Party clearly reveals that the Second party were appointed on the contractual basis for a limited period and their services came to an end on expiry of contractual period. The Second Party has also not placed on record any evidence to show that they were appointed on the sanctioned regular post by following due process of law. Hence, in such circumstances, and as I have held above that the First Party is not an Industry they cannot claim any rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no question of oral termination of their services since 17.4.2008. Hence, on the above discussions I hold that Issue No. 2A and 2B does not survive. In view of findings on Issue No. 1 in the negative, I hold that this reference is not maintainable. Hence, I record my findings on Issue No. 2 in the negative. In the result, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1. This reference is answered in the negative as the First Party is not an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The Second Party is not entitled for any reliefs claimed.
3. The copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publication.
Date: 2.11.2018
P. R. BHAVAKE-PATIL, Presiding Officer1378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 471471471471....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार आईएनजी वैश्य बैंक लि. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बैंगलौर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 04/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 19.03.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-12011/20/2005----आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. बिष्ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 471.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19.03.2019.
[No. L-12011/20/2005-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED : 07THMARCH 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R No. 04/2007
I Party
II Party
The Vice President (IR&W),
ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Corporate Office, No. 22, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
1. The Secretary, All India Bank Deposit Collectors Workmen Union, No.435, Renukacharya Temple Street, K.P. Agrahara, Mysore – 570 024.
2. The General Secretary, All India Vysya Bank Employees Union, Kranti No. 86/5, Shell House, II Floor, J.C. Road, Bangalore – 560 002.
Advocate for I Party No. 1 : Ms. H. Mangalamba Rao Advocate for II Party:
Advocate for I Party No. 2 : Mr. Muralidhara Mr. B.C. Prabhakar
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/20/2005-IR(B-I) dated 04.01.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
"Whether the action on the part of the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd., in issuing circular dated
10.05.2004 unilaterally modifying the scheme thereby enhancing the minimum contribution per day to
account from Rs. 1/- to Rs. 100/- in rural and semi-urban areas and from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 200/- in urban
and metro centres in respect of Pragathi Deposit Collectors of ING Vysya Bank is legal and justified? If
not what relief the Pragathi Deposit Collectors are entitled to?"
1. The above question for adjudication was as a measure of corrigendum to the earlier reference dated 22.01.2007 which read as follows:-
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1379"Whether the action of the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. In issuing circular dated 10.05.2004 to revise
the rate of interest on Pragathi Deposits and there by causing lot of financial hardships to the Pragathi Deposit
Collectors in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the Pragathi Deposit Collectors
are entitled to?"
2. Both parties have placed on record their respective statements; affidavit evidence placed by the 2nd Party/Management was not subjected to cross-examination and there is no rebuttal evidence.
3. Sh. Muralidhara advocate for the 1st Party union No. 2 had submitted to the effect that, 1st Party union does not wish to press the claim in view of the order of reference made by Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Corrigendum date 04.01.2008; as such their claim in the claim statement may be treated as not pressed. The matter was posted for cross examination of MW-1 by the 1st Party union No. 1 i.e., All India Bank Deposit Collectors Workmen Union, No. 435, Renukacharya Temple Street, K.P. Agrahara, Mysore – 570 024. Thereafter no representation was made by 1st Party union No. 1. Thus, the affidavit evidence of the Management remained unchallenged.
4. It is the evidence of MW-1/Process Lead Employee relations of the 2nd Party that 2nd Party introduced the "Pragathi Deposit Scheme" in order to encourage the savings of small and middle income group people; as per the scheme minimum deposit shall be in multiples of Re. 1/- with a minimum of Re.1/- in rural and semi-urban branches and deposit shall be in multiples of Re.1/- with a minimum or Rs.2/- in urban and metropolitan branches; there was no revision of payment of minimum contribution per day; later it was felt to revise the contribution of the scheme; they revised the scheme as far as the minimum contribution per day by the Pragathi Account Holders from Re.1/- to Rs. 100/- in rural and semi urban areas and from Rs.2/- to Rs. 200/- in urban and metropolitan centres/branches vide circular dated 10.05.2004. The earlier scheme was not financially viable; revision of the minimum deposit will benefit the Pragathi Collectors and help them to get more commission and this decision will not affect them. It was a policy decision taken by the 2nd Party/Management; Banking transactions have undergone sea change in the recent past; in the present competitive market a need to take comfortable place is necessary. Earlier scheme formulated by the Bank way back in 1978 is re-studied and corrective steps are taken to suit the market needs. Hence, the decision of revision of minimum contribution in Pragathi Deposit is fully justified. They have not discontinued the scheme.
5. The witness has produced the circular dated 10.05.2004 whereby the Bank revised the rate of interest payable on Pragathi Deposit, accordingly they have enhanced the interest rate of 1% on the existing deposits. Basically it is a policy decision of the 2nd Party in modifying the scheme taking into consideration the financial viability and the best interest of the Bank; neither of the 1st Party have shown how they have any locus standi to question the modification of the scheme. They are not entitled for any relief in this reference.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 07th March, 2019)
Justice Smt. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 472472472472....————औद्योगिक विवाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
कर्नाटक विकास (cid:131)ामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद
में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बैंगलौर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 24/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय
सरकार को 19.03.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-12012/88/2010----आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. बिष्ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 472.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19.03.2019.
[No. L-12012/88/2010-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
1380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED : 5th MARCH 2019 PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C R No. 24/2011
| I Party | II Party |
| S ri Rajashekar, Kamath Compound, 1st Cross, Ashwininagar, HAVERI. | T he Chairman, Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Head Office, Belgaum Road, DHARWAD. |
Appearances
I Party : Shri V S Naik, Advocate II Party : Shri B C Prabhakar, Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/88/2010-IR(B-I) dated 26.05.2011in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Karnatka Vikas Grameena Bank in dismissing Shri Rajashekar
U.Prasad, Ex-Clerk-cum-Cashier from service vide their order dated 21/11/2009, is legal and justified? To
what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. I Party workman was reported dead vide Memo dated on 20.04.2017. It was reported that I Party workman has expired. Thereafter, no steps is taken to bring the legal heirs of the I Party workmen. The Management has already adduced evidence on Domestic Enquiry. The case of the I Party workman has abated in that view of the matter no relief can be awarded in favour of the I Party in this reference.
ORDER
Reference is Rejected
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 5th March 2019)
Justice Smt. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 473473473473....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधििनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार (cid:133)हील और एक्सल प्लांट प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बैंगलौर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 48/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 19.03.2019 को प्राप्त Bए था।
[सं. एल-41011/20/2003----आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. बिष्ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 473.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Wheel & Axle Plant and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19.03.2019.
[No. L-41011/20/2003-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1381ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE – 560 022
DATED : 12THMARCH 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R No. 48/2003
| I Party | II Party |
| The President, Wheel & Axle Plant Contract Workers Union, No.43, MIG II Floor, II Stage, KSB Colony, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore – 560 079. | The General Manager, Wheel & Axle Plant, Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560 064. |
Advocate for I Party : Advocate for II Party: Mr. B.D. Kuttappa : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-41011/20/2003-IR(B-I) dated 18.11.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.
"Whether the action of the management of Wheel and Axle Plant is justified in denying employment to
119 Contract Labourers with effect from 31.03.2001? If not, what relief the Labourers are entitled to?"
1. The claim as set up by the 1st Party is they are the contract labourers at various departments like
i) Oxy-cutting of steel scrap
ii) Handling of materials
iii) Painting Packing, loading of wheel sets
iv) Oxy-cutting of skull
v) Maintenance of factory premises
vi) Re-lining of electric arc furnaces and ladles etc.,
Though, there job is perennial in nature, they were not paid wages on par with the permanent workers performing similar nature of jobs. The 1st Party through their union gave representation before Central Advisory Labour Board, constituted under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)Act, 1970 (for brevity 'the CLRA Act' hereafter). After thorough enquiry on their representation the committee submitted the report and observed that the works like Oxy-cutting, re- lining of electric arc furnaces and ladles etc., is carried out with the help of contract workers on regular basis. Without giving valid licence, under the guise of each contractor they have engaged less than 20 workers. Though many of the works are inter connected the management is dividing the work into three parts to different contractors probably to avoid legal obligations of the applicable enactments. The management has committed a plain irregularity, by camouflage of actual nature of jobs/works and hiding the factual relationship between the workers, contractors and the principal employer. The contract workers are engaged in various sections to do regular job of helping, cleaning and other regular maintenance without appointing supervisor and without contract; the workers are under the direct supervision and control of the respective regular supervisors of the principal employer. The committee further recommended to abolish the contract employment in respect of the above cited 6 jobs. In pursuance of the said recommendation of the committee after consultation with the Central Advisory Board, Government of India issued notification prohibiting the employment of contract labourers in the above said jobs.
2. The 1st Party on behalf of the erstwhile contract workers is making a claim, placing reliance in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SAIL and others Vs National Union Water Front Workers and others reported in 2001(6) scale 626 that, the workman having lost employment in view of the abolition of the contract service in the 2nd Party their service may be regularized and they may be reinstated in the original post.
3. The 2nd Party countered the claim of the 1st Party on the following lines – The contractors ought to have been impleaded as necessary party, the contract labourers were employed by different contractors to enter into the contract with the 2nd Party. The contractors had full control over the labour force employed by them. There is no relationship of master-servant/employer-employee between the 2nd and the 1st Parties. The contract with the then contractors either has1382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] expired or contract agreement lapsed or terminated on 26.08.2000 or on 31.03.2001. The 2nd Party in its capacity has ensured that the contract labourers are paid minimum wages, over time allowance etc., The Railway Board, the policy making body of the 2nd Party with a view to absorb the contract labourers who were working in the specified areas, after engagement of contract labourers was prohibited, issued guidelines vide Letter No. E(LL)88/AT/CNR/1-57 dated 30.06.2000 for absorption of Ex-contract labourers. The regularization of the contract labourers was subject to fulfilling the condition regarding age, education qualification and medical standards etc., stipulated by the Railways in their Recruitment Rules.
4. Ex-contract labourers to be regularized in the post was required to have education qualification of 8th Standard, minimum age of 18 years and also who have been within the age limit contemplated under the rules. 92 Ex-contract labourers were found eligible and they were absorbed/appointed by the 2nd Party. Thus who did not meet the education qualification or age limit stipulated within permissible relaxation could not be absorbed. Though the notification was published by the Government of India abolishing the contract works in the 2nd Party vide order dated 10.03.1999 and was published in the Gazette of India, until said order was communicated in the year 2000 they had no knowledge of the order. After coming to know the order during September 2000 the 2nd Party took steps to abolish contracts in those areas and absorbed the Ex-contract labourers as per law, till alternative arrangement the contract had to be continued so that production was not hindered.
5. The 1st Party placed it's evidence by examining two of the concerned workmen and also it's president. The rebuttal evidence was adduced by one of the official of the 2nd Party. During the evidence of WWs, they have produced ID cards, Gate passes, wage slips, ESI cards, Education qualification proof, Employment cards, leave cards and entry permits to establish the identity of the concerned workmen. During the evidence of 2nd Party it was asserted that workers found at Serial Nos. 35,37,48,53,76,79,99,138 and 145 were either under or over age; the integrity of Serial Nos. 133 and 147 was under question, the names at Serial Nos.10, 13, 15, 23, 26, 30, 39, 55, 62, 63, 64, 77, 78,80-88, 97, 98, 103, 107, 108, 109, 113, 121, 122, 129, 134, 141-144, 146, 149-151 were not on rolls as on the cut of date 10.03.1999, they are not necessary parties in this reference. 94 candidates were not qualified. Wherefore, the single application on behalf of all the 1st Party workmen is not maintainable.
6. It is admitted between the parties that even after the abolition of the contract work in the 6 departments of the 2nd Party vide notification of the Government dated 10.03.1999, the contract employees who were brought inside by the licensed contractors, continued to work; the reason assigned by the 2nd Party now is, the order of the Government was not communicated to them. It is an unequivocal admission by the 2nd Party that, until alternative arrangement was made, the contract employees continued to work so that the production was not hindered. If not anything more, this admission by itself is sufficient to take all the 1st Party workmen to the status of workmen contemplated by section2(s) of the Act. It is to be borne in mind that the identity of these men is not disputed by 2nd Party nine workmen from the list of 119 concerned workmen were considered and rejected for absorption. In respect of workmen at Sl. No. 10, 13, 15, 23, 26, 30, 39, 55, 62, 63, 64, 77, 78,80-88, 97, 98, 103, 107, 108, 109, 113, 121, 122, 129, 134, 141-144, 146, 149-151, their disqualification according to 2nd Party was, they were not on the roll of 2nd Party on the cut off date of 10.03.1999. Since, there was a wide gap from the date of notification to the date of communication and for realignment of works by necessary implication, above workmen worked for the 2nd Party subsequent to 10.03.199. Having continuously worked prior to 31.03.2001 for number of days at least for one year or more than one year this duration qualifys to the phrase 'Continuous Service' contemplated by section 25(B) of 'the act'. Thus, all the 119 of them are direct employees of the 2nd Party.
7. Now the underlining question is having worked for the 2nd Party, continuously for a term stipulated by section 25B(a) of the Act (more than 240 days in the preceding twelve calendar month calculated from 31.02.2001) the 1st Party workman have acquired any right. As such now they are not working for the 2nd Party though some of their colleagues are fortunate enough to be absorbed/ regularized to the post they were doing. The workman before this Tribunal, though have come out of the 2nd Party with empty hand, on a superficial look it sounds that there was no illegality on the part of the employer in denying work to them w.e.f 31.03.2001, consequent upon the order of the Government abolishing the contract employment in the above mentioned 6 areas. Still there is a dent in this case. They are said to have employed only the eligible candidate and scored off 52 of 1st Party from their list. The 1st Party has given a list of 41 workmen claiming to posses requisite qualification as contemplated by the guidelines as dated 30.06.2000. It appears these workmen had not applied for the posts when the applications were called for. However, MW-1 during his cross- examination admits that, if they find that the workman has the requisite qualification they are even now ready to absorb the services of the contract labourers.
8. Since, 41 workmen listed by the 1st Party as having essential qualification required for absorption are not brought before this Court, an omnibus order cannot be passed in their favour. One thing is certain from the evidentiary material that apart from those lucky ones who were absorbed, the remaining workmen were sent out without any compensation. Though it is an abolition of contract works in the specified area of the management as declared by the Government, under 'the CLRA Act' viewing from the side of the workman it was refusal of employment and falls within the category of retrenchment contemplated by section 2(oo) of 'the Act' not falling under any of the exemption contemplated by sub clause (a), (b), (bb) and (c). Retrenchment to be legal and valid warrants prior retrenchment compensation contemplated by section 25F of the act. Without complying the mandatory provision of section 25F they could not have get rid of the workman. In that view of the matter the action of the management in denying employment on 31.03.2001 to the 1st Party workmen cannot be endorsed.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 13839. Having answered the issue against the management, now the focus is on moulding proper relief to the aggrieved workmen. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka & Others vs Umadevi and another in Appeal (Civil) No. 3595-3612/1999, no order can be passed in disregard to the relevant rules of appointment directing the 2nd Party to regularise these workmen. The only solution is, they can be paid retrenchment compensation proportional to the duration of their service with 6% interest from 31.03.2001. So far as the list of 41 workmen is concerned the management shall consider their applications when the post are called for in the concerned departments; By relaxing age limit they shall be considered for the post if they are found otherwise suitable. Though, these workmen had worked under the licensed contractor, now those contractors are not in the scene. Being the principal employer it was the obligation of the 2nd Party to dispense the service of the 1st Party in the manner known to law. However, in the preceding paras we have noticed that these workmen are under direct service of the 2nd Party. Having failed to comply the pre-condition contemplated under section 25F of the act, while severing relationship with the employees, thus due of statutory obligation, now the 2nd Party is answerable to the claim of the 1st Party workmen. Hence, the following
AWARD
The reference is accepted. The respondent is directed to calculate the retrenchment compensation due to 1st Party
workman as on 31.03.2001. 1st Party workmen shall be paid retrenchment compensation with interest at 6% per
annum from 31.03.2001 till the date of disbursement in the favour of the 1st Party workmen after proper
verification and identification. If they apply for any vacancy which may arise in the 2nd Party they shall be
considered for the post by giving benefit of age relaxation if they are found suitable otherwise.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 12th March, 2019)
Justice Smt. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 474474474474....————औद्योगिक विवाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
बैंक आफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय
सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायालय एवं Dम न्यायालय, भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 82/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो
के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 19.03.2019 को प्राप्त Bआ था।
[सं. एल-39025/01/2019----आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 474.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 82/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhilwada, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19.03.2019.
[No. L-39025/01/2019-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
vuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/k
Je U;k;ky;] HkhyokM+k
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % Jh lR;thr jk;] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
Je fookn izdj.k la[;k % 82 lu~ 2014
Jh jktsUnz oS".ko firk Jh nsoh yky oS".ko] fuoklh&:ikgsyh dyk]
rg-&gqjMk] ftyk&HkhyokMkA ---izkFkhZ
%% cuke %%
1- mi egkizca/kd] {kSf=; dk;kZy;] cSad vkWQ cMksnk oS'kkyh uxj] vtesj
2- eS- cSad vkWQ cMksnk] tfj;s 'kk[kk izca/kd] cSad vkWQ cMksnk 'kk[kk&vkaxwpk]
rg-& gqjMk] ftyk& HkhyokMkA ---foi{kh
1384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mifLFkr %
Jh vkj-,l- lksMkuh] vf/koDrk&izkFkhZ dh vksj lsA
Jh jke Lo:i vlkok] vf/koDrk&foi{khx.k dh vksj lsA
%% iapkV %%
fnukad 18-9-2017
izkFkhZ Jfed us lsok i`Fkddj.k ds laca/k esa viuk fookn lqyg vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh;] vtesj ds le{k is'k fd;k x;kA tgka 45 fnu dh vof/k esa dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gksus ds dkj.k mDr fookn vkS- fo- vf/k- 1947] ftls iapkV esa vkxs vf/k- 1947 ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk] dh /kkjk 2 ¼,½ ¼2½ ds rgr bl U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;kA
la{ksi esa izkFkhZ ds }kjk Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ foi{kh cSad dh vkxwpk 'kk[kk esa crkSj lQkbZ ,oa vU; lgk;d dk;Z djus gsrq fnukad 15-7-13 dks nSfud osru ij fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA 150 #- nSfud dh nj ls etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA fnukad 9-4-14 dks ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dh lsok,a vf/k- 1947 dh /kkjk 25&ch ds rgr fu;fer lsok,a gSaA izkFkhZ us fujarj o fu;fer :i ls 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok,a foi{kh cSad ds v/khu nh gSA foi{kh cSad ds }kjk lsok i`Fkddj.k ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl] NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd dj vU; deZpkjh dks fu;qDr dj fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj cSad ds }kjk vf/k- 1947 dh /kkjk 25& ,Q] th] ,p dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh;] vtesj ds le{k f'kdk;r dhA tgka foi{kh us le>kSrk esa dksbZ :fp ugha fn[kkbZA vr% izkFkhZ dks fnukad 9-4-14 dks dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ?kksf"kr dj izkFkhZ dks iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr djus rFkk lsok eqfDr dh fnukad ls iqu% lsok esa ysus rd dh vof/k ds leLr osru o ifjykHk ds Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ,oa 10]000 #- odhy esgUrkuk fnyk;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s tk;saA
foi{khx.k dks U;k;ky; esa ryc fd;k x;kA
foi{khx.k us mDr izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, o eku- mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa dk gokyk tokc esa nsrs gq, ;g vafdr fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks vkxwpk 'kk[kk esa va'kdkyhu :i ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ o foi{kh ds e/; fu;kstd o Jfed dk dksbZ laca/k ugha gSA izkFkhZ csd Mksj ,UVªh ls lsok esa vkuk pkgrk gS] tcfd cSad ifCyd lsDVj ;wfuV gSA izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tk;sA
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa ,-M- 1 izkFkhZ jktsUnz oS".ko ds c;ku 'kiFk i= ij ntZ djk;s x;s]ftUgksaus crkSj izys[kh; lk{; izn'kZ 1 ls 5 nLrkost is'k fd;sA foi{kh cSad dh vksj ls ,u , M 1 lkgc jke]'kk[kk izca/kd ds c;ku ntZ djok;s x;sA
eSaus mHk;i{kksa dks lqukA i=koyh dk xgurk ls voyksdu fd;kA
izkFkhZ , M 1 jktsUnz oS".ko us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh rkbZn djrs gq, ;g dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh cSad dh vkxwpk 'kk[kk esa crkSj lQkbZ ,oa vU; lgk;d dk;Z djus gsrq fnukad 15-7-13 dks nSfud osru ij fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA 150 #- nSfud dh nj ls etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA 240 fnu ls vf/kd vof/k rd dh lsok,a nh gS] ftlls mldh lsok,a vf/k- 1947 dh /kkjk 25& ch ds rgr fu;fer lsok,a gSaA foi{kh cSad ds }kjk lsok i`Fkddj.k ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl] NaVuh eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA fnukad 9-4-14 ls ekSf[kd vkns'k ls fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s lsok i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij vU; deZpkjh dks fu;qDr dj fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj cSad ds }kjk vf/k- 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q]th],p dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA lsok i`Fkddj.k ds ckn ls gh og csjkstxkj gSA izkFkhZ dh fnukad 9-4-14 dks dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ?kksf"kr dj izkFkhZ dks iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr djus rFkk lsok eqfDr dh fnukad ls iqu% lsok esa ysus rd dh vof/k ds leLr osru o ifjykHk ds Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s tk;saA izkFkhZ us nLrkostkr esa izn'kZ 1 ystj dh QksVks izfr] izn'kZ 2 ls izn'kZ 5 okmpj is'k fd;sA ftjg esa izkFkhZ us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd eSaus cSad esa ukSdjh ds fy, fyf[kr esa dksbZ vkosnu ugha fd;kA eq>s fu;kstu foHkkx }kjk fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k] u gh cSad esa Hkstk x;kA cSad esa esjk lk{kkRdkj esjs firk dh e`R;q ds ckn cSad vf/kdkjh ds dgus ij gqvk FkkA eq>s lk{kkRdkj ds fy, i= fn;k x;k Fkk] tks esjs ikl vkt miyC/k ugha gSA eq>s fyf[kr esa i= ugha fn;k x;kA vkxs ftjg esa ;g dguk gS fd cSad esa eSus dke fd;k mldk okmpj is'k fd;kA izn'kZ 3 ls 5 mlh ckcr gSA lkQ lQkbZ dk dk;Z djrk FkkA vkxs ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd izn'kZ 1 esa fnuakd 1-8-13 dh izfof"B esa esa cSad esa lQkbZ djuk o dk;Z djus dh etnwjh dk Hkqxrku djus ckcr fy[kk gqvk gSA mDr lk{; ds [kaMu esa ,u , M 1 lkgc jke dk c;ku gS fd izkFkhZ dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fnukad 15-7-13 ls cSad vkQ cMksnk] 'kk[kk vkxwpk esa 150 #- izfr fnu dh nj ls fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA mlds }kjk ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd vof/k rd lsok,a ugha nh xbZA tc izkFkhZ dks foi{kh cSad }kjk fu;ksftr gh ugha fd;k x;k rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mls in ij j[kus vFkok gVkus dk dksbZ iz'u mRiUu ugha gksrk gS]u gh fdlh izdkj dh lwpuk dh vko';drk jgh gSA izkFkhZ dks vLFkk;h rkSj ij le; le; ij va'kdkyhu vof/k ds fy, lQkbZ dke ds fy, j[kk x;k Fkk rFkk mldh etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ o foi{kh dk laca/k Jfed&fukstd dk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA ftjg esa xokg dk ;g dguk gS fd eS vkxwpk czkap esa fiNys nks ekg ls czkap esustj ds in ij dke dj jgk gwaA ;g lgh gS fd tqykbZ 2013 esa esjh iksfLVax vkxwpk czkap esa ugha FkhA eSaus jktsUnz dqekj dk fjdkMZ ns[k fy;k gSA gekjs ;gka fjis;j esUVhusUl jftLVj j[kk tkrk gSA mlesa etnwjh ds Hkqxrku ds okmpj curs gSaA izn'kZ 2 cSad dk gh gSA izn'kZ 1 Hkh cSad dk jsdkMZ gSA jktw dh etnwjh 150 :- izfr fnu dh nj ls fy[kh gqbZ gSA jktw dkSu gS] eSa ugha tkurk gaA eq>s irk ugha gS fd jktsUnz o[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1385 jktw ,d gh O;fDr gksaA izn'kZ 3 o 4 cSad ds nLrkost gSaA izn'kZ 5 cSad dk jsdkMZ gSA vkxs ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 2013 esa 15 fnu] vxLr esa 24 fnu] flrEcj esa 24 fnu] vDVwcj esa 25 fnu]uoEcj esa 23 fnu] fnlEcj 2013 esa 25 fnu] tuojh 2014 esa 27 fnu] Qjojh 2014 esa 24 fnu] ekpZ 2014 esa 23 fnu] vizsy 2014 esa 6 fnu dke fd;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us cSad esa fNViqV dke fd;k FkkA
bl izdkj tks mijksDr lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ gS] mlds laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us cgl ds nkSjku ;g fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ us fnuakd 15-7-13 ls 8-4-14 rd foi{kh cSad esa crkSj lgk;d deZpkjh dk;Z fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa izn'kZ 1 cSad dk fjdkMZ i=koyh ij ekStwn gSA izkFkhZ us dqy 217 fnu dke fd;k gS ijarq jfookjh; o isM gksyh Mst dks tksMus ij mDr vof/k djhc 255 fnu dh gks tkrh gSA ;g rF; izn'kZ 1 ls lkfcr gSA eku- mPp U;k;ky; us ts-Mh- ,- cuke egs'k dqekj ,y ,y ts 2007 ¼1½ ist 142 esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&ch esa 240 fnu dh vof/k esa jfookj ,oa isM gksyhMst Hkh tksMs tk;saxsA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsok,a 240 fnuksa ls vf/kd dh gksrh gS rFkk vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&ch ds rgr fu;fer lsok dh Js.kh esa vkrh gSA vr% foi{kh dks lsok i`Fkddj.k ls iwoZ vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk djuh pkfg;s Fkh] tks ugha dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dk lsok i`Fkddj.k voS/k gSA mDr cgl ds fojks/k esa foi{kh fu;kstd dh vksj ls mifLFkr vf/koDrk us fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks vLFkk;h :i ls nSfud osru ij j[kk x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ us 240 fnu dh yxkrkj o fu;fer lsok,a ugha nh gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsok,a vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&ch ds rgr fu;fer lsok,a ugha gSA cgl ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus U;kf;d n`"Vkar ;wfu;u ifCyd lfoZl deh'ku cuke fxjh'k t;Urh yky ok?ksyk o vU; , vkbZ vkj 2006 ist 1165 is'k fd;kA eSaus mijksDr cgl ij xkSj fd;kA izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk Hkh llEeku v/;;u dj muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;kA
izkFkhZ dk eq[; ijh{k.k esa ;g dFku gS fd mlus fnuakd 15-7-13 ls foi{kh ds v/khu crkSj lgk;d deZpkjh fnukad 8-4-14 rd dk;Z fd;k gSA fnukad 9-4-14 dks mls fcuk fdlh lwpuk ]uksfVl ds lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ us izn'kZ 1 cSad dk fjdkMZ izLrqr fd;k gSA foi{kh dh vksj ls ,u , M 1 lkgc jke] 'kk[kk izca/kd] us eq[; ijh{k.k esa rks izkFkhZ ds c;kuksa dk [kaMu fd;k gS vkSj ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 15-7-13 ls vkxwpk 'kk[kk esa 150 #- izfr fnu dh nj ls fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k gS ijarq ftjg esa mlus ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 13 esa 25 fnu] vxLr esa 24 fnu] flrEcj esa 24 fnu] vDVwcj esa 25 fnu]uoEcj esa 23 fnu] fnlEcj 13 esa 25 fnu] tuojh 14 esa 27 fnu] Qjojh 14 esa 24 fnu] ekpZ 14 esa 23 fnu] vizsy 14 esa 6 fnu dke fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd mls nSfud osru ij fu;kftr fd;k x;k FkkA esjs fouez fopkj esa nSfud osru ij fu;ksftr Jfed Hkh vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ d rgr Jfed dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS rFkk nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh gksus ds vk/kkj ij mls vf/k0 1947 dh ifjf/k ls ckgj ugha j[kk tk ldrk gSA ;g fLFkfr mHk; i{kksa dh lk{; ls rFkk izLrqr nLrkostkr izn'kZ 1 ls iw.kZ :i ls izekf.kr gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 15-7-13 ls 8-4-14 rd foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa crkSj lgk;d deZpkjh dk;Z fd;k gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us 217 fnu dh vof/k rd dk;Z fd;k gS ijarq tSlkfd eku- jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ts-Mh-,- cuke egs'k dqekj 2007 ,y ,y ts ¼k½ esa eku- loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vejhdu ,Dlizsl baVjus'kuy csafdax dkiksZ- cuke esustj vkQ vejhdu ,Dlizsl baVjus'kuy cSafdax dkiksZ- , vkbZ vkj 1986 ¼,l-lh½ ist 458 dk gokyk fn;k x;k gS]tks bl izdkj ls gS& The qualification for relief under section 25-F is that he should be aworkman employed in an industry and has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer . What is continuous servicehas been defined and explained in section 25-B of the Act. In view of sub Section 2 of section 25-B the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous serviceif he has 'actually workman under the emp;oyer' for particular period. The expression 'actually worked under the employer' cannot mean those days only when the workman worked with hammer ,sickle or pen, but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute, standing orders etc. Thus , Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which the workman could be said to have actually worked...'
bl izdkj mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds vuqlkj vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&ch ds rgr 240 fnuksa dh fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa jfookj rFkk isM gksyh Mst dks Hkh 'kkfey fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj ;fn fnukad 15-7-13 ls 8-4-14 ds chp ds jfookjh; ,o jktif=r vodk'kksa dh vof/k dks Hkh blesa 'kkfey fd;k tk;s rks dk;Z dh vof/k 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh gks tkrh gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsok,a vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&ch ds rgr fu;fer lsok,a jgh gSA foi{kh }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ;wfu;u ifCyd lfoZl deh'ku cuke fxjh'k t;Urh yky ok?ksyk o vU; ds rF; fopkjk/khu ekeys ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSa rFkk mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar vkS- fo- vf/k- 1947 ls lacaf/kr ugha gS rFkk u gh ekeys esa izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fu;ferhdj.k dk fcUnq r; fd;k tkuk gSA ekeys esa ;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ vf/k0 1947 ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk dh xbZ gS vFkok ugha\ pwafd izkFkhZ dh lsok,a tSlkfd Åij foospuk dh xbZ g]S vf/k01947 dh /kkjk 25&ch ds rgr fu;fer lsok jgh gaSA vr% mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ fu;kstd dks /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk djuh pkfg;s FkhA vFkkZr NaVuh ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl dh ,ot esa osru jkf'k fn;k tkuk vko';d gSA tks fufoZokfnr :i ls cSad ds }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gS A bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 9-4-14 dks voS/k :i ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA
vc ns[kuk ;g gS fd izkFkhZ dks D;k vuqrks"k fnyk;k tk;s\ esjs fouez fopkj esa izkFkhZ iqu% lsok eas fu;ksftr gksus ,oa lsok i`Fkddj.k dh frfFk ls iqu% fu;kstu rd lsok i`Fkddj.k ds le; ns; osru o ifjykHk dh 50 izfr'kr jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA vr% mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd &
izkFkhZ Jfed Jh jktsUnz oS".ko firk Jh nsoh yky oS".ko] fuoklh& :ikgsyh dyk] rg0&gqjMk] ftyk&HkhyokMk dks mi egk izca/kd] {kSf=; dk;kZy;] cSad vkWQ cMksnk] oS'kkyh uxj] vtesj o eS- cSad vkWQ cMksnk] tfj;s 'kk[kk izca/kd] cSad vkWQ cMksnk] 'kk[kk&vkxwapk] rg-& gqjMk ]ftyk& HkhyokMk }kjk fnuakd 9-4-2014 ls lsok i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSA1386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] izkFkhZ Jfed iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr gksus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dks iapkV izdkf'kr gksus dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr fd;k tk;sA
izkFkhZ Jfed lsok i`Fkddj.k dh frfFk ls ysdj iqu% fu;ksftr gksus rd lsok i`Fkd djrs le; ns; osru dh nj ls dqy osru dh 50 izfr'kr jkf'k Hkh foi{khx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA iapkV dh izfr dsUnz ljdkj dks Hksth tk;sA iapkV vkt fnukad 18-9-2017 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA
lR;thr jk;] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 475475475475....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार बैंक विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अिधकरण/ Dम न्यायालय, बंगलोर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 56/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 19.03.2019 को प्राप्त Bआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/36/1997----आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 475.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19.03.2019.
[No. L-12012/36/1997-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BANGALORE – 560 022.
DATED : 12th MARCH 2019
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C R No. 56/2001
| I Party | II Party |
| S h. J L Hiremath, H No. 153, ShriMallikarju Nilay, vinayak Colony, Vidyanagar, HUBLI - 31. | The Chairman and Managing Director,Vijaya Bank, Head Office, 41/2, M G Road, BANGALORE – 560 001 |
Appearances :
I Party : Shri B. D. Kuttappa, Advocate II Party : Shri Pradeep S. Sawkar, Advocate[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1387
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/36/1997-IR(B-II)dated 16.08.2001 in exercise of the
power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Vijaya Bank is justified in not considering Sh. J.L.Hiremath, Sub-staff for
permanent absorption w.e.f. 24.08.1982? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date?"
2. A Memo is filed of the I Party on 13.12.2017 which reads thus:
"That I had filed the above case against the Vijaya Bank for claiming arrears of salary. I have been appointed as part-time sweeper at 1/3 scale wages on 15/09/1992. I was converted as PEON on 24/05/1993. Presently I have been working as PEON in Lamington Branch, Hubli. Whereas I have settled all my disputes and difference and claims with the bank amicably without recourse to further litigation and for that purpose I am willing to abandon all my claims against the bank and I have no grievances whatsoever against the bank".
3. II Party today filed a memo as below :
"The Second party submits that in this case the Reference is that "Whether the Management of Vijaya Bank is justified in not considering Sri J.L.Hiremath, sub staff for permanent absorption w.e.f. 24-08-1982? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date?"
The Second party prays that for the reasons stated in the Memo filed by the first party Hiremath on 24-11-2017 wherein it is stated that the first party was converted as peon on 24-05-1993 at present he is working as peon in Lamington Branch at Hubli, drawing a gross salary of Rs. 40,840/- and that he has settled all his disputes and differences and claims with the Bank amicably without recourse to further litigation and for that purpose he is willing to abandon all his claims against the Bank and he has no grievances whatsoever against the Bank. Hence, he withdrew the above case unconditionally".
3. When the I Party himself has no further claim against II Party the inference is, there is no dispute
between the parties.
ORDER
Reference is Rejected.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 12th March 2019)
Justice Smt. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 476476476476....————औद्योगिक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार
बैंक आफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX िनयोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय
सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायालय एवं Dम न्यायालय, भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 81/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो
के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 19.03.2019 को प्राप्त Bआ था।
[सं. एल-39025/01/2019----आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhilwada, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19.03.2019.
[No. L-39025/01/2019-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer1388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/k
Je U;k;ky;] HkhyokM+k
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % Jh lR;thr jk;] vkj-,p-ts-,l-
Je fookn izdj.k la[;k % 81 lu~ 2014
Jh Hkkx pan firk Jh 'kadj yky 'kekZ] fuoklh& Mkcyk] rg-&cusMk] ftyk&HkhyokMkA
---izkFkhZ
cuke
1- mi egkizca/kd] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] cSad vkWQ cMksnk oS'kkyh uxj] vtesj
2- eS- cSad vkWQ cMksnk] tfj;s 'kk[kk izca/kd] cSad vkWQ cMksnk 'kk[kk&Mkcyk]
rg-& cusMk] ftyk& HkhyokMkA
---foi{kh
mifLFkr
Jh vkj-,l- lksMkuh] vf/koDrk&izkFkhZ dh vksj lsA
Jh jke Lo:i vlkok] vf/koDrk&foi{khx.k dh vksj lsA
iapkV
fnukad 18-9-2017
izkFkhZ Jfed us lsok i`Fkddj.k ds laca/k esa viuk fookn lqyg vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh;] vtesj ds le{k is'k fd;k x;kA tgka 45 fnu dh vof/k esa dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gksus ds dkj.k mDr fookn vkS-fo-vf/k- 1947] ftls iapkV esa vkxs vf/k01947 ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk] dh /kkjk 2 ¼,½ ds rgr bl U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;kA
la{ksi esa izkFkhZ ds }kjk Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ foi{kh la- nks cSad vkWQ cMksnk 'kk[kk& Mkcyk] rg-& cusMk esa crkSj lQkbZ ,oa vU; lgk;d dk;Z djus gsrq fnukd 17-10-01 dks nSfud osru ij fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA 1200 oxZ fQV Q~yksj ,fj;k rFkk lHkh QuhZpj] dkmaVj dh lQkbZ ds vfrfjDr 'kk[kk izca/kd dks olwyh o ,y-,- Mh- esa lg;ksx djrk FkkA d{kk vkBoha rd ikSrs ds vuqlkj cSad 'kk[kk ds Q'kZ dk {kS=Qy vf/kd gksus ls mldks Ldsy ost dk ,d frgkbZ Hkqxrku gksus yxk FkkA izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k us fnukd 29-3-14 dks ekSf[kd :i ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ fnukad 17-10-01 ls fnukad 28-3-14 rd fujarj o fu;fer :i ls foi{kh cSad dh lsok esa jgk gSA ekSf[kd :i ls fnuakd 29-3-14 dks lsok i`Fkddj.k ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k] u gh uksfVl dh ,ot esa osru ,oa NaVuh eqvkots dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA cSad ds }kjk vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B deZpkjh vHkh Hkh cSad esa lsokjr gSA bl izdkj vf/k0 dh /kkjk 25&ch o ,p dk Hkh mYya?ku gqvk gSA izkFkhZ us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh;] vtesj ds le{k f'kdk;r dh A foi{kh us le>kSrk okrkZ esa dksbZ :fp ugha fn[kkbZA 45 fnu ls dbZ vf/kd fnol O;rhr gks tkus ij Hkh dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gqvkA bl dkj.k ;g fookn vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 2¼,½ ¼2½ ds rgr U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;k tk jgk gSA fnukad 29-3-14 dks dh xbZ lsok eqfDr dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ?kksf"kr dj izkFkhZ dks iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr djus rFkk fnuakd 29-3-14 ls iqu% lsok esa ysus rd dh vof/k ds leLr osru o ifjykHk ds Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ,oa 10]000 #- odhy esgUrkuk fnyk;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s tk;saA
foi{khx.k dks U;k;ky; esa ryc fd;k x;kA
foi{khx.k us mDr izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq, tokc esa ;g vafdr fd;k fd vf/k0 1947 ds vuqlkj dsUnz ljdkj cSafdax lsokvksa ds fy, mi;qDr ljdkj gSA vr% U;k;ky; }kjk ekeys dh lquokbZ ugha dh tk ldrh gSA prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds ek/;e ls dsUnz ljdkj ds funsZ'kkuqlkj dh tkuh pkfg;s] ftlds fy, LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa lwpuk nsdj vkosnu eaxok;k tkuk vko';d gSA izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh cSad dk deZpkjh ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks vLFkk;h rkSj ij le;& le; ij va'kdkyhu vof/k ds fy, flQZ lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, Mkcyk 'kk[kk esa j[kk x;k Fkk ftldh etnwjh dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ o foi{kh ds e/; fu;kstd o Jfed dk dksbZ laca/k vfLrRo esa ugha gSA foi{kh loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa] ftudk gokyk tokc esa fn;k x;k gS] dh ikyuk djus ds fy, ck/; gSA izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tk;sA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1389 izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa ,-M-1 izkFkhZ Hkkx pan ds c;ku 'kiFk i= ij ntZ djk;s x;s] ftUgksaus crkSj izys[kh; lk{; izn'kZ 1 ls 14 nLrkost is'k fd;sA foi{kh cSad dh vksj ls ,u , M 1 nso dey jktu ds c;ku ntZ djok;s x;sA
eSaus mHk;i{kksa dks lqukA i=koyh dk xgurk ls voyksdu fd;kA
izkFkhZ , M 1 Hkkx pan us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa Dyse izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh rkbZn djrs gq, ;g dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh la- nks ds v/khu fnukad 17-10-01 dks nSfud osru ij lQkbZ o vU; lgk;d dk;Z djus gsrq fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA fu;qfDr fnuakd ls gh Q~yksj ,fj;k] QuhZpj] dkmaVj dh lQkbZ ds vfrfjDr 'kk[kk izca/kd dks olwyh o ,y- ,-Mh- esa lg;ksx djrs gq, n¶rjh dk dk;Z fu"BkiwoZd fnukad 28-3-14 rd fd;kA fu;qfDr frfFk 17-10-01 ls gh lsok lekfIr frfFk 28-3-14 rd mlus foi{kh la- nks ds v/khu fujarj o fu;fer lsok,a nh gSA foi{kh la- nks us dbZ ckj izkFkhZ dks fu;fer fd;s tkus gsrq i= Hkh fy[ksA ,sls i= fnuakd 2-9-06]10-1-11 o 18-7-11 gS]tks foi{kh la- nks ds dCts esa gSA lsokvksa ls larq"V gksdj gh foi{kh }kjk izkjaHk esa 1050 :- ekfld osru o ckn esa Ldsy ost dk ,d frgkbZ Hkqxrku gksus yxk rFkk o"kZ 09 ls iwjk osru feyus yxk rFkk cSad esa esjk osru [kkrs esa tek gksdj Hkqxrku gqvkA izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k us fnukd 29-3-14 ls fcuk dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru] NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s fcuk] dksbZ dkj.k crk;s fcuk vpkud lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us nLrkostkr esa izn'kZ 1 cSad dk i= fnukad 6-7-11]izn'kZ 2 cSad }kjk izkFkhZ dk ck;ksMsVk] czkap vf/kdkjh] Mkcyk }kjk izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fy[kk x;k i=] izn'kZ 3 o 4 czkap dk i=] izn'kZ 5 cMksnk cSad ;wfu;u dk i=] izn'kZ 6 cSd dk lD;qZyj] izn'kZ 7 tujy esustj dk vkns'k ckcr le>kSrs dh ikyuk] Mhihth,e dk i= izn'kZ 8] izn'kZ 9 czkap esustj dk i=] izkFkhZ dk 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= Vh-lh- izn'kZ 10] izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ 11] cSad ikl cqd dh QksVks izfr izn'kZ 12] 'kk[kk izca/kd dk i= izn'kZ 13 o 14 is'k fd;sA ftjg esa izkFkhZ us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd esjs ikl fu;kstu foHkkx o cSad }kjk fn;k x;k dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ugha gSA fyf[kr esa vkns'k Hkh ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSa cSad dh lkQ lQkbZ o vU; dke djrk FkkA Mkcyk 'kk[kk esa Ldsy uacj 2 ds vf/kdkjh FksA esjs dks fu;kstu esa j[kus ds fy, mDr vf/kdkjh us flQkfj'k dh FkhA tks Hkh Hkqxrku gksrk Fkk mldk jsdkMZ cSad esa jgrk FkkA mifLFkfr ckcr fjdkMZ Hkh cSad esa jgrk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus cSaad esa mifLFkr jgus o etnwjh dk fjdkMZ i=koyh ij is'k ugha fd;k gSA izn'kZ 1 tujy lD;qZyj gSA izn'kZ 2 ds lkFk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dk dksbZ izek.k layXu ugha gSA izn'kZ 3 ls 9 i= QkoMZ fd;s x;s gSa muds }kjk izkFkhZ dk fu;kstu rks Fkk ijarq fu;fer ugha FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa ;ksX; ugha gksÅa bl dkj.k esjh fu;qfDr ughas gqbZ gksA esjh Vh-lh- vkBoha d{kk dh f'k{kk dh gSA vkxs ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd izn'kZ 13 o 14 esjh flQkfj'k ls lacaf/kr i= gSA tks lsysjh nsrs Fks og cSad [kkrs esa tek gksrk FkkA izn'kZ 12 ikl cqd dh izfr gSA mDr lk{; ds [kaMu esa ,u , M 1 nso dey jktu dk eq[; ijh{k.k esa ;g dguk gS fd izkFkhZ nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa fnukad 17-10-01 ls cSad vkQ cMkSnk] 'kk[kk Mkcyk esa nSfud osru ij lQkbZ ,oa vU; lgk;d dk;Z djus gsrq fu;kftr ugha gqvk A izkFkhZ us 'kk[kk izca/kd ds funsZ'kkuqlkj lgk;d deZpkjh ds :i esa fnukad 28-3-14 rd dksbZ dk;Z lEikfnr ugha fd;k] u gh dkmUVj lacaf/kr] ,y-,-Mh- o i=koyh] #i;s lacaf/kr dk;Z fd;s D;ksafd og dHkh Hkh cSad ds }kjk deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad 17-10-01 ls 28-3-14 rd foi{kh cSad esa ugha jgh gS] u gh fu;fer lsok,a nh xbZ A fnukd 2-9-06]10-1-11 o 18-7-11 ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks LFkk;h :i ls deZpkjh fu;qDr fd;s tkus gsrq flQkfj'k fd;s tkus dk rF; xyr fy[kk gSA ftl vf/kdkjh ds }kjk ;fn mDr izdkj ds i= izsf"kr Hkh fd;s x;s gksa rks Hkh voS/k o vekU; gSa D;ksfd ml vf/kdkjh dks fu;kstu lacaf/kr dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA izkFkhZ us nSfud osruHkksxh ds :i esa mls 1050 #- ekfld osru fn;k tkuk xyr fy[kk gSA ;g Hkh xyr fy[kk gS fd izkFkhZ dks 2009 ls iwjk osru feyus yxkA izkFkhZ us fnuakd 29-3-14 ls fcuk uksfVl fn;s lsok i`Fkd djuk o mldh 13 o"kZ dh yEch lsok gksuk fy[kk gS ysfdu izkFkhZ dHkh foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa ugha jgk gS] vr% lsok i`Fkd djus dk iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us fu;kstu lacaf/kr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ckcr nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s gSA foi{khx.k ds v/khu fu;qfDr jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds ek/;e ls dh tkrh gS ,oa LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa nh xbZ lwpuk ds ek/;e ls vkosnu ekaxs tkrs gSaA izkFkhZ dks vLFkk;h rkSj ij le; le; ij va'kdkyhu vof/k ds fy, lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, foi{kh cSd }kjk j[kk x;k gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ o foi{kh cSad dk laca/k Jfed o fu;kstd dk gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA ftjg esa xokg dk ;g dguk gS fd eSaus Mkcyk czkap esa 17 vDVwcj 2016 dks tksbZu fd;k FkkA 'kk[kk izca/kd ds in ij tksbZu fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ cSad esa o"kZ 2001 esa ukSdjh ij yxk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 28-3-14 rd dke fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ us yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k ;k ugha eSa ugha crk ldrk gwa D;ksafd esjh iksfLVax ogka ugha FkhA izn'kZ 1 cSad dks fpB~Bh izkIr gksuk lgh gSA izn'kZ 2 izkFkhZ dk ck;ksMsVk rRdkyhu czkap esustj us Hkstk gSA o"kZ 2011 esa czkap esustj dkSu Fks irk ugha gS] u gh eSa muds gLrk{kj igpkurk gwaA izn'kZ 2 ij cSad dh eksgj yxh gksuk lgh gSA izn'kZ 3 o 4 cSad ds gks rks eSa ugha crk ldrk D;kasfd cSad ds ysVj gsM ij ugha gS] u gh bu ij cSad dh lhy yxh gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e 1 gekjs }kjk is'k fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ ,e 2 Hkh cSad us is'k fd;k gS]tks esjs iwoZ vf/kdkjh us is'k fd;k gSA izn'kZ ,e 3 cSad dh vksj ls is'k fd;k x;k gS] mlesa fjekdZ , ls ch esa 1@3 osru ds ckcr fy[kk gks rks eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS D;kssafd esjh iksfLVax ml le; czkap esa ugha FkhA izn'kZ ,e 4 ls ,e 9 cSad }kjk is'k fd;s x;s gSaA fnuakd 28-3-14 dks izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVk;s tkus ckcr uksfVl fn;k ;k ugha irk ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd Hkkx pan dh ru[okg cSad esa tek gksrh gksA izn'kZ 12 cSad dh ikl cqd gSA fnukad 31-6-14 ekdZ ij ostst fy[kk gqvk gS Msyh ostst fy[kk gqvk gSA Msyh ostst fdruk Fkk] bldh eq>s tkudkjh ugha gSA 2001 esa izkFkhZ dks 1050 o 2014 esa 9000 #- ls mij osru fn;k x;k gks rks eq>s tkudkjh ugha gSSA esjh iksfLVax rRle; czkap esa ugha FkhA 2001 ls 2013 ds chp izkFkhZ M~;wVh ls dc dc xSj gkftj jgk ugha crk ldrk D;ksafd mldk dksbZ gktjh jftLVj ugha gSA cSad dk dkjisV ,fj;k 1100&1200 ds chp esa gksxkA izkFkhZ vkBoha ikl Fkk tks jsdkMZ ls lgh gSA izkFkhZ fu;kstu ds nkSjku lQkbZ o nQ~rjh dk dke djrk FkkA Hkkx pan ds vykok vkSj dksbZ deZpkjh cSad esa jgk gks rks eq>s irk ugha gSA vkxs ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd izkFkhZ1390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dks nSfud osru ij Hkqxrku fu;fer :i ls gksrk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd cSad deZpkjh gksus ds dkj.k >waBs c;ku ns jgk gwaA
bl izdkj tks mijksDr lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ gS] mlds laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us cgl ds nkSjku ;g fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ us cSad vkQ cMkSnk] 'kk[kk Mkcyk] rg0 cusMk esa fnuakd 17-10-01 ls 28-3-14 rd yxkrkj o fu;fer :i ls lQkbZ ,oa vU; lgk;d dk dk;Z fd;k gS] ftldks fu;fer :i ls etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 29-3-14 dks fcuk fdlh uksfVl ,oa uksfVl ds cnys osru fn;s fcuk ,oa NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s fcuk izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k gSA tks vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk mYya?ku gSaA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dk lsok i`Fkddj.k voS/k gSA og iqu% lsok esa fu;qDr gksus ,oa lsok i`Fkddj.k dh frfFk ls iqu% fu;qfDr rd lEiw.kZ ykHk ifjykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA vius cgl ds leFkZu esa U;kf;d n`"Vkar LVsV cSad vkQ chdkusj ,aM t;iqj cuke lsUVªy xouZesaV baMLVªh;y fVªC;wuy de yscj dksVZ 2017&kk&,y ,y ts ist 456] tlesj flag cuke gfj;k.kk jkT; 2015 ,y ,y vkj ist 225 o jkt dqekj nhf{kr cuke fot; dqekj xkSjh 'kadj 2015 ,y ,y vkj ist 990 is'k fd;sA mDr cgl ds fojks/k esa foi{kh fu;kstd dh vksj ls mifLFkr vf/koDrk us fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ o foi{kh cSad ds e/; fu;kstd o Jfed ds laca/k ugha jgs gSaA izkFkhZ dks cSad }kjk dHkh Hkh fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k gS] u gh bl U;k;ky; dks ekeys dh lquokbZ dk {kS=kf/kdkj gSA izkFkhZ dks va'kdkyhu vof/k ds fy, lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, Mkcyk 'kk[kk esa j[kk x;k FkkA ftl vf/kdkjh us izkFkhZ dks fu;fer fd;s tkus ckcr flQkfj'k dh mUgsa flQkfj'k djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk] u gh cSad fdlh izdkj ds ;wfu;u ds lkFk gq, le>kSrs ls ikcan gSaA cSsd esa lgk;d deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds ekQZr dh tkrh gS] ftlds ckjs esa LFkkuh; lekpkj i=ksa esa lwpuk nh tkrh gSA cgl ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus U;kf;d n`"Vkar ;wfu;u ifCyd lfoZl deh'ku cuke fxjh'k t;Urh yky ok?ksyk o vU; , vkbZ vkj 2006 ist 1165 is'k fd;kA
eSaus mijksDr cgl ij xkSj fd;kA izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk dk Hkh llEeku v/;;u dj muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;kA
U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkj.kh; fcUnq ;g gS fd D;k fnukd 29-3-14 dks foi{kh cSad us izkFkhZ dks voS/k :i ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k gS\ bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ us eq[; ijh{k.k esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mls fnuakd 17-10-01 dks nSfud osru ij lQkbZ o vU; lgk;d dk;Z gsrq foi{kh la- 2 'kk[kk izca/kd] cSad vkQ cMksnk] 'kk[kk Mkcyk }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us fnukad 28-3-14 rd yxkrkj cSad esa dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok,a fu;fer fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa foi{kh cSad ds vf/kdkjh us fnuakd 2-9-06] 10-1-11 o 18-7-11 dks flQkfj'k Hkh dh gSA 'kq: esa 1050 :- ekfld osru fn;k tkrk Fkk A 2009 ls iwjk osru feyus yxkA fnuakd 29-3-14 dks fcuk dksbZ uksfVl fn;s ,oa uksfVl ds cnys osru fn;s o NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s fcuk izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ us izn'kZ 1 ls 14 nLrkost ftlesa fu;fer fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa flQkfj'kh i= a izn'kZ 3 ls 5 Hkh is'k fd;s gSaA mDr lk{; ds [kaMu esa ,u , M 1 nso dey] 'kk[kk izca/kd] tks fd fnukad 17-10-16 ls mDr 'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr jgs gSa] mUgksaus eq[; ijh{k.k esa rks vius c;kuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 17-10-01 ls cSad vkWQ cMksnk] 'kk[kk Mkcyk esa nSfud osru ij lQkbZ o vU; dk;Z gsrq fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkxs ;g Hkh dgk gS fd 'kk[kk izca/kd ds funsZ'kkuqlkj fnuakd 28-3-14 dks rd dksbZ dk;Z izkFkhZ us lEikfnr ugha fd;k gSA fnuakd 17-10-01 ls 28-3-14rd fujarj o fu;fer lsok,a ugha nh xbZ gS ijarq ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ 2001 esa ukSdjh ij yxk Fkk vkSj mlus fnuakd 28-3-14 rd dk;Z fd;k gSA eSa ;g ugha crk ldrk fd izkFkhZ us yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k ;k ugha D;ksafd esjh iksfLVax ugha FkhA foi{kh us izn'kZ ,e 1 ls ,e 9 izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr cSad ds nLrkost Hkh U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;s gSaA
bl izdkj foi{kh dh vksj ls mifLFkr xokg us izkFkhZ dk 2001 ls 28-3-14 rd foi{kh cSd esa dk;Z fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA mDr rF; izkFkhZ o foi{kh cSaad ds }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s fofHkUu nLrkostksa ls Hkh izekf.kr gSA izkFkhZ dks fu;fer fd;s tkus gsrq rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izca/kd us vius mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks i= Hkh fy[kk gSA bl izdkj mDr vof/k esa izkFkhZ dk foi{kh cSad esa crkSj lgk;d deZpkjh dk;Zjr gksuk iw.kZ :i ls izekf.kr gSA U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ dh lsok,a vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&ch ds rgr fu;fer lsok dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ dk o"kZ 2001 ls 28-3-14 rd foi{kh cSad esa crkSj lgk;d deZpkjh dk;Zjr gksuk izekf.kr gqvk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh fu;fer o yxkrkj :i ls ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd dh lsok,a foi{kh cSad esa jgh gSA ;fn izkFkhZ dh lsok,a fu;fer o yxkrkj ugh aFkh rks bl laca/k esa iq[rk lk{; foi{kh cSad dks U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k djuh pkfg;s Fkh tks muds }kjk ugha dh xbZ gSA vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds rgr ;fn fdlh Jfed dh lsok,a yxkrkj o fu;fer :i ls ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd dh jgh gks rks mldh NaVuh ls iwoZ fu;kstd dks vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk djuk vko'd gSA vFkkZr NaVuh ls iwoZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl dh ,ot esa osru jkf'k fn;k tkuk vko';d gSA tks fufoZokfnr :i ls cSad ds }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gS A tks U;kf;d n`"Vkar izkFkhZ us is'k fd;s gSa muesa LVsV cSad vkQ chdkusj ,aM t;iqj cuke lsUVªy xouZesaV baMLVªh;y fVªC;wuy de yscj dksVZ 2017&kk&,y ,y ts ist 456 ]tlesj flag cuke gfj;k.kk jkT; 2015 ,y ,y vkj ist 225 nksuksa gh ekeyksa esa mDr ekeyksa ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj U;k;ky; us izkFkhZ dh lsokvksa dks vf/k0 1947 ds rgr fu;fer lsok ekuk FkkA foi{kh cSad }kjk tks U;kf;d n`'Vkar ;w-ih-,l-lh- cuke fxjh'k t;arh yky dk is'k fd;k x;k gSA mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds rF; fopkjk/khu ekeys ds rF;ksa ls iw.kZ :i ls fHkUu gSaA mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar vf/k0 1947 ls lacaf/kr ugha gS] u gh fopkjk/khu ekeys esa izkFkhZ dks cSd lsok esa fu;fer :i ls fu;qfDr ds lca/k esa fdlh fookn dks r; djuk gSA bl U;k;ky; dks ek= ;g ns[kuk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 29-3-14 dks vf/k0 1947 dh ikyuk ugha djrs gq, voS/k :i ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS vFkok ugha]tks fd mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj izekf.kr gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok,a vf/k0 1947 ds rgr fu;fer lsok,a jgh gS rFkk mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1391 iwoZ vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZ gS rFkk vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk 2&,l ds rgr izkFkhZ Jfed dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 29-3-14 dks voS/k :i ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA
vc ns[kuk ;g gS fd izkFkhZ dks D;k vuqrks"k fnyk;k tk;s\ esjs fouez fopkj esa izkFkhZ us 13 o"kksZa rd dh yEch lsok,a foi{kh cSad ds v/khu nh gSA tks U;kf;d n`"Vkar izkFkhZ us jkt dqekjh nhf{kr cuke fot; dqekj dk is'k fd;k gSA mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa Hkh mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks iw.kZ osru ds lkFk lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s x;s FksA fopkjk/kkhu ekeys esa izkFkhZ dks cSad dh lsok esa iqu% fu;kstu ds lkFk lsok i`Fkddj.k dh frfFk ls iqu% fu;kstu rd lsok i`Fkddj.k ds le; ns; osru o ifjykHk dh 50 izfr'kr jkf'k fnykbZ tkus ds vkns'k fn;s tkuk U;k;ksfpr le>rk gwaA
vr% mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd &
izkFkhZ Jfed Jh Hkkx pan firk Jh 'kadj yky 'kekZ dks mi egkizca/kd] {kSf=; dk;kZy;] cSad vkWQ cMksnk] oS'kkyh uxj] vtesj o eS0 cSad vkWQ cMksnk] tfj;s 'kk[kk izca/kd] cSad vkWQ cMksnk] 'kk[kk & Mkcyk] rg0& cusMk] ftyk& HkhyokMk }kjk fnuakd 29-3-2014 ls lsok i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSA izkFkhZ Jfed iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr gksus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dks iapkV izdkf'kr gksus dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj iqu% iwoZ in ij fu;ksftr fd;k tk;sA
izkFkhZ Jfed lsok i`Fkddj.k dh frfFk ls ysdj iqu% fu;ksftr gksus rd lsok i`Fkd djrs le; ns; osru dh nj ls dqy osru dh 50 izfr'kr jkf'k Hkh foi{khx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA iapkV dh izfr dsUnz ljdkj dks Hksth tk;sA
iapkV vkt fnukad 18-9-2017 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA
lR;thr jk;] U;k;k/kh'k
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 477477477477....————औद्योगिक विवाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स फू ड कारपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंिडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अिधकरण-सह-Dम न्ययालय नं. 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2010) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 14.03.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-22011/02/2010----आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजेन्(cid:15) सिह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 477.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2 Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Food Corporation of India and their workmen received by the Central Government on 14.03.2019.
[No. L-22011/02/2010-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.11/2010
Registered on 19.05.2010
Sh. Jasbir Singh, S/o Sh. Iqbal Singh, R/o House No.1361,
Dogar Basti, Right Side, Faridkot.
… Workman Versus
The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India,
District Office, Faridkot.
…Management1392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on:-07.03.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/2/2010-IR(CM-II) Dated 10.05.2010, 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 Food Corporation of India in allegedly terminating the services of Shri Jasbir Singh w.e.f. 22.04.2004 is legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled for?"
1. The facts, in brief, are that the workman was initially engaged by the management of FCI as typist w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at District Office, Faridkot and worked up to December 2006 when he was not allowed to work as Steno but was assigned the work of Driver. It is also alleged that he worked as driver since January 2007 to 31.05.2007. When workman requested management for assigning work of Typist, management instead of redressing his genuine grievances chose to terminate his services without complying with the law and after 31.05.2007, the services of the workman as Steno was orally terminated. The workman has worked with the respondent-management under the direct supervision from 01.01.1996 to 31.05.2007 regarding which certificates have been issued by the officers of the respondent- management, which are attached as Annexure W1, W2 and W3 with the claim petition. The workman was not given any notice nor any retrenchment compensation for his services despite the fact that he completed 240 days in each calendar year. Juniors to the workman have been retained by the respondent-management while terminating his services against the violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim of the workman is also covered by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court filed by Smt. Rajwant Kaur, who had been awarded reinstatement by the Tribunal in similar circumstances which had also been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. Similarly, Rajwant Kaur had preferred a writ petition before the Hon'bel Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding regularisation in view of Food Corporation of India policy dated 05.05.1987 and consequently, she had been granted relief from the Hon'ble High Court. The workman has remained unemployed after his termination. It is prayed that respondent-management may kindly be directed to reinstate him with full back wages and other consequential benefits including regularisation without any further loss.
2. Respondent-management has filed its written statement, denying the workman's employment with the management of Food Corporation of India. In fact, he was employed through Grover Commercial College, Faridkot. Hence, there was no relationship of master and servant between the parties as such, the claimant was not a workman employed by the respondent-management and showing of management Food Corporation of India within the meaning of Clause S of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the dispute does not fall within the ambit of Industrial Disputes Act. The present reference is bad in law and is not maintainable as the claimant was never employed by the respondent-management. The service of the workman was availed by the respondent-management through Grover Commercial College and all the payments were made by the respondent-management directly to M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot. No appointment letter or termination letter was issued to the workman by the respondent- management. The workman has not made the party to M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, as such, present reference deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. It is also alleged that answering respondent had no administrative, economic and disciplinary control over the workman. It is worth mentioning that workman after his termination from service started plying his own independent vehicle as a Taxi and used for the respondent-management for the officers and hire basis and has paid the Taxi charges. The workman was not the employee of Food Corporation of India while plying taxi and received payment as a private taxi car driver. Copies of payment and vouchers are enclosed as Ex.M with the written statement. The fact, that the deployment of workman by M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, has been admitted by the workman vide his letter dated 01.07.2007 and copy is enclosed as Annexure M and contention raised by the workman is false, frivolous and vexatious. The alleged certificate issued by the official of the respondent-management in connivance of the workman for which notices are issued by the management to the officials, who had issued these certificates and they were taken to task. It is pertinent to mention that M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, has also issued the certificate to the workman and he was being paid for the work done from 01.01.1996 to 12/2006 by M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot. No industrial dispute was existed between the workman and respondent-management so, question of violation of Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. It is requested that reference has no force in the eye of law and is liable to be answered accordingly.
3. Petitioner/workman has submitted its replication to the written statement filed by the management with all those averments made in the claim petition hence, it will not be reasonable to repeat the same.
4. To prove the facts in the claim petition, workman has examined himself as WW1, Balbir Kaur as WW2, Raghbir Singh as WW3 and Sanjay Kumar as WW4. Workman Jasbir Singh has submitted his affidavit as evidence in a cryptic manner, alleging therein that he was posted at Typist in the Admn. Section of Food Corporation of India and worked as Typist w.e.f 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2006. Thus, the fact, alleged in his affidavit is regarding the tenure of work with the respondent-management but there is nothing stated in his affidavit as when and how he had been engaged by the management, what was the role of M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, in his appointment. Witness Balbir Kaur has asserted in her affidavit that she knew personally Jasbir Singh, who was posted as Typist in Food Corporation of India, Faridkot, Admn. Section since 1996 till her retirement in the year 2005. Similarly, Raghbir Singh has alleged in his affidavit that he had worked with the claimant/workman up to 18.07.2005 and has seen Jasbir Singh working as Typist in Admn. Section. Witness Sanjay Kumar, WW4 is a Typewriter Machanic, who has stated that while repairing typewriters of the management, he has seen workman Jasbir Singh, working as Typist in the Office of Food Corporation of India, Faridkot, since 1996 to 31.12.2006. Thus, the averments made by WW2 Balbir Kaur, WW3 Raghbir Singh and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1393 WW4 Sanjay Kumar are confined only his services rendered to the respondent-management from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2006, which is not disputed by the management itself in his written statement. Thus, this is the admitted fact between the parties that workman rendered his services as Typist in the establishment of respondent-management from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2006.
5. The respondent-management has examined Ankush Singla as R-1, who has admitted that workman worked as Typist from 01.01.1996 to December 2006 in his establishment, who was engaged through Grover Commercial College, Faridkot. He has also admitted that workman owned a private taxi, which was hired by the department officials as per their requirements. He has specifically denied the termination by the management on 31.05.2007 and admitted that Ex.W1 to W3 were issued by the management-officials in connivance to the workman. Management has examined another witness Ramesh Kumar Grover, proprietor of M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, who has submitted his affidavit Ex.R-2 and asserted that workman Jasbir Singh was engaged in Food Corporation of India through him and there was agreement with the college and Food Corporation of India for supply of the workmen. According to him, workman Jasbir Singh worked with him for 8 years and Ex.R3 has been issued by him as per demand of workman. Ex.R- 3 is a certificate issued by this witness that workman(Jasbir Singh) had been working with him as casual Typist on contract basis. He was paid for the work done by him from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2006.
6. I have heard Sh. S.S. Maini, Ld. Counsel for the workman and Sh. Anil Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the management and perused the file carefully.
7. The issue as to whether the workman was engaged by the employer/management directly or through contractor is the bone of contention between the parties. There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant/workman was in the employment of management is always on the claimant/workman and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his employment with the management.
8. Question remains to be seen whether the workman was directly engaged under the respondent-management. This fact has to be proved by the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that there is not a single document to prove that the workman was directly employed by the respondent-management. The workman Jasbir Sing has clearly accepted during cross-examination that his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange and he was neither issued any appointment letter by the management nor any termination letter was issued by the management. He has accepted that he rendered his services in Food Corporation of India on behalf of M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, who provided salary for typing work in different departments to the persons including Food Corporation of India. He has clearly admitted that he has rendered his service as Typist in Food Corporation of India on behalf of the said institute. The workman has clearly stated that M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, raised the bill which was being paid by the Food Corporation of India. Thus, the workman has clearly accepted during his cross-examination that he had rendered his services to the Food Corporation of India on behalf of Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, from beginning to end. He has also accepted the letter Mark A, which is an application signed by the workman himself in which he has accepted that he was appointed through Grover Commercial College, Faridkot. Similarly, witness Balbir Kaur WW2 has also accepted the facts regarding the mode of payment to M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, for the services regarding typing work done by workmen. She has also accepted that before engaging Jasbir Singh, post had neither been advertised nor his name was sponsored by employment exchange. She has also accepted that after termination of contract of M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, workman has started profession of taxi, which were used by the officials of the Food Corporation of India and payment was accordingly made to the workman.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognised tests to find out whether the labours are the contract employees of the principal employer are:-
1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and
2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?
The facts regarding the payment of salary to the workman by M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, is not a matter of dispute in the light of the cross-examination of the witness WW1 Jasbir Singh and WW2 Balbir Kaur. Ld. Counsel for the workman contended that in fact it is the management of Food Corporation of India, who exercised actually control and supervise the work of workman. In this connection, he has drawn my attention towards the certificate Ex.W1, W2 and W3, which were letters issued by the Assistant Manager(Admin) for District Manager of Food Corporation of India in favour of Jasbir Singh regarding his work and conduct. This fact is not denied by the respondent-management MW1 Ankush Singla in his cross-examination.
10. The apex court in the case of International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union [209 (13) SCC374] has held as follows:-
"If the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the
directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct
employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to regulate employment is
with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.
The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour
is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be
assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the
1394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides whether the employee
will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends
the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the
principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor."
11. Thus, the principal enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly establishes that mere supervision of work is not sufficient to prove the relationship of employer and employee till it is proved that there was a control and supervision of it. The management control includes the authority of dismissal, taking of disciplinary action and continuity of service etc. Claim petition filed by the claimants is mum on this score and witnesses examined by the workman have not mentioned any specific averments in his affidavit regarding the appointment, authority of dismissal or taking of disciplinary action by the management. Per contra, it is admitted by the workman jasbir Singh WW1 and witness Balbir Kaur WW2 during cross-examination by the management-counsel that Food Corporation of India used to pay the bill for typing of the workman, who was deployed in the management of Food Corporation of India. The statement of these witnesses are very much clear that actual control rested with M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot and after the termination of the contract between the Food Corporation of India and M/s. Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, the services of workman came to an end.
12. Ld. Counsel for the workman has contended that the alleged contractor Ramesh Kumar Grover has no valid licence to supply contract labours to the management of Food Corporation of India and respondent-management has not got any licence also. It is true that there is no such record placed by either of the parties in file but in my considered view, if it is proved that workman has been initially employed by M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, and who was deputed to rendered his services as Typist in the respondent-management of Food Corporation of India then question of licence looses its relevance and argument advanced by the learned counsel for the workman has no force at all.
13. So far as employment of workman Jasbir Singh as driver of management is concerned. Learned counsel for the workman further argued that management/respondent had taken service of workman as driver of its vehicle has alleged in claim petition but, this fact is not even proved by the workman through his affidavit, which is very cryptic and runs as follow:-
"I was posted as a Typist in the Admn. Section of Food Corporation of India, Faridkot and I worked as a
typist w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2006.''
Thus, workman has nothing stated in his affidavit about his service as driver of vehicle of management. Contrary to the argument of the learned counsel for the workman, witness Balbir Kaur has accepted that workman was plying taxi after hirmination of contract between M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot and FCI of which FCI and official of the management of Food Corporation of India also hired taxi of workman against its payment. The evidence adduced by Balbir Kaur during cross-examination fortified the plea taken by the management that it is workman who had started business of plying taxi and service of taxi was hired by the officials of the management against its payment. Thus, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the workman has no force in the eye of law.
14. In last limb of the argument of learned counsel for the workman placing reliance in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Rajwant Kaur Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, dated 08.07.2003 contended that in a similar situation and facts, Hon'ble Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was pleased to reinstate the workwoman Rajwant Kaur and ordered for regularization of her services. I have gone through the judgments of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is clear that facts of that case are altogether different from the case of workman in question. In that case on requisition of the management, petitioner Rajwant Kaur was selected and appointed as Typist by the management of Food Corporation of India itself on daily wages basis and in that capacity she rendered her service from 31.07.1985 to March 1986 and later on from 01.05.1986 to June 1988 the letter period of service were shown through a private security agency namely Industrial Security and Allied Services, Kapurthala. The Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court dealing with the case of Smt. Rajwant Kaur had given finding with the name of the Industrial Security Agency was shame and camouflage in order to defeat the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and order was passed accordingly by the Tribunal and subsequently by the Hon'ble High Court. In the present case, there is nothing on record to prove that initially workman Jasbir Singh had been appointed by the management of Food Corporation of India and he had rendered his services under the direct employment of respondent-management from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2006. It transpired from the record that he was deputed for the work of Food Corporation of India by Grover Commercial College, Faridkot, as typist from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2006 and management of Food Corporation of India used to pay the bill to M/s Grover Commercial College, Faridkot for the services rendered by their employees including workman.
15. On the basis of the above analysis of facts and law, Tribunal is of the considered opinion that workman has miserably failed to prove that management of Food Corporation of India had terminated his services and he has not liable for any relief. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मार्च 30, 2019/चैत्रा 9, 1941 1395
नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2019
का.का.का.का. आ. आ. आ. आ. 478478478478....————औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार मेसर्स फू ड कारपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंिडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबX नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निZदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अिधकरण-सह-Dम न्ययालय नं. 2 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 19/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्(cid:15)ीय सरकार को 12.03.2019 को प्राप्त Bए थे।
[सं. एल-22011/11/2017----आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजेन्(cid:15) सिह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 19th March, 2019
S.O. 478.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2 Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Food Corporation of India and their workmen received by the Central Government on 12.03.2019.
[No. L-22011/11/2017-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.19/2017
Registered on:-21.03.2018
Dr. Laxman Singh, General Secretary, Food Corporation of India
Handling Workers Union 8651, Arakashanb Road, Pahargunj, New Delhi-110055. … Workmen-union
Versus
1. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Amritsar 86, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar (Punjab)-143001.
2. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Bhatinda (Punjab)-151002.
3. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Ferozepur, Malwal Road, Near New Bus Stand, Ferozepur (Punjab)-152001.
4. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Jalandhar, SCO-48, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar City-144001 (Punjab).
5. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Gurdaspur, SCO-6-7, Improvement Trust Complex, Gurdaspur-143521 (Punjab).
6. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Hoshiyarpur Railway Station Road, Hoshiyarpur- 144205 (Punjab).
7. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Faridkot, Near Jain School, Faridkot-151203 (Punjab).
8. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Ludhiana, 804, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana-141001 (Punjab).
9. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Patiala, New Grain Market, Sirhind Road, Patiala (Punjab)-147001.
1396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2019/CHAITRA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]10. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Sangrur, Near Ghati, Near Ramveer Clud, Sangrur-148001 (Punjab).
11. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Chandigarh, Quite Office No.12, Chandigarh-160036 (Punjab).
12. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Kapurthala, Near Railway Station, Kapurthala-144601 (Punjab).
13. The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Officer, Moga, FCI Road, Opp. IDBI Bank Ltd., Near Bhag Cinema, G.T. Road, Moga-142001 (Punjab).
14. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Sector 31-A, Bay No.34-38, Chandigarh-160017. …Respondents
AWARD
Passed on:-28.02.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/11/2017-IR(CM-II) Dated 28.02.2018, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
"Whether the Action of Management of Food Corporation of India, Punjab region of Deploying contract Labour in Place of Direct payment system(DPS) Workers at 51 Railheads is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the union and workmen are entitled to and from which date?"
1. It is clear from the record that notice was sent to the parties when the reference was received by this Tribunal.
However, workers-union has appeared through counsel Sh. R.P. Rana, who moved an application, alleging therein that workers-union does not want to pursue the reference in question because during the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Commissioner, workers-union has filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on the same issue, which is dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, workers-union does not want to pursue the aforesaid reference and the reference be decided accordingly.
2. Resultantly, no claim award/no dispute award is passed against the workers-union. It is also clarified that passing of the no claim award would not bar the worker-union from approaching the Appropriate Government/this Tribunal for adjudication of this case on merits or filing any fresh claim. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.