2424 GI/2019
(3555)
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 21]
ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 19—ebZ 25] 2019] 'kfuokj@oS'kk[k 29—T;s"B 4] 1941
No. 21]
NEW DELHI, MAY 19—MAY 25, 2019, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 29— JYAISTHA 4, 1941
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
िव मंालय
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
नई दली, 3 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 825
825
825
825.—रा ीयकृत बक ( बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प%ठत बककारी
कंपनी (उप'म) का अज न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) .ारा द/ त शि1य) का योग करते
4ए, के67ीय सरकार, एतद.ारा, से6ल बक आफ इंिडया के महा बंधक, <ी अजय =ास (ज6 म ितिथ 15.8.1962) को पदभार Eहण
करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूको बक मI काय पालक िनदेशक के Jप मI
िनयु1 करती है।
[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार िम<, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2019
S.O. 825.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Ajay Vyas (DoB: 15.8.1962), General Manager, Central Bank of India as Executive Director, UCO Bank, for a
period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further order, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
3556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 15 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 826
826
826
826.—रा ीयकृत बक ( बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प%ठत बककारी
कंपनी (उप'म) का अज न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) .ारा द/ त शि1य) का योग करते
4ए, के67ीय सरकार, एतद.ारा, िवजया बक के बंध िनदेशक एवं मुMय काय कारी अिधकारी (एमडी एवं सीईओ) <ी आर. ए. संकरा
नारायणन (ज6 म ितिथ 23.1.1960) को दनांक 1.4.2019 को या इसके पRात काय भार Eहण करने क तारीख से उनक अिधवSषता
क आयु ाT करने क तारीख अथा त 31.1.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, केनरा बक मI बंध िनदेशक एवं मुMय
काय कारी अिधकारी (एमडी एवं सीईओ) के पद पर िनयुU त करती है।
[फा. सं. 4/4/2018-बीओ-I]
एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2019
S.O. 826.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints
Shri R. A. Sankara Narayanan (DOB: 23.1.1960), MD & CEO, Vijaya Bank as MD & CEO, Canara Bank, with effect
from the taking over charge of the post on or after 1.4.2019 till his superannuation i.e., 31.1.2020, or until further order,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2018-BO-I]
S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.
नई दली, 15 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 827
827
827
827.—रा ीयकृत बक ( बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प%ठत बककारी
कंपनी (उप'म) का अज न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) .ारा द/ त शि1य) का योग करते
4ए, के67ीय सरकार, एतद.ारा, देना बक के बंध िनदेशक एवं मुMय काय कारी अिधकारी (एमडी एवं सीईओ) <ी कण म सेकर (ज6 म
ितिथ 1.7.1960) को दनांक 1.7.2019 से उनक अिधवSषता क आयु ाT करने क तारीख अथा त 30.6.2020 तक अथवा अगले
आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, इिWडयन ओवरसीज बक (आईओबी) मI बंध िनदेशक एवं मुMय काय कारी अिधकारी (एमडी एवं सीईओ) के
पद पर तथा दनांक 1.4.2019 से दनांक 1.7.2019 तक, बंध िनदेशक एवं मुMय काय कारी अिधकारी (एमडी एवं सीईओ) का पदभार
Eहण करने तक आईओबी मI 2,05,400-2,24,400 Xपए के वेतनमान मI अिधसंMय आधार पर िवशेष काय अिधकारी (ओएसडी) एवं
पूण कािलक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुU त करती है।
[फा. सं. 4/4/2018-बीओ-I]
एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2019
S.O. 827.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Karnam Sekar (DOB: 1.7.1960), MD & CEO, Dena Bank as MD & CEO, Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), with effect
from 1.7.2019 till his superannuation i.e., 30.6.2020, or until further order, whichever is earlier, and as an Officer on
Special Duty and whole-time Director in IOB, on supernumerary basis, from 1.4.2019 till the time of taking over charge
as MD & CEO on 1.7.2019, in the pay-scale of Rs.2,05,400-2,24,400/-.
[F. No. 4/4/2018-BO-I]
S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.
नई दली, 15 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 828
828
828
828.—रा ीयकृत बक ( बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प%ठत बककारी
कंपनी (उप'म) का अज न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) .ारा द/ त शि1य) का योग करते
4ए, के67ीय सरकार, एतद.ारा, िवजया बक के काय पालक िनदेशक <ी नागेYर राव वाई. (ज6 म ितिथ 12.7.1961) को दनांक
1.4.2019 से दनांक 21.1.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, Zसिडकेट बक मI 1,76,800-2,24,000 Xपए के
वेतनमान मI अिधसंMय आधार पर िवशेष काय अिधकारी (ओएसडी) एवं पूण कािलक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुU त करती है।
[फा. सं. 4/4/2018-बीओ-I]
एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3557
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2019
S.O. 828.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Nageswara Rao Y. (DOB: 12.7.1961), Executive Director, Vijaya Bank as Officer on Special Duty and whole-time
Director in Syndicate bank, on supernumerary basis with effect from 1.4.2019 till 21.1.2020, or until further orders,
whichever is earlier, in the pay-scale of Rs. 1,76,800-2,24,000/-.
[F. No. 4/4/2018-BO-I]
S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.
नई दली, 15 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 829
829
829
829.—रा ीयकृत बक ( बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प%ठत बककारी
कंपनी (उप'म) का अज न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) .ारा द/ त शि1य) का योग करते
4ए, के67ीय सरकार, एतद.ारा, िवजया बक के काय पालक िनदेशक <ी मुरली रामा वामी (ज6 म ितिथ 20.12.1960) को दनांक
1.10.2019 से उनक अिधवSषता क आयु ाT करने क तारीख अथा त 31.12.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो,
बक आफ बड़ौदा/समामेिलत सं था मI काय पालक िनदेशक के पद पर तथा दनांक 1.4.2019 से दनांक 30.9.2019 तक बक आफ बड़ौदा
मI 1,76,800-2,24,000 Xपए के वेतनमान मI अिधसंMय आधार पर िवशेष काय अिधकारी (ओएसडी) के पद पर िनयुU त करती है।
[फा. सं. 4/4/2018-बीओ-I]
एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2019
S.O. 829.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Murali Ramaswami (DOB: 20.12.1960), Executive Director, Vijaya Bank as Executive Director in Bank of Baroda /
amalgamated entity, with effect from 1.10.2019 till his superannuation i.e., 31.12.2020, or until further order, whichever
is earlier, and as an Officer on Special Duty in Bank of Baroda, on supernumerary basis, from 1.4.2019 till 30.9.2019, in
the pay-scale of Rs. 1,76,800-2,24,000/-.
[F. No. 4/4/2018-BO-I]
S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.
नई दली, 15 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 830
830
830
830.—रा ीयकृत बक ( बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प%ठत बककारी
कंपनी (उप'म) का अज न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) .ारा द/ त शि1य) का योग करते
4ए, के67ीय सरकार, एतद.ारा, देना बक के काय पालक िनदेशक डॉ. राजेश कुमार यदुवंशी (ज6 म ितिथ 23.1.1961) को दनांक
1.4.2019 को या इसके पRात काय भार Eहण करने क तारीख से 8.10.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब
नैशनल बक मI काय पालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुU त करती है।
[फा. सं. 4/4/2018-बीओ-I]
एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव
New Delhi, the 15th April, 2019
S.O. 830.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints
Dr Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi (DOB: 23.1.1961), Executive Director, Dena Bank as Executive Director, Punjab National
Bank, with effect from taking over charge of the post on or after 1.4.2019 till 8.10.2020, or until further order, whichever
is earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2018-BO-I]
S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.
3558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
शुि
शुि
शुि
शुि-प
प
प
प
नई दली, 26 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 831
831
831
831.—देना बक के काय पालक िनदेशक डॉ. राजेश कुमार यदुवंशी क पंजाब नैशनल बक मI काय पालक िनदेशक के पद
पर िनयुि1 से संबंिधत भारत सरकार, िव` मंaालय, िव`ीय सेवाएं िवभाग क दनांक 15.4.2019 क अिधसूचना संMया 4/4/2018-
बीओ-I मI “(ज6म ितिथ 23.1.1961)” शcद) के थान पर “(ज6म ितिथ 23.6.1961)” पढ़ा जाए।
[फा. सं. 4/4/2018-बीओ-I]
एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 26th April, 2019
S.O. 831.—In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial
Services, number 4/4/2018-BO.I, dated 15.4.2019 appointing Dr Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi, Executive Director, Dena
Bank as Executive Director, Punjab National Bank, for the words “(DOB: 23.1.1961)”, read “(DOB: 23.6.1961)”.
[F. No. 4/4/2018-BO.I]
S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.
नई दली, 26 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 832
832
832
832.—राdीयकृत बक ( बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 3 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प%ठत बककारी कंपनी
(उप'म) का अज न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा 3 के खंड (ग) .ारा द` शि1य) का योग करते 4ए, के67ीय
सरकार, एतeारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) मI िविनfदg =ि1य) को उ1 सारणी के कालम (2) मI िविनfदg =ि1य) के थान पर
कालम (1) मI िविनfदg बक) के बोड मI त/काल भाव से और अगले आदेश) तक, िनदेशक के Jप मI नािमत करती हैः-
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
1.
केनरा बक
सु<ी उमा शंकर
<ी आर. केसावन
2.
बक आफ इंिडया
सु<ी आर. सेब टीन
<ी एस. सी. मुमू
3.
यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया
<ी ए. के. िम<ा
<ी अXण कुमार Zसह
4.
से6ल बक आफ इंिडया
<ी शेखर भटनागर
<ी थॉमस मैiयू
5.
Zसिडकेट बक
<ी आर. एन. कर
<ी जी. पी. बोराह
6.
इंिडयन बक
<ी जे. के. दास
<ी एस. के. पािणगृही
7.
युनाइटेड बक आफ इंिडया
<ी अन ब रॉय
सु<ी साधना वमा
[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार िम<, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 26th April, 2019
S.O. 832.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby
nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director on the Board of the Banks specified in
column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (2) of the said table, with immediate effect and until
further orders:—
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
Canara Bank
Ms Uma Shankar
Shri R. Kesavan
2.
Bank of India
Ms R. Sebastian
Shri S. C. Murmu
3.
Union Bank of India
Shri A. K. Misra
Shri Arun Kumar Singh
4.
Central Bank of India
Shri Sekhar Bhatnagar
Shri Thomas Mathew
5.
Syndicate Bank
Shri R. N. Kar
Shri G. P. Borah
6.
Indian Bank
Shri J. K. Dash
Shri S. K. Panigrahy
7.
United Bank of India
Shri Arnab Roy
Ms Sadhana Varma
[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3559
नई दली, 26 अ ैल, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 833
833
833
833.—राdीयकृत बक ( बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1980 के पैरा 3 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ प%ठत बककारी
कंपनी (उप'म) का अज न और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1980 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा 3 के खंड (ग) .ारा द` शि1य) का योग करते
4ए, के67ीय सरकार, एतeारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) मI िविनfदg =ि1य) को उ1 सारणी के कालम (2) मI िविनfदg
=ि1य) के थान पर कालम (1) मI िविनfदg बक) के बोड मI त/काल भाव से और अगले आदेश) तक, िनदेशक के Jप मI नािमत करती
हैः-
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
1.
आ6jा बक
<ी ई. ई. काथ क
<ी पी. जे. थॉमस
2.
ओ%रयंटल बक आफ कामस
<ी गणेश कुमार
<ी एस. एम. नरिसkहा वामी
3.
कापlरेशन बक
<ी mुमन के. जेना
<ी पी. के. पांडा
4.
पंजाब एंड Zसध बक
<ी दीTा के. जेना
<ी बी. पी. िवजे67
[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार िम<, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 26th April, 2019
S.O. 833.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, the Central Government hereby
nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director on the Board of the Banks specified in
column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (2) of the said table, with immediate effect and until
further orders:-
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
Andhra Bank
Shri E. E. Karthak
Shri P. J. Thomas
2.
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Shri Ganesh Kumar
Shri S. M. Narasimha Swamy
3.
Corporation Bank
Shri Pradyumna K. Jena
Shri P. K. Panda
4.
Punjab and Sind Bank
Shri Pradipta K. Jena
Shri B. P. Vijayendra
[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नई दली, 1 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 834
834
834
834.—बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम, 1949 (1949 का 10) क धारा 53 क उप-धारा (1) .ारा द` शि1य) का
योग करते 4ए, के67ीय सरकार, भारतीय %रजव बक क िसफा%रश पर, एतeारा, यह घोषणा करती है क उ1 अिधिनयम क धारा 10
क उप-धारा (1) के खWड (ग) के उप-खWड (i) के उपबंध इलाहाबाद बक पर लागू नहo ह)गे, जहां तक इसका संबंध इलाहाबाद बक के
बंध िनदेशक एवं मुMय काय कारी अिधकारी <ी चौधरी एस. एस. मिलकाजु न राव को दनांक 18.9.2021 तक क अविध के िलए या
अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूिनवस ल सोkपो जनरल इंpयोरIस कंपनी िलिमटेड के बोड मI िनदेशक के पद पर नािमत करने से है।
[फा. सं. 13/23/2016-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार िम<, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019
S.O. 834.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act,
1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the
provisions of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Allahabad
Bank in relation to the nomination of Shri Ch. S. S. Mallikarjuna Rao, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer,
Allahabad Bank on the Board of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited as Director, for a period up to
18.9.2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 13/23/2016-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
3560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
isVªksfy;e ,oa izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 8 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 835-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd rfeyukMw jkT; ds lsye
dks dsjy jkT; esa Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM+ dh dksfPp fjQkbujh ls rjyhd`r isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu
ds fy,] ,d ikbiykbu dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM+ }kjk fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,;
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh
Hkwfe esa] tks blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds
vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, ;
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] IksVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½] dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk”k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS;
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr
Hkkjr ds jkti= dh izfr;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps
ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy;s mles mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa Jh c'khjdqatw ,] l{ke çkf/kdkjh ]
dksfPp lsye ikbi ykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM ] d#.k ,aDyso] f}rh; ry] Mksj uŒ ch& 2] ,l ,u taD'ku] fjQkbZujh
jksM] ;wfu;u cSad v‚Q bafM;k ds lkeus] f=iqfuFkqjk] ftyk ,sjukdqye] dsjy & 682301 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi
Hkst ldsxkA
vuqlwph
jkT;: dsjy
ftyk: ,sjukdqye
rkyqd: dqUukFkqukMw
uke xzke
losZ uEcj
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
,fj;k
Áfr oxZehVj
iqFkSudqfjLlw ¼[k.M la- 37½
94@1
0
00
20
94@2
0
00
30
94@4
0
00
60
94@7
0
00
90
94@8
0
00
80
94@9
0
00
70
94@10
0
03
00
94@11
0
01
40
128@15
0
04
30
128@16
0
03
40
128@19
0
04
50
129@2
0
08
00
129@4
0
12
80
130@1
0
01
50
131@3
0
24
90
141@2
0
04
00
141@3
0
04
40
141@4
0
02
70
141@6
0
01
70
141@13
0
08
00
142@7
0
01
0
142@9
0
01
10
142@10
0
02
30
142@11
0
04
10
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3561
142@12
0
06
50
142@14
0
02
80
142@20
0
03
30
142@21
0
02
50
146@5
0
01
70
146@7
0
01
60
146@17
0
01
50
147@4
0
01
10
147@5
0
01
80
147@14
0
00
20
147@17
0
00
10
jkT;: dsjy
ftyk: ,sjukdqye
rkyqd: d.k;Uuwj
dDdkukM ¼[k.M la0 7½
21@12
0
03
60
21@13
0
03
20
21@14
0
03
70
22@8
0
06
90
181@3
0
06
30
181@4
0
01
88
181@5
0
01
08
181@6
0
00
80
181@7
0
01
07
203@10
0
01
21
203@11
0
01
22
203@12
0
01
54
203@13
0
01
57
203@16
0
00
60
210@1
0
03
00
217@3
0
04
56
218@1
0
00
40
218@2
0
11
20
219@8
0
06
50
219@9
0
02
80
330@4
0
01
20
331@1
0
00
85
331@2
0
00
75
331@5
0
00
60
331@6
0
01
80
331@7
0
03
15
331@8
0
02
85
332@1
0
05
60
332@5
0
02
00
332@10
0
02
60
332@11
0
04
50
333@3
0
02
72
333@4
0
02
89
3562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
334@1
0
05
50
334@2
0
02
70
347@2
0
01
20
347@3
0
01
80
348@8
0
07
28
373@3
0
02
10
373@5
0
16
10
373@7
0
00
20
374@3
0
05
61
374@4
0
04
80
393@6
0
12
95
395@8
0
11
90
398@7
0
10
12
398@8
0
07
80
402@ihVh
0
00
20
[Qk- la- vkj&12031@196@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&19746]
'kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2019
S.O. 835.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transport of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of
Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the a pipeline should be laid by M/S Kochi – Salem pipeline Private
Ltd;
And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipelines, it is necessary
to acquire the right of user in the lands under which such pipelines are proposed to be laid described in the schedule
annexed to this notification;
Now therefore in the exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) the Central Government
hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.
Any person, interested in land described in the said schedule may, within 21 days from the date on which the
copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing
to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying or the pipeline under the land to Sri. Basheerkunju. A, Competent
Authority, Kochi-Salem Pipeline Private Ltd, Karun Enclave 2nd floor, Door No. B2, S.N. Junction, Refinery Road, Opp:
Union Bank of India, Tripunithura, Pin – 682 301.
SCHEDULE
STATE : KERALA
DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK :KUNNATHUNADU
VILLAGE
SURVEY
NUMBERS
AREA (APPROXIMATE)
HECTARES
ARES
SQ:METERS
PUTHENKURISU BLOCK. NO. 37
94/1
0
00
20
94/2
0
00
30
94/4
0
00
60
94/7
0
00
90
94/8
0
00
80
94/9
0
00
70
94/10
0
03
00
94/11
0
01
40
128/15
0
04
30
128/16
0
03
40
128/19
0
04
50
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3563
129/2
0
08
00
129/4
0
12
80
130/1
0
01
50
131/3
0
24
90
141/2
0
04
00
141/3
0
04
40
141/4
0
02
70
141/6
0
01
70
141/13
0
08
00
142/7
0
01
08
142/9
0
01
10
142/10
0
02
30
142/11
0
04
10
142/12
0
06
50
142/14
0
02
80
142/20
0
03
30
142/21
0
02
50
146/5
0
01
70
146/7
0
01
60
146/17
0
01
50
147/4
0
01
10
147/5
0
01
80
147/14
0
00
20
147/17
0
00
10
21/12
0
03
60
21/13
0
03
20
21/14
0
03
70
22/8
0
06
90
181/3
0
06
30
181/4
0
01
88
181/5
0
01
08
181/6
0
00
80
181/7
0
01
07
203/10
0
01
21
203/11
0
01
22
203/12
0
01
54
203/13
0
01
57
203/16
0
00
60
210/1
0
03
00
217/3
0
04
56
218/1
0
00
40
218/2
0
11
20
219/8
0
06
50
219/9
0
02
80
330/4
0
01
20
331/1
0
00
85
331/2
0
00
75
3564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
331/5
0
00
60
331/6
0
01
80
331/7
0
03
15
331/8
0
02
85
332/1
0
05
60
332/5
0
02
00
332/10
0
02
60
332/11
0
04
50
333/3
0
02
72
333/4
0
02
89
334/1
0
05
50
334/2
0
02
70
347/2
0
01
20
347/3
0
01
80
348/8
0
07
28
373/3
0
02
10
373/5
0
16
10
373/7
0
00
20
374/3
0
05
61
374/4
0
04
80
393/6
0
12
95
395/8
0
11
90
398/7
0
10
12
398/8
0
07
80
402/pt
0
00
20
[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 836.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd isVªksfy;e inkFkZ ifjOkkgu ds
fYk, fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk fot;okMk ¼vkUËkz çns'k½ ls /keZiqjh ¼rfeyukMq½ ikbiykbu fcNkbZ
tkuh pkfg, (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu oS,lvj ftyk] vkUËkz çns'k jkT; esa fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g
vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks bl ls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk,
tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS (
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr
Hkkjr ds jkti= dh izfr;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps
ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh]
fot;okM& /keZiqjh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe] ¶ykV
ua- bZ@12&446] jsM~Mh dkWyksuh fpUuk pkSd] vksYM ckbZikl ds ikl] dMik 516002 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst
ldsxkA
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3565
vuqlwph
ftyk % oS,lvj jkT; % vkUËkz
çns'k
Øe la
Øe la
Øe la
Øe la-
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
,dM
,dM
,dM
,dM
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
1
1- f')ufdPpk;iYy¢
iks#ekfeYyk
35
00
30
2
12
00
25
3
2- nEeuiYy¢
iks#ekfeYyk
635
00
02
4
589
00
10
5
590
00
31
6
577
00
05
7
578@2
01
36
8
581
00
08
9
130
00
66
10
131
00
16
11
139
00
60
12
141
00
04
13
144
00
29
14
145
00
17
15
146
00
39
16
149
00
04
17
192
00
02
18
199
00
14
19
200
00
12
20
201
00
08
21
202
00
55
22
203@3,
00
12
23
203@2,
00
15
24
203@1,
00
14
25
207@1
00
06
26
207/2
00
24
27
208
00
30
28
209
00
14
29
210
00
12
30
211@1
00
23
31
3- iks#ekfeYyk
iks#ekfeYyk
273
00
04
32
279
00
35
33
278
00
46
34
277
00
06
3566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
35
276
00
07
36
274@2
00
09
37
274@3
00
10
38
275
00
11
39
753
00
05
40
251@2
00
05
41
251@1
00
09
42
249@2
00
27
43
247@6
00
37
44
248
00
06
45
230
00
07
46
232@2
00
17
47
233
00
38
48
235
00
25
49
234
00
08
50
238
00
40
51
240@1
00
03
52
239
00
14
53
222
00
07
54
217
00
69
55
216@5
00
02
56
216@4
00
04
57
216@3
00
03
58
216@2
00
03
59
216@1
00
04
60
215
00
17
61
214
00
47
62
213
00
02
63
211@1
00
98
64
4- 'kadoje
dylikMq
799
00
06
65
800
00
13
66
5- bfVxqYyikMq
Jh vo/kwr dkf'kuk;uk
980
00
21
67
6- iRrw#
[kkthisV
513,/1ch
00
19
68
513,/5ch
00
01
69
513,&4,
00
08
70
513,&3,
00
16
71
513/ch
00
07
72
613
00
02
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3567
73
614
00
19
74
615
00
02
75
7- xqjzeikMq
psUuwj
101
00
07
76
103
00
34
77
104
00
02
78
167
00
30
79
161
00
06
80
158
00
10
81
8- isÌiYy¢
f'kÌksV
1017
00
26
82
1018
00
34
[Qk- la- vkj&11025@(15)@6@2017&vksvkj&I@bZµ18464]
’kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 836.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) to Dharmapuri (Tamil Nadu) Pipeline should be
laid by Hindustan Petroleum 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 at YSR District in
Andhra Pradesh State, 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 interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on
which the copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in
writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to The Competent
Authority, Vijayawada-Dharmapuri Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government of India
Enterprises, H.No:E/12-446, Reddy Colony, Chinna Chowk, Near Old Bypass Road, Kadapa-51602, Andhra Pradesh.
SCHEDULE
District : YSR State : Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No.
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Cents
1
1. Siddanakitchayapalle
Porumamilla
35
00
30
2
12
00
25
3
2. Dammanapalle
Porumamilla
635
00
02
4
589
00
10
5
590
00
31
6
577
00
05
7
578/2
01
36
8
581
00
08
9
130
00
66
10
131
00
16
11
139
00
60
12
141
00
04
13
144
00
29
14
145
00
17
15
146
00
39
3568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16
149
00
04
17
192
00
02
18
199
00
14
19
200
00
12
20
201
00
08
21
202
00
55
22
203/3A
00
12
23
203/2A
00
15
24
203/1A
00
14
25
207/1
00
06
26
207/2
00
24
27
208
00
30
28
209
00
14
29
210
00
12
30
211/1
00
23
31
3. Porumamilla
Porumamilla
273
00
04
32
279
00
35
33
278
00
46
34
277
00
06
35
276
00
07
36
274/2
00
09
37
274/3
00
10
38
275
00
11
39
753
00
05
40
251/2
00
05
41
251/1
00
09
42
249/2
00
27
43
247/6
00
37
44
248
00
06
45
230
00
07
46
232/2
00
17
47
233
00
38
48
235
00
25
49
234
00
08
50
238
00
40
51
240/1
00
03
52
239
00
14
53
222
00
07
54
217
00
69
55
216/5
00
02
56
216/4
00
04
57
216/3
00
03
58
216/2
00
03
59
216/1
00
04
60
215
00
17
61
214
00
47
62
213
00
02
63
211/1
00
98
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3569
64
4.Sankavaram
Kalasapadu
799
00
06
65
800
00
13
66
5.Itigullapadu
Sri Avadhutha
Kasinayana
980
00
21
67
6.Pathur
Khajipet
513A/1B
00
19
68
513A/5B
00
01
69
513A/4A
00
08
70
513A/3A
00
16
71
513/B
00
07
72
613
00
02
73
614
00
19
74
615
00
02
75
7.Gurrampadu
Chennur
101
00
07
76
103
00
34
77
104
00
02
78
167
00
30
79
161
00
06
80
158
00
10
81
8.Peddapalle
Sidhout
1017
00
26
82
1018
00
34
[F. No. R-11025(15)/6/2017-OR-I/E-18464]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 837.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd isVªksfy;e inkFkZ ifjOkkgu ds
fYk, fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk fot;okMk ¼vkUËkz çns'k½ ls /keZiqjh ¼rfeyukMq½ ikbiykbu fcNkbZ
tkuh pkfg, (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu oS,lvj ftyk] vkUËkz çns’k jkT; es fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g
vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks bl ls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk,
tkus dk izLrko gS] mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS (
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr
Hkkjr ds jkti= dh izfr;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps
ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh] fot;okM &
/keZiqjh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe] ¶ykV ua- bZ@12-
446] jsM~Mh dkWyksuh fpUuk pkSd] vksYM ckbZikl ds ikl] dMik 516002 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
ftyk % oS,lvj jkT; % vkUËkz çns’k
ftyk % oS,lvj jkT; % vkUËkz çns’k
ftyk % oS,lvj jkT; % vkUËkz çns’k
ftyk % oS,lvj jkT; % vkUËkz çns’k
Øe la
Øe la
Øe la
Øe la-
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
,dM
,dM
,dM
,dM
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
1
1- cUMyiYys
jkekiqje
750
00
05
2
2- lqÌeYy
jkekiqje
123/1
00
49
3
123/2
00
42
3570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4
3- eklisV
jk;pksVh
324
00
48
5
343
00
04
6
950
00
05
7
1157
00
04
8
932
00
11
9
4- jk;pksVh
jk;pksVh
705
00
02
10
702
00
02
11
45
00
04
12
65
00
06
13
70
00
40
14
81
00
16
15
163
00
35
16
379
00
13
17
157
00
23
18
168
00
26
19
156
00
24
20
171
00
15
21
522
00
02
22
5- nsoiVy
lEcsiYys
712/1
00
12
[Qk- la- vkj&11025@(15)@6@2017&vksvkj&I@bZµ18464]
’kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 837.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) to Dharmapuri (Tamil Nadu) Pipeline should be
laid by Hindustan Petroleum 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 at YSR District in
Andhra Pradesh State, 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 interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on
which the copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in
writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to The Competent
Authority, Vijayawada-Dharmapuri Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government of India
Enterprises, H.No:E/12-446, Reddy Colony, Chinna Chowk, Near Old Bypass Road, Kadapa-51602, Andhra Pradesh.
Schedule
District : YSR State : Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No.
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Cents
1
1. Bandlapalle
Ramapuram
750
00
05
2
2. Suddamalla
Ramapuram
123/1
00
49
3
123/2
00
42
4
3. Masapet
Rayachoti
324
00
48
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3571
5
343
00
04
6
950
00
05
7
1157
00
04
8
932
00
11
9
4. Rayachoti
Rayachoti
705
00
02
10
702
00
02
11
45
00
04
12
65
00
06
13
70
00
40
14
81
00
16
15
163
00
35
16
379
00
13
17
157
00
23
18
168
00
26
19
156
00
24
20
171
00
15
21
522
00
02
22
5.Devapatla
Sambepalle
712/1
00
12
[F. No. R-11025(15)/6/2017-OR-I/E-18464]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 838.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd isVªksfy;e inkFkZ ifjOkkgu ds fYk,
fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk fot;okMk ¼vkUËkz çns'k½ ls /keZiqjh ¼rfeyukMq½ ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg, (
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fpRrwj ftyk] vkUËkz çns'k jkT; esa fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;g vko’;d
izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks bl ls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS]
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk, (
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962
¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu
djus ds vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS (
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk ls ;qDr Hkkjr ds
jkti= dh izfr;k¡ lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gS] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds
fy, mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu ds lEcU/k esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh] fot;okM&/keZiqjh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] fgUnqLrku
isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe] edku ua % #3&145@9&6&4&10] nqljh eafty] Á'kkaruxj ,DLVsalu]
uh;j d`".k jsÏh tquh;j dkyst] enuiYys&517325 dks fyf[kr :Ik esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
ftyk % fpRrwj jkT; % vkUËkz çns’k
ftyk % fpRrwj jkT; % vkUËkz çns’k
ftyk % fpRrwj jkT; % vkUËkz çns’k
ftyk % fpRrwj jkT; % vkUËkz çns’k
Øe la
Øe la
Øe la
Øe la-
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
xkWao dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
eaMy dk uke
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
losZ la[;k
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
{ks=Qy
,dM
,dM
,dM
,dM
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
l¢UV~l
1
1- nsoyiYys
dydM
303
01
10
2
305
00
62
3
313
00
08
4
234
00
40
5
233@1
00
21
6
233@2
00
05
3572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7
235
00
21
8
236
00
59
9
239
00
62
10
238
01
56
11
245/1
00
86
12
2- uocisVk
dydM
243/6
00
02
13
243/7
00
09
14
3- eqfM;eokfjiYys
dydM
194/1ch
00
03
15
4- eLrqj
fuEeuiYys
838
00
02
16
900
00
02
17
1299/6
00
10
18
1311/2
00
04
19
1313/1
00
02
20
1699/3
00
02
21
1459
00
07
22
1475
00
05
23
1703/2
00
27
24
1685/4
00
03
25
255/3
00
01
26
228/7
00
01
27
5- jsìhokjhiYys
fuEeuiYys
1378/4
00
01
28
1117/1
00
01
29
6- nhxqokiYyh
pSMsiYyh
400/2
00
40
30
400/6
00
33
31
321/4
00
37
32
321/2
00
51
33
321/3
00
14
34
401/2
00
09
35
401/3
00
16
36
401/8
00
22
37
401/11
00
14
38
360
00
13
39
430/1
00
11
40
430/2
00
46
41
430/3
00
38
42
431/1
00
05
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3573
43
431/2
00
03
44
431/3
00
30
45
432/1
00
12
46
432/2
00
03
47
7- dkfVisjh
pkSMsiYyh
9
00
01
48
6
00
25
49
181/1
00
01
50
181/4
00
01
51
8- dkxrh
pkSMsiYyh
16
00
01
52
287/7
00
04
53
9- ,srqj
iqaxuqj
198/2
00
05
54
196/1,
00
34
55
10- dqejukre
iqaxuqj
282/7
00
15
56
11- cÍenksìh
isn~iatkuh
481
00
48
57
12- isÌosyxVqj
isn~iatkuh
12
00
91
58
13
00
33
59
26
00
07
60
13- rhFkZe
cSjsÏhiYys
1080
00
02
61
14- rksVk duqe
fo-dksVk
679
00
12
62
15- d".kkiqje
fo-dksVk
1023
00
26
63
1021
00
12
64
538/2lh
00
28
65
16- iEexkuhiYys
fo-dksVk
6
00
16
66
17- cksMhxqÍiYys
fo-dksVk
358
00
09
67
18- dsaikleqnze
jkedqIie
153
01
60
68
19- cankjyiYys
jkedqIie
701
00
05
69
702
00
30
70
703
01
82
71
704
00
37
72
706
00
28
73
711
00
03
74
710
00
06
75
709
00
05
76
707
00
23
77
708
00
21
78
679
00
24
79
676
00
09
80
680
00
32
3574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
81
681
00
14
82
669
00
53
83
668
00
05
84
685
00
05
85
20- euhanze
jkedqIie
405/2
00
22
86
406/2
00
65
87
406/1
00
89
88
406/3
00
03
89
21- fdykdiksMq
jkedqIie
76
00
40
90
75/1
00
15
91
77
00
59
92
74/1
00
20
93
74/2
00
10
94
73/1
00
45
95
73/2
00
25
96
73/3
00
10
97
79/4
00
29
98
79/5
00
50
99
80/1
00
10
100
80/2
00
05
101
22- lksUusxkuhiYys
'kakfriqje
283/8
00
20
102
283/7
00
16
103
283/6
00
13
104
283/5
00
05
105
283/4
00
05
106
243/5
00
08
107
243/8
00
35
108
243/7
00
32
109
242/7
00
25
110
242/6
00
05
111
242/5
00
25
112
242/4
00
09
113
284/2
00
19
114
284/1
00
35
115
234/1
00
98
116
232/3
00
30
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3575
117
232/2
00
35
118
232/1
00
50
119
288/4
00
55
120
23- MUMhdqIie
'kakfriqje
129/27
00
30
121
129/26
00
30
122
129/16
00
05
123
129/17
00
45
124
129/18
00
30
125
129/19
00
25
126
129/20
00
23
127
129/21
00
15
128
128
00
48
129
127
00
14
130
125
00
33
131
124
00
45
132
24- vEeokfjisVk
'kakfriqje
10
00
73
133
9
00
05
134
7
00
70
135
2
00
04
136
6
00
05
137
4
00
15
138
25- isÌ caxk:ukre
dqIie
1
00
58
139
9
00
60
140
10
00
38
141
11
01
39
142
12
00
52
143
13
00
90
144
31
00
10
145
32
00
10
146
34
00
65
147
47
00
75
148
48
00
35
149
5
01
35
150
6
00
73
151
35
00
20
[Qk- la- vkj&11025@(15)@6@2017&vksvkj& I@bZµ18464]
’kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo
3576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 838.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) to Dharmapuri (Tamil Nadu) Pipeline should be
laid by Hindustan Petroleum 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 at Chittoor District
in Andhra Pradesh State, 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 interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on
which the copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in
writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to The Competent
Authority, Vijayawada-Dharmapuri Pipeline Project, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government of India
Enterprises, Plot No: 80, Door No: #3-145/9-6-4-10, 2nd floor, Prashanth nagar Extention, Near krishna reddy Junior
College, Madanapalle-520008, Andhra Pradesh.
SCHEDULE
District : Chittoor State : Andhra Pradesh
Sl. No.
Name of Village
Name of Mandal
Survey No.
Area
Acres
Cents
1
1. Devalapalle
Kalakada
303
1
10
2
305
0
62
3
313
0
08
4
234
0
40
5
233/1
0
21
6
233/2
0
05
7
235
0
21
8
236
0
59
9
239
0
62
10
238
1
56
11
245
0
86
12
2. Nawabpet
Kalakada
243/6
0
02
13
243/7
0
09
14
3. Mudiamvaripalle
Kalakada
194/1B
0
03
15
4. Mastur
Nimmanapalle
838
0
02
16
900
0
02
17
1299/6
0
10
18
1311/2
0
04
19
1313/1
0
02
20
1699/3
0
02
21
1459
0
07
22
1475
0
05
23
1703/2
0
27
24
1685/4
0
03
25
255/3
0
01
26
228/7
0
01
27
5. Reddivaripalle
Nimmanapalle
1378/4
0
01
28
1117/1
0
01
29
6. Diguvapalle
Chowdepalle
400/2
0
40
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3577
30
400/6
0
33
31
321/4
0
37
32
321/2
0
51
33
321/3
0
14
34
401/2
0
09
35
401/3
0
16
36
401/8
0
22
37
401/11
0
14
38
360
0
13
39
430/1
0
11
40
430/2
0
46
41
430/3
0
38
42
431/1
0
05
43
431/2
0
03
44
431/3
0
30
45
432/1
0
12
46
432/2
0
03
47
7. Katiperi
Chowdepalle
9
0
01
48
6
0
25
49
181/1
0
01
50
181/4
0
01
51
8. Kogathi
Chowdepalle
16
0
01
52
287/7
0
04
53
9. Ethur
Punganur
198/2
0
05
54
196/1A
0
34
55
10. Kummaranatham
Punganur
282/7
0
15
56
11. Battamadoddi
Peddapanjani
481
0
48
57
12. Peddavelagatur
Peddapanjani
12
0
91
58
13
0
33
59
26
0
07
60
13. Theertham
Baireddipalle
1080
0
02
61
14.Thota Kanuma
V.Kota
679
0
12
62
15. Krishnapuram
V.Kota
1023
0
26
63
1021
0
12
64
538/2C
0
28
65
16. Pamuganipalle
V.Kota
6
0
16
66
17. Bodiguttapalle
V.Kota
358
0
09
67
18. Kempasamudram
Ramakuppam
153
1
60
68
19. Bandarlapalle
Ramakuppam
701
0
05
69
702
0
30
70
703
1
82
71
704
0
37
72
706
0
28
73
711
0
03
74
710
0
06
75
709
0
05
76
707
0
23
77
708
0
21
3578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
78
679
0
24
79
676
0
09
80
680
0
32
81
681
0
14
82
669
0
53
83
668
0
05
84
685
0
05
85
20. Manendram
Ramakuppam
405/2
0
22
86
406/2
0
65
87
406/1
0
89
88
406/3
0
03
89
21. Kilakupodu
Ramakuppam
76
0
40
90
75/1
0
15
91
77
0
59
92
74/1
0
20
93
74/2
0
10
94
73/1
0
45
95
73/2
0
25
96
73/3
0
10
97
79/4
0
29
98
79/5
0
50
99
80/1
0
10
100
80/2
0
05
101
22.30 Sonneganipalle
Shanthipuram
283/8
0
20
102
283/7
0
16
103
283/6
0
13
104
283/5
0
05
105
283/4
0
05
106
243/5
0
08
107
243/8
0
35
108
243/7
0
32
109
242/7
0
25
110
242/6
0
05
111
242/5
0
25
112
242/4
0
09
113
284/2
0
19
114
284/1
0
35
115
234/1
0
98
116
232/3
0
30
117
232/2
0
35
118
232/1
0
50
119
288/4
0
55
120
23. Dandikuppam
Shanthipuram
129/27
0
30
121
129/26
0
30
122
129/16
0
05
123
129/17
0
45
124
129/18
0
30
125
129/19
0
25
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3579
126
129/20
0
23
127
129/21
0
15
128
128
0
48
129
127
0
14
130
125
0
33
131
124
0
45
132
24. Ammavaripeta
Shanthipuram
10
0
73
133
9
0
05
134
7
0
70
135
2
0
04
136
6
0
05
137
4
0
15
138
25. Peddabangarunattam
Kuppam
1
0
58
139
9
0
60
140
10
0
38
141
11
1
39
142
12
0
52
143
13
0
90
144
31
0
10
145
32
0
10
146
34
0
65
147
47
0
75
148
48
0
35
149
5
1
35
150
6
0
73
151
35
0
20
[F. No. R-11025(15)/6/2017-OR-I/E-18464]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 839.—isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962
¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varZxr fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds }kjk isVªksfy;e inkFk± ifjogu
ds fy, xqtjkr jkT; esa ikyuiqj ls oMksnjk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ¼paMhlj ls vklkst rd½ ds varZxr ikbiykbu
fcNkbZ tku¢ ds g¢rq l{ke izkfËkdkjh ds d`R;ksa dk fuoZgu dju¢ d¢ fy,] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj çkd`frd
xSl ea=ky; dh Hkkjr ljdkj ds vlk/kkj.k jkti=] fnukad 2 flracj 2017 dks izdkf'kr vf/klwpuk dk- vk- 2891
¼v½ fnukad 30 vxLr 2017 }kjk izkf/kd`r] eSa] Jh ,l- lh- iVsy] th-,-,l] xqtjkr ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi &fu;e ¼1½ ds varxZr nh
xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds varxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml
{ks=z esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gSa] vkSj ml {ks= esa ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gSa] ds
ijke'kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LraHk 4 esa xqtjkr jkT; ds cukldakBk] ikV.k] esglkuk] lkcjdkaBk] xka/khuxj] [ksMk]
vk.kan rFkk oMksnjk ftyksa esa izpyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk g¡w A
vuqlwph
rkyqdk % ikyuiqj ftyk % cukldakBk jkT; % xqtjkr
Ø- la-
xkWo dk uke
/kkjk 6¼1½ vkSj 6¼4½ dh dk-vk- la[;k ,oa
fnukad
izpyu lekfIr dk fnukad
1
2
3
4
1
paMhlj
54 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
2
dqaÒyesj
54 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
3580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3
£¨Myk
54 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
4
osMapk
54 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
5
xknyokMk
54 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
6
lkaxz¨l.kk
54 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
7
VkdjokMk
54 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
8
cknjiqjk ¼dkyql.kk½
54 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
rkyqdk % oMxke ftyk % cukldakBk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
PkaxokMk
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
2
Pkkaxk
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
3
'ksjiqjk ¼etknj½
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
4
HkjdkokMk
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
5
etknj
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
6
Nkih
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
7
dksnjkyh
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
8
,æk.kk
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
9
Qrsx<
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
10
ukauksl.kk
56 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
rkyqdk %fl}iqj ftyk %ikV.k jkT; % xqtjkr
1
esG¨t
55 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
2
eqMk.kk
55 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
27@07@2018
3
laMsljh
55 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
05@07@2018
4
ukxokl.k
55 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
05@07@2018
5
x.kokMk
55 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
05@07@2018
rkyqdk % ma>k ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
dg¨Mk
50 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
05@07@2018
2
eg¢jokMk
50 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
05@07@2018
3
mi¢jk
50 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
05@07@2018
4
dj.kiqj
50 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
05@07@2018
5
djyh
50 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
05@07@2018
rkyqdk % foluxj ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
merk
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
05@07@2018
2
gluiqj
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
05@07@2018
3
fd;knj
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
05@07@2018
4
xqatk
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
05@07@2018
5
jkyhl.kk
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
05@07@2018
6
Òkyd
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
05@07@2018
7
y{ehiqjk
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
8
ckdjiqj
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
9
jaxkdqb
3613¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3581
rkyqdk% fotkiqj ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
ek¢jokM
3612¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
2
xqaNGh
3612¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
3
rkr¨l.k
3612¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
4
x¢jhrk
3612¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
5
d¨yoMk
3612¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
6
ihyokÃ
3612¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
rkyqdk% ek.klk ftyk % xka/khuxj jkT; % xqtjkr
1
pMkl.kk
3609¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
2
ikyMh¼O¸kkl½
3609¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
3
osMk
3609¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
4
iqa?kjk
3609¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
5
dqaoknjk
3609¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
6
jaxiqj
3609¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
7
ojl¨Mk
3609¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
24@05@2018
rkyqdk% izkafrt ftyk % lkcjdkaBk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
i¨¸kMk
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
14@04@2018
2
c¨Hkk
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
14@04@2018
3
lhrokMk
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
14@04@2018
4
etjk
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
14@04@2018
5
v¨j.k
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
14@04@2018
6
rktiqj¼v¨j.k½
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
14@04@2018
7
dj¨y
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
14@04@2018
8
?kMd.k
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
03@08@2018
9
lnkuh eqokMh
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
03@08@2018
10
lq£M
404¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
03@08@2018
rkyqdk% ngsxke ftyk % xka/khuxj jkT; % xqtjkr
1
ps[kyk ixh
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
2
okLk.kk pkSËkjh
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
3
daFkkjiqjk
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
4
ikVuk dqok
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
5
ËkkjhLk.kk
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
6
uokuxj
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
7
tkyh;k eB
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
8
[kkuiqj
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
9
yhg¨Mk
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
10
ehBkuk eqokMk
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
11
f'k;kokMk
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
12
vjt.kthuk eqokMk
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
13
okl.kk l¨XkBh
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
14
nsodj.kuk eqokMk
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
3582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15
ckjh;k
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
16
ckjM¨yh ckjh;k
53 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
03@08@2018
rkyqdk% diMoat ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
fudksy
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
10@07@2018
2
vkarjlqack
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
10@07@2018
3
djdjh;k
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
10@07@2018
4
dkHkbuk eqokMk
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
10@07@2018
5
mdjMhuk eqokMk
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
10@07@2018
6
okouk eqokMk
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
10@07@2018
7
dksle
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
10@07@2018
8
vkarzksyh
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
24@10@2018
9
rksj.kk
410 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
24@10@2018
rkyqdk% dByky ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
eMknjk
411 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
03@08@2018
2
HkkVsjk
411 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
20@08@2018
3
iksjMk HkkVsjk
411 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
09@10@2018
4
igkM
411 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
09@10@2018
5
'kkgiqj
411 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
09@10@2018
6
?kks?kkokMk
411 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
09@10@2018
rkyqdk% egq/kk ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
iksjMk
3611 ¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
09@10@2018
2
di:iqj
3611 ¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
09@10@2018
3
vfy.kk
3611 ¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
09@10@2018
4
pq.ksy
3611 ¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
09@10@2018
5
'ksjh
3611 ¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
09@10@2018
6
gsjat
3611 ¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
09@10@2018
rkyqdk% Bkljk ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
[khtyiqj ryiM
3610 ¼v½
fnukad
28@11@2016
04@12@2018
rkyqdk % mejsB ftyk % vk.kan jkT; % xqtjkr
1
?kksjk
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
04@12@2018
2
Fke.kk
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
04@12@2018
3
yhaxMk
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
12@01@2019
4
vk"khiqjk
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
30@12@2018
5
Qrsiqjk
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
30@12@2018
6
xaxkiqjk
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
30@12@2018
7
nkxthiqjk
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
30@12@2018
8
'khyh
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
30@12@2018
9
[kksjokM
52 ¼v½
fnukad
05@01@2017
30@12@2018
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3583
rkyqdk % vk.kan ftyk % vk.kan jkT; % xqtjkr
1
vksM
3608 ¼v½
fnukad
30@11@2016
30@12@2018
2
[kaHkksGt
3608 ¼v½
fnukad
30@11@2016
30@12@2018
3
[kkuiqj
3608 ¼v½
fnukad
30@11@2016
30@12@2018
rkyqdk% lkoyh ftyk % oMksnjk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
Hkknjok
408 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
2
jk.kh;k
408 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
3
cgh/kjk
408 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
4
egkiqjk
408 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
5
eksdlh
408 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
6
vatslj
408 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
7
dquikM
408 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
8
eatqlj
408 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
rkyqdk% oMksnjk ftyk % oMksnjk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
vklkst
409 ¼v½
fnukad
08@02@2017
30@12@2018
[Qk- la- vkj&12031@17@2017&vksvkj& I@bZµ7284]
’kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 839.—In Pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of the 4 of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, S. C. Patel, GAS, Government of Gujarat
authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Notification S. O. 2891 (E) dated
30 August 2017 , Published in the Gazette of India on 2nd September 2017 under Section 2 (a) of Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) to perform the functions of Competent
Authority for laying pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, for the purpose of transportation of
Petroleum Product from Palanpur to Vadodara Pipeline Project (Chandisar to Asoj) in Gujarat State, in consultation with
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been vested and in
whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule
annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in the Districts of Banaskantha, Patan, Mehsana,
Sabarkantha, Gandhinagar, Kheda, Anand and Vadodara in the State of Gujarat.
SCHEDULE
Taluka : Palanpur
District : Banaskantha
State :Gujarat
Sl.
No.
Name of the Village
S.O.No. and Date of Notification
under sub-section (1)&(4) of Section 6
Date of Termination of
Operation
1
2
3
4
1
CHANDISAR
54 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
2
KUMBHALMER
54 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
3
KHODLA
54 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
4
VEDANCHA
54 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
5
GADALWADA
54 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
6
SANGROSANA
54 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
7
TAKARWADA
54 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
8
BADARPURA (KALUSANA)
54 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
3584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Taluka : Vadgam
District : Banaskantha
State :Gujarat
1
CHANGAVADA
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
2
CHANGA
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
3
SHERPURA (MAJADAR)
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
4
BHARKAVADA
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
5
MAJADAR
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
6
CHHAPI
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
7
KODARALI
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
8
EDRANA
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
9
FATEHGADH
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
10
NANOSANA
56(E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
TALUKA : SIDDHPUR
DISTRICT : PATAN
STATE:GUJARAT
1
MELOJ
55 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
2
MUDANA
55 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
27/07/2018
3
SANDESARI
55 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
05/07/2018
4
NAGVASAN
55 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
05/07/2018
5
GANVADA
55 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
05/07/2018
TALUKA : UNJHA
DISTRICT : MEHSANA
STATE:GUJARAT
1
KAHODA
50 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
05/07/2018
2
MAHERVADA
50 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
05/07/2018
3
UPERA
50 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
05/07/2018
4
KARANPUR
50 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
05/07/2018
5
KARLI
50 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
05/07/2018
TALUKA : VISNAGAR
DISTRICT: MEHSANA
STATE:GUJARAT
1
UMATA
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
05/07/2018
2
HASANPUR
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
05/07/2018
3
KIYADAR
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
05/07/2018
4
GUNJA
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
05/07/2018
5
RALISANA
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
05/07/2018
6
BHALAK
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
05/07/2018
7
LAXMIPURA
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
8
BAKARPUR
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
9
RANGAKUI
3613 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
TALUKA : VIJAPUR
DISTRICT : MEHSANA
STATE :GUJARAT
1
MORVAD
3612 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
2
GUCHHALI
3612 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
3
TATOSAN
3612 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
4
GERITA
3612 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
5
KOLVADA
3612 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
6
PILVAI
3612 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
TALUKA : MANSA
DISTRICT :GANDHINAGAR
STATE :GUJARAT
1
CHADASANA
3609 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3585
2
PALDI (VYAS)
3609 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
3
VEDA
3609 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
4
PUNDHARA
3609 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
5
KUVADARA
3609 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
6
RANGPUR
3609 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
7
VARSODA
3609 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
24/05/2018
TALUKA : PRANTIJ
DISTRICT : SABARKANTHA
STATE:GUJARAT
1
POYADA
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
14/04/2018
2
BOBHA
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
14/04/2018
3
SITWADA
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
14/04/2018
4
MAJRA
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
14/04/2018
5
ORAN
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
14/04/2018
6
TAJPUR (ORAN)
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
14/04/2018
7
KAROL
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
14/04/2018
8
GHADKAN
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
03/08/2018
9
SADANI MUVADI
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
03/08/2018
10
SUKHAD
404 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
03/08/2018
Taluka : Dehgam
District : Gandhinagar
State :Gujarat
1
CHEKHLAPAGI
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
2
VASNA CHAUDHARY
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
3
KANTHARPURA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
4
PATNA KUVA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
5
DHARISANA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
6
NAVANAGAR
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
7
JALIYA MATH
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
8
KHANPUR
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
9
LIHODA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
10
MITHANA MUVADA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
11
SHIYAVADA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
12
ARJANJINA MUVADA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
13
VASNA SOGTHI
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
14
DEVKARAN NA MUVADA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
15
BARIYA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
16
BARDOLI BARIYA
53(E)
Date
05/01/2017
03/08/2018
Taluka : Kapadvanj
District : Kheda
State : Gujarat
1
NIKOL
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
10/07/2018
2
ANTARSUMBA
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
10/07/2018
3
KARKARIYA
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
10/07/2018
4
KABHAINA MUVADA
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
10/07/2018
5
UKARDINA MUVADA
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
10/07/2018
6
VAVNA MUVADA
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
10/07/2018
7
KOSAM
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
10/07/2018
8
ANTROLI
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
24/10/2018
9
TORANA
410 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
24/10/2018
3586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Taluka : Kathlal
District : Kheda
State :Gujarat
1
MADADARA
411 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
03/08/2018
2
BHATERA
411 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
20/08/2018
3
PORDA BHATERA
411 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
09/10/2018
4
PAHAD
411 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
09/10/2018
5
SHAHPUR
411 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
09/10/2018
6
GHOGHAWADA
411 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
09/10/2018
Taluka : Mahudha
District : Kheda
State :Gujarat
1
PORDA
3611 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
09/10/2018
2
KAPRUPUR
3611 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
09/10/2018
3
ALINA
3611 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
09/10/2018
4
CHUNEL
3611 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
09/10/2018
5
SHERI
3611 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
09/10/2018
6
HERANJ
3611 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
09/10/2018
Taluka : Thasra
District : Kheda
State :Gujarat
1
KHIJALPUR TALPAD
3610 (E)
Date
28/11/2016
04/12/2018
Taluka : Umreth
District : Anand
State :Gujarat
1
GHORA
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
04/12/2018
2
THAMNA
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
04/12/2018
3
LINGDA
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
12/01/2019
4
ASHIPURA
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
30/12/2018
5
FATEPURA
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
30/12/2018
6
GANGAPURA
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
30/12/2018
7
DAGJIPURA
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
30/12/2018
8
SHILI
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
30/12/2018
9
KHORWAD
52 (E)
Date
05/01/2017
30/12/2018
Taluka : Anand
District : Anand
State :Gujarat
1
ODE
3608 (E)
Date
30/11/2016
30/12/2018
2
KHAMBHOLAJ
3608 (E)
Date
30/11/2016
30/12/2018
3
KHANPUR
3608 (E)
Date
30/11/2016
30/12/2018
Taluka : Savli
District : Vadodara
State :Gujarat
1
BHADARVA
408 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
2
RANIYA
408 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
3
BAHIDHARA
408 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
4
MAHAPURA
408 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
5
MOKSI
408 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
6
ANJESAR
408 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
7
KUNPAD
408 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
8
MANJUSAR
408 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
Taluka : Vadodara
District : Vadodara
State :Gujarat
1
ASOJ
409 (E)
Date
08/02/2017
30/12/2018
[F. No. R-12031/17/2017-OR-II/E-7284]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3587
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 840.—isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962
¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varZxr fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds }kjk isVªksfy;e inkFk± ifjogu
ds fy, xqtjkr jkT; esa ikyuiqj ls oMksnjk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ¼paMhlj ls vklkst rd½ ds varZxr ikbiykbu
fcNkbZ tku¢ ds g¢rq l{ke izkfËkdkjh ds d`R;ksa dk fuoZgu dju¢ d¢ fy,] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj çkd`frd
xSl ea=ky; dh Hkkjr ljdkj ds vlk/kkj.k jkti=] fnukad 2 flracj 2017 dks izdkf'kr vf/klwpuk dk- vk- 2891
¼v½ fnukad 30 vxLr 2017 }kjk izkf/kd`r] eSa] Jh ,l- lh- iVsy] th-,-,l] xqtjkr ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi &fu;e ¼1½ ds varxZr nh
xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds varxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml
{ksrz esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gSa] vkSj ml {ksrz esa ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gSa] ds
ijke'kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LraHk 4 esa xqtjkr jkT; ds cukldakBk] ikV.k] esglkuk] lkcjdkaBk] xka/khuxj]
[ksMk] vk.kan rFkk oMksnjk ftyksa esa izpyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk g¡w A
vuqlwph
rkyqdk % ikyuiqj ftyk %cukldakBk jkT; % xqtjkr
daz-la-
xkWo dk uke
/kkjk 6¼1½ vkSj 6¼4½ dh dk-vk-
la[;k ,oa fnukad
izpyu lekfIr dk
fnukad
1
2
3
4
1
£¨Myk
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
2
osMapk
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
rkyqdk % oMxke ftyk % cukldakBk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
PkaxokMk
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
2
Pkkaxk
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
3
'ksjiqjk ¼etknj½
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
4
HkjdkokMk
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
5
etknj
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
6
Nkih
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
7
dksnjkyh
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
8
,æk.kk
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
9
Qrsx<
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
10
ukauksl.kk
2099
fnukad
06@09@2017
27@07@2018
rkyqdk % fl}iqj ftyk %ikV.k
jkT; % xqtjkr
1
esG¨t
2960 ¼v½ fnukad
01@09@2017
27@07@2018
2
eqMk.kk
2960 ¼v½ fnukad
01@09@2017
27@07@2018
3
laMsljh
2960 ¼v½ fnukad
01@09@2017
05@07@2018
4
ukxokl.k
2960 ¼v½ fnukad
01@09@2017
05@07@2018
5
x.kokMk
2960 ¼v½ fnukad
01@09@2017
05@07@2018
rkyqdk % ma>k ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
dg¨Mk
2398
fnukad
06@10@2017
05@07@2018
2
mi¢jk
2398
fnukad
06@10@2017
05@07@2018
3
dj.kiqj
2398
fnukad
06@10@2017
05@07@2018
3588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4
djyh
2398
fnukad
06@10@2017
05@07@2018
rkyqdk% foluxj ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
merk
2398
fnukad
06@10@17
05@07@2018
2
xqatk
2398
fnukad
06@10@17
05@07@2018
3
Òkyd
2398
fnukad
06@10@17
05@07@2018
rkyqdk% fotkiqj ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
d¨yoMk
2398
fnukad
06@10@2017
24@05@2018
2
ihyokÃ
2398
fnukad
06@10@2017
24@05@2018
rkyqdk % ek.klk ftyk % xka/khuxj jkT; % xqtjkr
1
pMkl.kk
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
24@05@2018
2
iqa/kjk
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
24@05@2018
3
jaxiqj
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
24@05@2018
4
ojl¨Mk
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
24@05@2018
rkyqdk % izkafrt ftyk % lkcjdkaBk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
lhrokMk
2573
fnukad
30@10@2017
14@04@2018
2
rktiqj¼v¨j.k½
2573
fnukad
30@10@2017
14@04@2018
rkyqdk % ngsxke ftyk % xka/khuxj jkT; % xqtjkr
1
ËkkjhLk.kk
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
03@08@2018
2
[kkuiqj
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
03@08@2018
3
yhg¨Mk
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
03@08@2018
4
f'k;kokMk
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
03@08@2018
5
ckjM¨yh ckjh;k
2572
fnukad
30@10@2017
03@08@2018
rkyqdk % diMoat ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
fudksy
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
10@07@2018
2
vkarjlqack
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
10@07@2018
3
djdjh;k
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
10@07@2018
4
dkHkbuk eqokMk
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
10@07@2018
5
mdjMhuk eqokMk
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
10@07@2018
6
vkarzksyh
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
24@10@2018
7
rksj.kk
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
24@10@2018
rkyqdk % dByky ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
eMknjk
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
03@08@2018
2
HkkVsjk
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
20@08@2018
3
iksjMk HkkVsjk
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
4
igkM
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
5
'kkgiqj
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3589
6
?kks?kkokMk
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
rkyqdk % egq/kk ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
di:iqj
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
2
vfy.kk
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
3
pq.ksy
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
4
'ksjh
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
5
gsjat
2848
fnukad
18@12@2017
09@10@2018
rkyqdk % mejsB ftyk % vk.kan jkT; % xqtjkr
1
?kksjk
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
04@12@2018
2
Fkke.kk
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
04@12@2018
3
yhaxMk
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
12@01@2019
4
vk"khiqjk
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
5
Qrsiqjk
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
6
xaxkiqjk
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
7
nkxthiqjk
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
rkyqdk % vk.kan ftyk % vk.kan jkT; % xqtjkr
1
vksM
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
2
[kaHkksGt
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
3
[kkuiqj
2607 ¼v½ fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
rkyqdk % lkoyh ftyk % oMksnjk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
cgh/kjk
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
2
Hkknjok
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
3
jk.kh;k
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
4
egkiqjk
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
5
eksdlh
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
6
vatslj
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
7
dquikM
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
8
eatqlj
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
1
vklkst
2606¼v½
fnukad
08@08@2017
30@12@2018
[Qk- la- vkj&12031@17@2017&vksvkj&II@bZµ7284]
’kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 840.— In Pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of the 4 of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, S. C. Patel, GAS, Government of Gujarat
authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Notification S O 2891 (E) dated 30
August 2017 , Published in the Gazette of India on 2nd September 2017 under Section 2 (a) of Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) to perform the functions of Competent
Authority for laying pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, for the purpose of transportation of
Petroleum Product from Palanpur to Vadodara Pipeline Project (Chandisar to Asoj) in Gujarat State, in consultation with
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been vested and in
whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule
3590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in the Districts of Banaskantha, Patan, Mehsana,
Sabarkantha, Gandhinagar, Kheda, Anand and Vadodara in the State of Gujarat.
SCHEDULE
TALUKA : PALANPUR
DISTRICT : BANASKANTHA
STATE :GUJARAT
Sl.
No.
Name of the Village
S.O.No. and Date of Notification
under sub-section (1)&(4) of Section
6
Date of Termination of
Operation
1
2
3
4
1
KHODLA
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
2
VEDENCHA
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
TALUKA : VADGAM
DISTRICT : BANASKANTHA
STATE :GUJARAT
1
CHANGAVADA
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
2
CHANGA
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
3
SHERPURA (MAJADAR)
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
4
BHARKAVADA
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
5
MAJADAR
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
6
CHHAPI
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
7
KODARALI
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
8
EDRANA
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
9
FATEHGADH
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
10
NANOSANA
2099
Date
06/09/2017
27/07/2018
TALUKA : SIDDHPUR
DISTRICT : PATAN
STATE :GUJARAT
1
MELOJ
2960(E)
Date
01/09/2017
27/07/2018
2
MUDANA
2960(E)
Date
01/09/2017
27/07/2018
3
SANDESARI
2960(E)
Date
01/09/2017
05/07/2018
4
NAGVASAN
2960(E)
Date
01/09/2017
05/07/2018
5
GANAVADA
2960(E)
Date
01/09/2017
05/07/2018
TALUKA : UNJHA
DISTRICT : MEHSANA
STATE :GUJARAT
1
KAHODA
2398
Date
06/10/2017
05/07/2018
2
UPERA
2398
Date
06/10/2017
05/07/2018
3
KARANPURA
2398
Date
06/10/2017
05/07/2018
4
KARLI
2398
Date
06/10/2017
05/07/2018
TALUKA : VISNAGAR
DISTRICT : MEHSANA
STATE :GUJARAT
1
UMATA
2398
Date
06/10/2017
05/07/2018
2
GUNJA
2398
Date
06/10/2017
05/07/2018
3
BHALAK
2398
Date
06/10/2017
05/07/2018
TALUKA : VIJAPUR
DISTRICT : MEHSANA
STATE :GUJARAT
1
KOLVADA
2398
Date
06/10/2017
24/05/2018
2
PILVAI
2398
Date
06/10/2017
24/05/2018
TALUKA : MANASA
DISTRICT :GANDHINAGAR
STATE :GUJARAT
1
CHADASANA
2572
Date
30/10/2017
24/05/2018
2
PUNDHARA
2572
Date
30/10/2017
24/05/2018
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3591
3
RANGPUR
2572
Date
30/10/2017
24/05/2018
4
VARSODA
2572
Date
30/10/2017
24/05/2018
TALUKA : PRANTIJ
DISTRICT : SABARKANTHA
STATE :GUJARAT
1
SITWADA
2573
Date
30/10/2017
14/04/2018
2
TAJPUR (ORAN)
2573
Date
30/10/2017
14/04/2018
TALUKA : DEHGAM
DISTRICT :GANDHINAGR
STATE :GUJARAT
1
DHARISANA
2572
Date
30/10/2017
03/08/2018
2
KHANPUR
2572
Date
30/10/2017
03/08/2018
3
LIHODA
2572
Date
30/10/2017
03/08/2018
4
SHIYAVADA
2572
Date
30/10/2017
03/08/2018
5
BARDOLI (BARIYA)
2572
Date
30/10/2017
03/08/2018
Taluka : Kapadvanj
District : Kheda
State : Gujarat
1
NIKOL
2848
Date
18/12/2017
10/07/2018
2
ANTARSUMBA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
10/07/2018
3
KARKARIYA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
10/07/2018
4
KABHAINA MUVADA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
10/07/2018
5
UKARDINA MUVADA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
10/07/2018
6
ANTROLI
2848
Date
18/12/2017
24/10/2018
7
TORNA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
24/10/2018
Taluka : Kathlal
District : Kheda
State : Gujarat
1
MADADARA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
03/08/2018
2
BHATERA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
20/08/2018
3
PORDA BHATERA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
09/10/2018
4
PAHAD
2848
Date
18/12/2017
09/10/2018
5
SHAHPUR
2848
Date
18/12/2017
09/10/2018
6
GHOGHAWADA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
09/10/2018
Taluka : Mahudha
District : Kheda
State : Gujarat
1
KAPRUPUR
2848
Date
18-12-2017
09/10/2018
2
ALINA
2848
Date
18/12/2017
09/10/2018
3
CHUNEL
2848
Date
18/12/2017
09/10/2018
4
SHERI
2848
Date
18/12/2017
09/10/2018
5
HERANJ
2848
Date
18/12/2017
09/10/2018
Taluka : Umreth
District : Anand
State :Gujarat
1
GHORA
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
04/12/2018
2
THAMNA
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
04/12/2018
3
LINGDA
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
12/01/2019
4
ASHIPURA
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
5
FATEPURA
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
6
GANGAPURA
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
7
DAGJIPURA
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
Taluka : Anand
District : Anand
State :Gujarat
1
ODE
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
3592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2
KHAMBHOLAJ
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
3
KHANPUR
2607 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
Taluka : Savli
District : Vadodara
State :Gujarat
1
BAHIDHARA
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
2
BHADARVA
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
3
RANIYA
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
4
MAHAPURA
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
5
MOKSI
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
6
ANJESAR
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
7
KUNPAD
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
8
MANJUSAR
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
1
ASOJ
2606 (E)
Date
08/08/2017
30/12/2018
[F. No. R-12031/17/2017-OR-II/E-7284]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 841.—isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962
¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varZxr fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds }kjk isVªksfy;e inkFk± ifjogu
ds fy, xqtjkr jkT; esa ikyuiqj ls oMksnjk ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ¼paMhlj ls vklkst rd½ ds varZxr ikbiykbu
fcNkbZ tku¢ ds g¢rq l{ke izkfËkdkjh ds d`R;ksa dk fuoZgu dju¢ d¢ fy,] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj çkd`frd
xSl ea=ky; dh Hkkjr ljdkj ds vlk/kkj.k jkti=] fnukad 2 flracj 2017 dks izdkf'kr vf/klwpuk dk- vk- 2891
¼v½ fnukad 30 vxLr 2017 }kjk izkf/kd`r] eSa] Jh ,l- lh- iVsy] th-,-,l] xqtjkr ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi &fu;e ¼1½ ds varxZr nh
xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds varxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml
{ksrz esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gSa] vkSj ml {ksrz esa ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gSa] ds
ijke'kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LraHk 4 esa xqtjkr jkT; ds cukldakBk] ikV.k] esglkuk] lkcjdkaBk] xka/khuxj] [ksMk]
vk.kan rFkk oMksnjk ftyksa esa izpyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk g¡w A
vuqlwph
rkyqdk % ikyuiqj ftyk % cukldakBk jkT; % xqtjkr
daz-la-
xkWo dk uke
/kkjk 6¼1½ vkSj 6¼4½ dh dk-vk- la[;k ,oa
fnukad
izpyu lekfIr dk fnukad
1
2
3
4
1
paMhlj
6029 ¼v½
fnukad
26@11@2018
04@12@2018
2
osMapk
6029 ¼v½
fnukad
26@11@2018
04@12@2018
rkyqdk % oMxke ftyk % cukldakBk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
PkaxokMk
6029 ¼v½
fnukad
26@11@2018
04@12@2018
2
Pkkaxk
6029 ¼v½
fnukad
26@11@2018
04@12@2018
3
'ksjiqjk ¼etknj½
6029 ¼v½
fnukad
26@11@2018
04@12@2018
4
Nkih
6029 ¼v½
fnukad
26@11@2018
04@12@2018
rkyqdk % fl?niqj ftyk %ikV.k
jkT; % xqtjkr
1
eqMk.kk
4813 ¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
15@11@2018
2
ukxokl.k
4813 ¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
15@11@2018
3
x.kokMk
4813 ¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
15@11@2018
rkyqdk % ma>k ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
dg¨Mk
4811¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
15@11@2018
2
mi¢jk
4811¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
15@11@2018
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3593
rkyqdk % foluxj ftyk % esglk.kk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
merk
4811¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
29@11@2018
2
xqatk
4811¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
29@11@2018
3
Òkyd
4811¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
29@11@2018
rkyqdk % ek.klk ftyk % xka/khuxj jkT; % xqtjkr
1
osMk
4810¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
29@11@2018
rkyqdk % izkafrt ftyk % lkcjdkaBk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
lhrokMk
4812¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
29@11@2018
rkyqdk % ngsxke ftyk % xka/khuxj jkT; % xqtjkr
1
nsodj.kuk eqokMk
4810¼v½
fnukad
10@09@2018
29@11@2018
rkyqdk % diMoat ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
fudksy
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
2
vkarjlqack
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
3
djdjh;k
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
4
dkHkbuk eqokMk
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
5
mdjMhuk eqokMk
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
6
dksle
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
7
vkarzksyh
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
8
rksj.kk
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
rkyqdk % dByky ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
eMknjk
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
19@11@2018
2
HkkVsjk
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
19@11@2018
3
iksjMk HkkVsjk
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
19@11@2018
4
'kkgiqj
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
19@11@2018
5
?kks?kkokMk
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
19@11@2018
rkyqdk % egq/kk ftyk % [ksMk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
iksjMk
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
2
'ksjh
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
3
gsjat
5167 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
rkyqdk % mejsB ftyk % vk.kan jkT; % xqtjkr
1
Fkke.kk
5168 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
04@12@2018
2
yhaxMk
5168 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
12@01@2019
3
vk'khiqjk
5168 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
30@12@2018
rkyqdk % vk.kan ftyk % vk.kan jkT; % xqtjkr
1
vksM
5168 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
30@12@2018
2
[kaHkksGt
5168 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
30@12@2018
3
[kkuiqj
5168 ¼v½
fnukad
04@10@2018
30@12@2018
rkyqdk % oMksnjk ftyk % oMksnjk jkT; % xqtjkr
1
vklkst
1712 ¼v½
fnukad
17@04@2018
30@12@2018
[Qk- la- vkj&12031@17@2017&vksvkj&II@bZµ7284]
’kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo
3594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 841.—In Pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of the 4 of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, S. C. Patel, GAS, Government of Gujarat
authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Notification S O 2891 (E) dated
30 August 2017 , Published in the Gazette of India on 2nd September 2017, under Section 2 (a) of Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) to perform the functions of Competent
Authority for laying pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, for the purpose of transportation of
Petroleum Product from Palanpur to Vadodara Pipeline Project (Chandisar to Asoj) in Gujarat State, in consultation with
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been vested and in
whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule
annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in the Districts of Banaskantha, Patan, Mehsana,
Sabarkantha, Gandhinagar, Kheda, Anand and Vadodara in the State of Gujarat.
SCHEDULE
TALUKA : PALANPUR
DISTRICT :BANASKANTHA
STATE :GUJARAT
Sl.
No.
Name of the Village
S.O.No. and Date of Notification
under sub-section (1)&(4) of Section
6
Date of Termination of Operation
1
2
3
4
1
CHANDISAR
6029(E)
Date
26/11/2018
04/12/2018
2
VEDENCHA
6029(E)
Date
26/11/2018
04/12/2018
TALUKA : VADGAM
DISTRICT : BANASKANTHA
STATE : GUJARAT
1
CHANGVADA
6029(E)
Date
26/11/2018
04/12/2018
2
CHANGA
6029(E)
Date
26/11/2018
04/12/2018
3
SHERPURA (MAJADAR)
6029(E)
Date
26/11/2018
04/12/2018
4
CHHAPI
6029(E)
Date
26/11/2018
04/12/2018
TALUKA : SIDDHPUR
DISTRICT : PATAN
STATE : GUJARAT
1
MUDANA
4813 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
15/11/2018
2
NAGVASAN
4813 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
15/11/2018
3
GANVADA
4813 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
15/11/2018
TALUKA : UNJHA
DISTRICT : MEHSANA
STATE : GUJARAT
1
KAHODA
4811(E)
Date
10/09/2018
15/11/2018
2
UPERA
4811(E)
Date
10/09/2018
15/11/2018
TALUKA : VISNAGAR
DISTRICT : MEHSANA
STATE : GUJARAT
1
UMATA
4811 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
29/11/2018
2
GUNJA
4811 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
29/11/2018
3
BHALAK
4811 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
29/11/2018
TALUKA : MANSA
DISTRICT :GANDHINAGR
STATE : GUJARAT
1
VEDA
4810 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
29/11/2018
TALUKA : PRANTIJ
DISTRICT: SABARKANTHA
STATE : GUJARAT
1
SITWADA
4812 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
29/11/2018
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3595
TALUKA : DEHGAM
DISTRICT : GANDHINAGR
STATE : GUJARAT
1
DEVKARAN NA MUVADA
4810 (E)
Date
10/09/2018
29/11/2018
Taluka : Kapadvanj
District : Kheda
State : Gujarat
1
NIKOL
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
2
ANTARSUMBA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
3
KARKARIYA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
4
KABHAINA MUVADA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
5
UKARDINA MUVADA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
6
KOSAM
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
7
ANTROLI
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
8
TORNA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
Taluka : Kathlal
District : Kheda
State : Gujarat
1
MADADARA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
19/11/2018
2
BHATERA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
19/11/2018
3
PORDA BHATERA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
19/11/2018
4
SHAHPUR
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
19/11/2018
5
GHOGHAWADA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
19/11/2018
Taluka : Mahudha
District : Kheda
State : Gujarat
1
PORDA
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
2
SHERI
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
3
HERANJ
5167 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
Taluka : Umreth
District : Anand
State : Gujarat
1
THAMNA
5168 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
2
LINGDA
5168 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
12/01/2019
3
ASHIPURA
5168 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
30/12/2018
Taluka : Anand
District : Anand
State :Gujarat
1
ODE
5168 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
30/12/2018
2
KHAMBHOLAJ
5168 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
30/12/2018
3
KHANPUR
5168 (E)
Date
04/10/2018
30/12/2018
Taluka : Vadodara
District : Vadodara
State :Gujarat
1
ASOJ
1712 (E)
Date
17/04/2018
30/12/2018
[F. No. R-12031/17/2017-OR-II/E-7284]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
3596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 20 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 842
842
842
842.—सरकारी थान (अ ािधकृत अिधभोिगय) क बेदखली) अिधिनयम 1971 (1971 का 40) के खंड 3 .ारा दत
शि1य) का योग करते 4ए भारत के राजपa मI कािशत पेोिलयम एवं ाकृितक गैस मंaालय, भारत सरकार क अिधसूचना, का. आ
संMया 1528 दनांक 24 जुलाई 2015 के अिध'मण मI, कI7 सरकार उ1 अिधिनयम के योजन के िलए सkपदा अिधकारी को एतद.रा
सांिविधक ािधकारी के समकr रIक के अिधकारी को नीचे दी गई तािलका के अनुसार िनयु1 करती है, जो किथत तािलका के थानीय
कॉलम 3 मI इसी िविg मI िनfदg साव जिनक प%रसर के संबंध मI अिधकार rेa क थानीय सीमाय) के भीतर उ1 अिधिनयम के तहत
संपदा अिधकारी के कत =) का पालन करते 4ए दत शि1य) का योग करेगा।
तािलका
तािलका
तािलका
तािलका
'म सं
इकाई / काया लय का नाम
अिधकारी का पदनाम
सरकारी थान क <ेिणयां और
rेaािधकार क थानीय सीमा
नुमालीगढ़ %रफाइनरी िलिमटेड
<ी
िबYदीप
गो वामी,
मुMय
ब6धक (नगरबसती एवं संपदा),
नुमालीगढ़ %रफाइनरी िलिमटेड, पी
ओ : नुमालीगढ़ %रफाइनरी प%रसर,
िजला गोलाघाट 785699 असम
नुमालीगढ़ %रफाइनरी िलिमटेड िजला
गोलाघाट असम मI ि थत नुमालीगढ़
%रफाइनरी िलिमटेड के ाशासिनक
िनयंaणाधीन सभी प%रसर
[फा. सं. आर-12041(11)/16/2017-ओआर–II/ई-7909]
शांतनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2019
S.O. 842.—In exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised
Occupants) Act-1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Petroleum & Natural Gas S.O No. 1528 dated 24th July 2015 the Central Government hereby appoints the Officer
mentioned in the table below, being officer of equivalent rank of Statutory Authority, to be Estate Officer for the purpose
of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under
the said Act within the local limits of the jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding
entry in local column 3 of the said table.
TABLE
Sl.
No.
Name
of
the
Unit/
Office
Designation of the Officer
Categories of the Public premises and
local limits of jurisdiction
1.
Numaligarh Refinery
Limited
Shri Biswadeep Goswami , Chief Manager
(Township & Estate), Numaligarh Refinery
Ltd., PO : Numaligarh Refinery Complex,
Dist. Golaghat-785699 Assam
All premises under the administrative
control
of
Numaligarh
Refinery
Limited located at Numaligarh, Dist.
Golaghat, Assam
[F. No. R-12041(11)/16/2017-OR-II/E-7909]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 21 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 843
843
843
843.—कI7ीय सरकार, तेल उmोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (3) (ग)
.ारा द/ त शि1य) का योग करते 4ए एतeारा <ी संजीव Zसह, चेयरमैन, आईओसीएल को 01.06.2019 से 30.06.2020 तक या
अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उmोग िवकास बोड का सद य िनयुU त करती है ।
[फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िव/ त-I]
पे%रन देवी, िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 21st May, 2019
S.O. 843.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(c) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry
(Development) Act, 1974(47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Sanjiv Singh, Chairman, IOCL as a
member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f. 01.06.2019 to 30.06.2020 or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin. I]
PERIN DEVI, Director
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3597
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
नई दली, 14 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 844.
844.
844.
844.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार मेसस
िनदेशक, सरदार वलभभाई रा ीय !ौ ोिगक सं$थान, इचानाथ, सूरत
)
गुजरात
(
और अ य एवं उनके कम चारी के !बंध
तं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कम कार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय-1, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 27/2018) को !कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार
को 22/04/19 को !ा6 7आ था ।
[सं. एल-42011/32/2018-आईआर(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2019
S.O. 844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 27/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Ahmedabad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichhanath, Surat (Gujarat) & Others, and their workmen
which were received by the Central Government on 22/04/19.
[No. L-42011/32/2018-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 10th April, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 27/2018
The Chairperson,
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,
Ichhanath, Surat (Gujarat) – 395007
… First Party
V/s
The President,
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology
Employees Association,
A-1002, Siddhi Tower,
Samarth Park, Adajan Char Rasta,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395009
… Second Party
For the First Party
:
None
For the Second Party
:
None
3598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/32/2018–
IR(DU) dated 16.04.2018 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Institute of Technology (SVNIT) Employees Union for pay scale,
Increment, Bonus Leave Salary, Medical Benefits and other benefits for the workmen (who are employed in daily
paid unskilled and skilled category and working since long) as per prevailing labour laws is fair, just and legal? If
yes, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 16.04.2018 and received on 20.04.2018 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After receiving the schedule of reference from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New
Delhi, notices were issued to both the parties on 15.05.2018 to appear on 15.06.2018 to submit their claims. But
the second party union did not prefer to submit the statement of claim. Thereafter, despite giving 6 more
opportunities on 09.08.2018, 04.10.2018, 14.11.2018, 02.01.2019, 20.02.2019 and 10.04.2019, the second party
union refrained to submit statement of claim.
3. Thus it appears that the second party union is not willing to prosecute the reference.
4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party union with
the observation as under: “the demand of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Institute of Technology (SVNIT) Employees
Union for pay scale, Increment, Bonus Leave Salary, Medical Benefits and other benefits for the workmen (who
are employed in daily paid unskilled and skilled category and working since long) as per prevailing labour laws
is not fair, just and legal.”
5. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 14 मई, 2019
का.
का.
का.
का. आ. 845
845
845
845.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के ीय सरकार
मेसस , िनदेशक, फेडरेशन ऑफ इंिडयन ए=सपोट ऑग@नाइजेशन, मुंबई एवं उनके कम चारी और अ य के !बंधतं+ के संब,
िनयोजक. और उनके कम कार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म के ीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म
यायालय, न. 2 मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या CGIT-2/1 of 2017) को !कािशत करती है जो के ीय सरकार को
03.04.2019 को !ा6 7आ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/98/2016-आईआर(डीयू)]
वी. के .ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2019
S.O. 845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (CGIT-2/01 of 2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the The
Director,Federation of Indian Export Organisations, Mumbai and their workmen & Others, which was received by the
Central Government on 03.4.2019.
[No. L-42012/98/2016-IR(DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3599
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 1 of 2017
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF FEDERATION OF INDIAN EXPORT
ORGANISATIONS
The Director,
Federation of Indian Export Organisations,
Union No.3A, 4th Floor, Times Square, E-Wing,
Andheri Kurla Road, Chimpatpada, Marol,
Andheri, Mumbai – 400 059.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Smt. Sheetal Chandel,
Swami Darshan, Shelar Park,
7th Floor, Flat No. 702,
Khadak Pada Chowk,
Kalyan [West], Pin – 421 301.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. G. M D’mello,
Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. B. K. Hedge,
Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 18th February, 2019
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-42012/98/2016 – IR (DU) dated 22.12.2016. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the action of the management of Federation of Indian Export Organisations in terminating the
services of Smt. Sheetal Chandel, Senior Record Keeper w.e.f. 01.03.2013 as per order dated 01.03.2013 by the
Joint Director (Personnel), Head Quarter Office, New Delhi without issuing any charge-sheet and or conducting
any enquiry into the charge leveled against her, is just & legal ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to ?’’
2.
After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their
respective representatives.
3.
The second party workman has filed statement of claim Ex.3. According to the second party workman, she
joined the service of first party federation in May ’99 as Sr. Record Keeper and subsequently she was promoted to the
post of Clerk. Her services came to be confirmed w.e.f. 14.2.03. She was continuously working without any break from
the year 1999 in her service until her services was illegally and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 1.3.13.
4.
It is the case of the second party workman that on 1.3.13 first party federation issued letter under the signature
of Shri A.P. Srivastava, Joint Director and thereby it was informed to her that in terms of clause (ii) of terms &
conditions of second party workman’s appointment letter, the federation has decided not to avail the services of second
party workman and the second party workman stands relieved from the employment w.e.f. 1.3.13 [A.N.].
5.
It is thus case of the second party workman that she had worked more than 240 days in each block year of 12
month of her service prior to 1.3.13. She was working on the permanent post and was a permanent employee on the role
of the first party federation. The first party federation terminated her services in total disregard to the mandatory
3600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
provisions of section 25 F (a) (b) (c) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The retrenchment is ab-initio and null & void for non-
compliance of mandatory provisions of section 25 F (a) (b) (c) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Even the first party federation has
not offered retrenchment compensation till date as per mandatory provisions of section 25 F (b) and not intimated the
retrenchment to the concerned authority as required u/s. 25 F (c) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The first party federation did not
give notice in the prescribed manner on the appropriate government or such authority as prescribed by the Central Govt.
No seniority list was displayed or intimation of the retrenchment sent to the appropriate govt. or to the office of RLC
about the retrenchment of the second party workman. While retrenching her services from the employment of the
federation, the first party federation retained junior employee working in the cadre of second party. Mrs. Vandana More
& Annie Chikle were junior clerks working in the employment of first party. Therefore the retrenchment is also in
violation of provisions of section 25 G of the I.D. Act, 1947.
6.
According to the second party workman she approached the office of ALC for conciliation but due to non-
cooperation of the management the conciliation failed.
7.
Second party workman is therefore asking for declaration to the effect that termination of her services by order
dt. 1.3.13 amounted to retrenchment and the retrenchment is null & void for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of
section 25 F (a) (b) (c) of the I.D. Act, 1947. She is also asking for reinstatement on her original post with full back
wages, continuity of service, attendant benefits from the date of termination till reinstatement.
8.
The first party federation resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.7 contending therein that since the order
of her appointment in service in the year 2003 the second party workman has been in constant habit of coming late. She
had been given many opportunities for the improvements in her attitude but she could not change her attitude. The
second party workman was given show cause notice on 7.7.04 for her late comings. She reported late 9 times in the
month of May ’04 and in June ’04 she reported late 9 times. She submitted reply to show cause notice on 8.4.04 and
apologized for her late reporting in the office and gave excuses of transport trouble & health ground. Considering her
reply and applying sympathetic consideration towards her, only warning was given to her and she was warned that if late
coming is repeated, she will face administrative action. However, her behavior and attitude of late coming remained the
same. She was regular in coming late. Therefore the warning memo was issued on 8.5.07. She was asked to maintain
minimum balance of leave for any emergency but she did not bother to take note of that. She was absent from duty
without informing the office. In this manner all her sick leaves were taken by her. In these circumstances warning memo
was issued but she was not adhering to the office time inspite of warnings. She did not improve her conduct and attitude.
Her irresponsible attitude amounted to insubordination which called for disciplinary action. As per her service record she
reported 9 days late in July ’09 and 12 days late in Oct. ’09. Therefore office memorandum was given to her on 23.11.09
asking explanation on her reporting late in the office. She gave reply on 26.11.09. She admitted her late coming but gave
excuses. Being continuous indiscipline and insubordination by the second party, office memorandum dt. 16.12.09 was
issued to her. She did not want to improve her punctuality therefore she was given caution note on 17.2.10. Even then
she continued with her late coming in the office and therefore another letter was given to her on 19.3.10.
9.
According to the first party since there was no improvement in the conduct & behavior of the second party
workman, first party was compelled to issue office memorandum to her on 5.5.10. Considering the continuous late
coming by second party workman, her increment was frozen in the year 2010. Inspite of adversaries issued to the
concerned workman she did not improve for maintaining punctuality. Inspite of all memos given to her there was no
improvement in her behavior. Therefore termination letter was given to her dt. 1.3.13 within the frame work of the rules
of service.
10.
It is thus the case of the first party that the concerned workman was relieved from the service because of her
misconduct and indiscipline and there was no question of looking into the seniority list. It is thus denied by the firs party
that the retrenchment is ab-initio & void. The first party has thus sought dismissal of the reference.
11.
The second party workman by filing rejoinder Ex.9 reiterated that her services came to be terminated arbitrarily
and in total disregard to principles of natural justice and in total disregard to the mandatory provisions of I.D. Act. It is
then contended that from 21.12.11 to 25.12.11 she was admitted in City care hospital in Kalyan. Doctor advised her to
take complete bed rests for two months. She applied for leave and submitted medical certificate for her sickness and the
leave was granted. She was not absent during the period without any valid reason. With this, she has reiterated that she is
entitled to relief of reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other benefits.
12.
Following issues are framed at Ex.12. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to
follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1
Does the Second Party Workman prove that her termination of service by
office order dt. 1st March, 2013, by the 1st Party amounted to retrenchment
and the retrenchment is null and void for non-compliance of the
Yes
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3601
mandatory provisions of Section 25 F (a) (b) (c) of the I.D. Act, 1947?
2.
Does the Second Party Workman prove that she is entitled to the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages, continuity in service and attendant
benefits for the interregnum ?
Yes
3.
Whether the Second Party Workman is entitled to cost of the Reference
and incidental to her ?
No
4.
What Award ?
As per final order
REASONS
Issue No. 1.
13.
From the evidence of the concerned workman it is clear that in May ’99 she joined service of first party
federation as a temporary staff and subsequently she was confirmed by the management of the first party w.e.f. 14.2.03
as a Sr. Record keeper. It is then clear from her evidence that from May ’99 she was continuously working without any
break in her service and as such she had worked for more than 240 days during the preceding 12 months of termination
of services on 1.3.13. She had worked for more than 240 days in each block of 12 months from May ’99. This sort of
evidence of concerned workman has gone unchallenged as there is no cross examination directed against her in the
context.
14.
The point therefore creeps in whether in the circumstances termination of the services of the concerned
workman would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of expression as defined in section 2 (o) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Obviously, the concerned workman was not on probation as she claims that she was confirmed by the management of
first party w.e.f. 14.2.03 as a Sr. Record Keeper and that she had worked more than 240 days in each block of 12 months
from May ’99. As per section 2 (o) retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for
any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include;
(a)
Voluntarily retirement of the workmen or
(b)
Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation and
(c)
Termination of service of the workman on the ground of continues ill-health.
15.
From the above definition, it is clear that the termination of the concerned workman amounted to retrenchment
since it is not by way of voluntary retirement or retirement on reaching the age of superannuation or as a result of non-
renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the concerned workman. Here in the instant case from
the termination letter it is clear that the services of the concerned workman came to be terminated in terms of clause (2)
of terms & conditions of appointment letter on the ground that the first party federation has decided not to avail her
services and that the concerned workman stood relieved w.e.f. 1.3.13 [A.N]. Even though the office order dt. 1.3.13
shows that the concerned workman stood relieved but then the order clearly reflected termination of the services of the
concerned workman that to without giving any reasons and on the findings that the federation has decided not to avail
her services.
16.
Even considering the facts of this case, termination of the services of the concerned workman does not fall
within any of the expected or to be precise excluded categories. Undoubtedly, therefore the termination would constitute
retrenchment and it is well settled that where pre-requisite for valid retrenchment as laid down in section 25 F has not
been complied with retrenchment bringing about termination of services is void ab-initio.
17.
In the decision in case of State of Bombay V/S. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha – 1960 – I – LLJ – 251, it is held that
failure to comply with the requirement of Section 25 F of I.D. Act which prescribes the condition precedent for valid
retrenchment renders the order of retrenchment invalid and inoperative. In other words, it does not bring about cessation
of service of the workman and the workman continues to be in service. So now it is to be seen whether the retrenchment
of the concerned workman is in consonance with section 25 of I.D. Act or not ?
18.
As seen earlier, it is clear from the evidence of the concerned workman that she has been in continuous service
for not less than one year under first party federation and that she had worked for more than 240 days in each block of
12 months from May ’99. This sort of evidence has gone unchallenged. If that is so, it can be said that she has satisfied
the eligibility criteria enacted in section 25 F of I.D. Act for claiming retrenchment compensation. Her case is not
covered by any of the expected or excluded categories. She has rendered service for one year. Therefore termination of
service would constitute retrenchment and in that circumstances non-compliance of section 25 F of I.D. Act will make
her retrenchment ab-initio void since compliance of section 25 F of I.D. Act is mandatory.
3602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19.
For, it is explicit that the first party did not offer notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation
along with order of retrenchment. Nowhere in the written statement first party averred that the retrenchment
compensation was offered to the second party workman as per the provisions of sub-section (b) of section 25 F of I.D.
Act. Even it is not denied that the notice as required u/s. 25 F (c) of I.D. Act was given to the concerned workman. When
admittedly the notice pay was not offered to the second party workman along with notice of termination of service but
subsequently credited to her a/c., it is clear that the conditions stipulated u/s. 25 F (a) of I.D. Act was not complied with
and subsequent payment of notice pay did not purge the breach of section 25 F (a) of I.D. Act.
20.
First party federation has not adduced any oral evidence. Even in the written statement first party has not
contended that they had offered retrenchment compensation to the workman. It is in that circumstances it can be said that
there is breach of mandatory provisions of section 25 F (b) of the act. As per sub section (c) of section 25 F of I.D. Act
notice in the prescribed manner is to be served on the appropriate Govt. No such notice in the prescribed manner was
served. It can be said therefore that there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of sub-section (a), (b) & (c) of
section 25 F of I.D. Act.
21.
Even then the Learned Counsel for the first party submitted that the concerned workman has been in constant
habit of coming late. She had been given many opportunities for improvements in her attitude but she could not change
her attitude and therefore in such circumstances she has been relieved from the services w.e.f. 1.3.13 [A.N].
22.
It is no doubt true that in her cross examination the second party workman has admitted that she received letter
dt. 7.7.04 vide Ex.8. She admits that in May & June ’04 she reported late for 9 times. She even admits that as per letter
dt. 8.7.04 she apologized for the same and admittedly as per letter dt. 16.7.04 management has warned her. She then
admits that as per letter dt. 19.6.07 she was informed that she should balance the leaves. Admittedly she reported late for
9 days in July ’09, for 13 days in August ’09, for 14 days in Sept. ’09, for 12 days in Oct. ’09 and it is in that
circumstances she received the letters from the management informing that she reported late on duties but then did not
try to improve herself.
23.
In view of these admissions, it is submitted that since the concerned workman did not improve herself and her
conduct & performance was not satisfactory, she remained absent unauthorisedly, she came late, she admittedly received
letters and in view of that her retrenchment is legal & proper.
24.
On going through the documents, it appears that the concerned workman was given letter vide Ex.15 asking her
to give explanation why administrative action should not be initiated against her on account that she reported office late
9 times in May & June ’04. Ex.16 shows that explanation was given by the concerned workman mentioning therein that
due to transport troubles and also on account of health grounds she reported office late and assured that she will not
repeat the same. On the basis of her explanation vide Ex.17 verbal warning was given to her. As per Ex.18 warning
memo was again given to her on account that she did not bother to take note of warning and took leave very often on sick
grounds. She was again given notice as per office memorandum vide Ex.19 and her explanation was called asking her as
to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for irregularities and for violation of office discipline. Vide
Ex.20 concerned workman had given explanation to that memorandum mentioning therein her difficulties and practical
problems for which she required to take leave. Again vide Ex.27 her explanation was called for not reporting for duties at
the prescribed time. Caution notice Ex.22 was given to her for her late attendance for 9 days in Feb. ’10. She was also
given notice vide Ex.23 for late comings to the office in the month of Jan. & Feb. ’10 whereby her leave was taken for
reporting late. Again as per memorandum Ex.24 she was informed about her total working days in the month of April
’10 and leave availed by her in that month and then she was informed to take note of her total working days and late
comings to the office. Vide Ex.25, office memorandum was issued by which her annual increment due w.e.f. 1.10.10 for
the year 2010 was frozen. Vide Ex.26 concerned workman was informed about the days of her late comings in the office
in Oct. ’10 and Dec. ’10. Vide Ex.27 she was informed about her late comings to the office in Dec. ’10 and Feb. ’11.
Vide Ex.28 she was given warning asking her to improve her attendance and punctuality. Vide Ex.29 inter office note
was issued asking her for making improvement and then as per Ex.32 the concerned workman had asked for leave on
medical ground. As per Ex.33 she was reprimanded for continuous indiscipline behavior in regard to regular late
attendance. Vide Ex.34 it appears that concerned workman had given undertaking and assured that she will improve
herself in her late coming. Again the Memorandum was given to her vide Ex.35 wherein it was informed to her that the
office will take suo-moto action against her for dis-continuance of her services from organization to which she had
replied vide Ex.36 for sympathetic consideration. However, it appears that as per office order dt. 1.3.13 her services
came to be terminated stating therein that she stood relieved w.e.f. 1.3.13.
25.
From the above documents on record, it appears that services of the concerned workman who has been in
continuous service are retrenched without holding the departmental enquiry especially when the management issued
notices, office memorandum to the concerned workman mentioning therein that suitable disciplinary action shall be
taken against her on the basis of records available. On the basis of records available with the management it was for the
management to take suitable disciplinary action by holding departmental enquiry against her. Since no disciplinary
enquiry was conducted, the termination of the services of the concerned workman on the ground of misconduct as is
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3603
stated by the management in their memorandum and notices is illegal, bad in law and in violation of principles of natural
justice.
26.
As seen earlier the misconduct as alleged by the first party management is that the second party workman
reported late on duty on several occasions and did not improve her conduct and therefore she was given warning but then
she repeated the same and did not come to the office in time. The misconduct alleged is that there was continuation in
reaching office late inspite of repeated reminders. On going through the retrenchment order dt. 1.3.13 her services stood
relieved w.e.f. 1.3.13 in terms of clause 2 of terms & conditions of the appointment letter. No such appointment letter is
placed on record but then as per record it appears that her services came to be retrenched on the ground of misconduct
and even there is no mention in the office order dt. 1.3.13 that such retrenchment occurred due to misconduct on the part
of concerned workman since she was coming late to the office inspite of repeated reminders. Since the termination
appears to be on the ground of misconduct then it is well settled that departmental enquiry should have been held before
termination of services of the concerned workman.
27.
From the above evidence, it can be observed that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of section 25
F (a) (b) (c) of the I.D. Act, 1947 since no departmental enquiry was held even otherwise the termination on the ground
of misconduct without holding the enquiry is illegal. In view of that, the termination of the concerned workman by office
order dt. 1.3.13 by the first party amounted to retrenchment and the retrenchment is null & void for non-compliance of
mandatory provisions of section 25 F (a) (b) (c) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Issue No.1 is therefore answered accordingly as
indicated against it.
Issue No. 2, 3 & 4.
28.
In view of my findings to the Issue No.1, the concerned workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with
full back wages, continuity in service and attendant benefits. So far entitlement of the second party workman to the cost
of reference is concerned; there is no order as to costs. Hence I answer above issues accordingly as indicated against
each of them in terms of above observations.
29.
In result I pass the following order.
ORDER
1.
The reference is allowed with no order as to costs.
2.
It is declared that termination of the services of the second party workman by order dt. 1.3.13
amounted to retrenchment and the retrenchment of her services is null & void.
3.
Termination of services by the first party management vide order dt. 1.3.13 is set aside.
4.
The concerned workman be reinstated on her original post with full back wages, continuity of
service and attendant benefits from the date of her termination till reinstatement.
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 15 मई, 2019
dk-vk- 846-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ tsV
,;jost bafM;k izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 33@2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 10@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la0 ,y&11012@13@2013–vkbZvkj (lh,e-1)]
,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata
(Ref. No. 33 of 2013) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Private Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 10.05.2019.
[No. L-11012/13/2013-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
3604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 33 of 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Limited
AND
Their workmen.
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra
… Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management
:
None
.
On behalf of the Workmen
:
None
Dated: 18th April, 2019.
Industry: Civil Aviation
AWARD
By Order No.L-11012/13/2013-IR(CM-I) dated 11.06.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. along with their contractors is
justified in denying the 11 points charter of demands submitted by the Union is legal and justified? To what
relief are the concerned workmen entitled?”
3.
When the case is taken up for hearing on 08.04.2019, none appeared for the parties concerned, though both the
parties earlier entered appearance by their respective learned counsel. It transpires from record that though this reference
is pending in this Tribunal since 29.10.2013 and inspite of all the opportunities, neither the union has filed its statement
of claim, nor the management has filed its written statement to proceed further with the case.
4.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present
in respect of the 11 points charter of demands as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore, there exists no dispute
for adjudication.
5.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
Kolkata,
Dated, The 18th April, 2019.
नई दली, 15 मई, 2019
dk-vk- 847-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 209@2001) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@05@2019
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la0 ,y&20012@335@2001– vkbZvkj (lh,e-1)]
,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 209 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/335/2001-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3605
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 209/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Muraidih Colliery 20/21 Pits M/s BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate
For the workman.
: None
State
: Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated : 28/02/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/335/2001-IR(CM-I) dated 21/09/2001, the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dismissal of Sri Gangu Bhuia alias Gangu Mandal 20/21 Pits colliery of M/S BCCL is
justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed. The workmen appeared for certain dates, but subsequently
left appearing before this Tribunal. The management remains present through lawyer. Case is pending since long. It
appears that the workmen has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 15 मई, 2019
dk-vk- 848-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-lh-
,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 101@1996) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
10@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&20012@307@1995– vkbZvkj (lh,e-I)]
,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
Dhanbad (Ref. No. 101 of 1996) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 10.05.2019.
[No. L-20012/307/1995-IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
3606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference: No. 101/1996
Employer in relation to the management of Sudamdih Coal Washery M/s BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
: None
For the workman.
: None
State
: Jharkhand.
Industry- Coal
Dated-28/02/ 2019
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/307/1995-IR(CM-I) dated 07/11/1996, the central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Union is justified in claiming the removal of anomalies in pay fixation of S/Sh C. N. Poddar
and 21 others ( as per list enclosed) as compared to S/Sh Shiv Charan Prasad and S.Chattacharjee ? If so
to what relief are these concerned workmen entitled?”
List of workman
1. C.N.Poddar
2. Md. Nasiruddin
3. T.P.Singh
4. H.N.Singh
5. Bharath Singh
6. R.N.Thakur
7. R.K.Sinha
8.Dularchand Mistry.
9. Govind Yadav
10. D.N.Singh
11. D.N.Poddar
12. Mahendra Tanti
13. P.N.Rajak
14. Shri Ram Prasad
15. H.K.Vishwas
16. V.N. Singh
17. Lalan Mahato
18. R.S.Mishra
19. Md. Fakara Alam
20. Sant Bilash Singh
21. Ali Md. Ansari
22. B.D.Sharma .
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared before Tribunal for certain dates,
but subsequently left both the parties left taking steps before this Tribunal. Subsequently two regd. Notices were issued
but none appeared in this matter. Case is pending since long so, it appears that the workmen has lost his interest to
resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 15 मई, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk- vk
vk
vk
vk- 849
849
849
849---vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds
vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय टेट बक izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] जबलपुर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 31/2013) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15/05/2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011/41/2012- vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
ch. ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3607
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 15/05/2019.
[No. L-12011/41/2012– IR(B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/2013
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, TriptiVihar, Opp. Engineering College.
Ujjain
… Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
LHO, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal.
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of April, 2019
1.
As per letter dated 1-2-2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as, hereinafter referred to by word
‘Act’ per Notification No.L-12011/41/2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether Shri Ramdas Ghawri is a workman within the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as claimed
by Union
(2) Whether the services of Shri Ramdas Ghawri were terminated without following the provision of law
in an illegal manner. If yes, then what relief he is entitled to?
(3) State Bank of India is a Banking Industry
(4)The nearest Tribunal is CGIT, Jabalpur.”
2.
In his statement of claim, the case of workman is that he was first appointed as a cleaner cum peon by the then
Branch Manager of Sarafa Branch, Ujjain by a verbal appointment order on 17-4-97 and since then he has been in
continuous service of the employer Bank, working 8 hours and more per day and was paid initially Rs.500/- per month
which was raised to Rs700/- and was further raised to Rs. 1250/- per month. He was in continuous service for more than
240 days every year and after 13 years of unblemished service, he was terminated by an oral order on 31-1-2010 without
any notice or compensation which is against law. He raised a dispute with the appropriate Government. After failure of
conciliation, the reference was made to this Court. As alleged by the workman, his termination is against Section 25-F of
the Act. Accordingly, he has prayed his reinstatement with all benefits setting aside his termination by holding it against
law.
3.
The employers have controverted the claim of workman in their Written Statement with the pleading that he
was engaged in the Bank purely on administrative exigency, never engaged against any sanctioned vacancy. He never
worked continuously at any point of time within the said period. He never completed 240 days of working in any
calendar year particularly the year preceding the date of his alleged termination. It is also pleaded that since the contract
of service of workman was on daily basis, there was no question of termination of his services as he was free not to come
for work next day and management was also free not to engage him next day. Further, it was pleaded that there is no
violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The employers also controverted the allegation of workman that he had acquired
status of permanent workman under Section 25 B of the Act. Accordingly, it was prayed that the reference be answered
against workman.
4.
At stage of evidence, workman examined himself on oath and proved Exhibit W-1 Memo of agreement between
management and Union, Exhibit W-2- norms of appointment of general attendant sweeper cum farrash, Exhibit W-3-
bankers cheque dated 31-12-2000, Exhibit W-4- Bankers cheque dated 27-10-10. Exhibit W-5- order of Dy.Labour
3608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Commissioner with reference to cancellation of registration of Union, Exhibit W-6- order of Industrial Court Bench at
Bhopal in appeal against order dated 25-9-06 passed by Dy. Labour Commissioner. Exhibit W-7 order of Regional Labor
Commissioner with regard to payment of Gratuity to the workman for the period 17-4-97 to 31-6-2010, Exhibit W-8
Bankers cheque dated 26-11-2011, Exhibit W-9Iapplication by the workman filed on 12-11-97 with the Branch Manager
of the Bank.
5.
Employers have examined on oath Vijay VikramShinde Manager HR. No document has been filed by the
employers.
6.
At the stage of argument, Shri Ram Nagwanshi appeared on behalf of Union and submitted his oral argument,
and also filed written argument. Learned counsel for employer has filed written argument which is on record.
7.
In the light of rival argument, following points arise for determination in the present case—
(1) Whether the disengagement of workman is justified in law?
(2) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
8.
Point for Determination No.1-
Before entering into any discussion, it is necessary to reproduce some provisions which are as under:-
Section 2(S)-
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or
implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such
person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or
whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)
who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred
rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of
the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]
Section 2(oo)
“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,
otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of
the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
3[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the on- renewal of the contract of employment between
the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that
behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]
Section 25-F:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the
workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice
has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be specified by
the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
Section 25 B:—
Definition of continuous service.— For the purposes of this Chapter,— (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous
service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on
account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work
which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3609
meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an
employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) one
hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty
days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding
the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i)
ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in
any other case.
Perusal of these provisions reveals that for arriving on a conclusion that disengagement of workman is against Section
25-F of the Act as alleged in the case in hand, it has to be proved that workman was in continuous service for a period
of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. Thus in the case in hand, the fact in issue is whether from
the evidence on record, workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement in service of the employment for a
period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination which is 31-1-2010 in the present case.
In case between Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Sowaran Singh reported in (2005)8-SCC-481. It has been laid down
by the Apex Court that the ownus to prove the requirement of 240 days of continuous service lies on the workman. It is
for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself or filing affidavit to prove the said factum. Such
evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that
year to show that he had worked with the employer for 240 days. Para-13 of the judgment requires to be specially
mentioned in this respect—
“So far as the question of onus regarding working for more than 240 days is concerned, as observed by this court in
Range Forest Officer VsHadiman the onus is on the workman. It was noted in the said judgment as follows :
In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days and his service
had been terminated without paying him any retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not accept this and
contented that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated 10-8-98 came to the
conclusion that the service had been terminated without giving retrenchment compensation. In arriving at the conclusion
that the respondent has worked for 240 days the Tribunal stated that the burden was on the management to show that
there was justification in termination of the service and that the affidavit of the workman was sufficient to prove that he
had worked for 240 days in a year.
For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the appellant is an industry or not
though reliance is placed on decision of this Court in State of Gujarat vrsPratamsinghNarsinhParmar. In our opinion the
Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence
that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the
claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence
to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his
own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the
conclusion that a workman had in fact worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days
or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone,
the award is liable to be set aside. However Mr. Hegde appearing for the department states that the State is really
interested n getting the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment on compassionate grounds on the
same terms as he was allegedly engaged prior to his termination within two months from today.”
9.
In his statement on oath, workman has supported his case has supported his case as stated in his statement of
claim. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he worked regularly in the Bank for the period 1997 to 2010 and was
paid his salary by Bankers cheque. Salary was payable in his name. He used to do cleaning, he also received bonus. The
witness of management who claims himself to be Manager(HR) in the Regional office of the Bank has denied the claim
of workman that he worked for 240 days in any year and particularly that he worked for 240 days in the year preceding
the date of his alleged disengagement. He stated that he was engaged on daily basis and was not engaged on regular
basis. He never completed 240 days continuous service hence there is statement of oath vs oath on fact in issue as stated
above. There is one relevant document which is copy of judgment of Controlling Authority passed under Payment of
Gratuity Act to the workman Exhibit W-7 in which it has been held that the workman has served the employers within a
period from 17-4-97 to 31-1-2010 and accordingly he was held entitled to gratuity for this period. This document also
doesnot show any finding of fact regarding the engagement of the workman for the period of 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination/ disengagement. The photocopy of documents which are not proved by the
workman cannot be read into evidence. Moreover these documents do not relate to the period which is the fact in issue in
the present case. Hence a simple self serving statement of the workman which is not corrob,orated by any document
cannot be held sufficient to prove his case. Accordingly, the case of the workman that he was in continuous engagement
of the employers for a period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his disengagement is held not proved and on
the basis of this finding, the disengagement of workman is held justified in law.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
3610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
Point for Determination No.2—
In the light of finding recorded in Point No.1, workman is held entitled to no relief.
11.
In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The disengagement of workman is justified in law.
(2)
Workman Shri Ramdas Ghawri is not entitled to any relief.
12.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment as per rules.
Dated:30-4-2019
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 15 मई, 2019
dk- vk- 850-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos
izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
अहमदाबाद ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1071/2004) dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15/05/2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41011/5/30/31/97- vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch. ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1071/2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 15/05/2019.
[No. L-41011/5/30/31/97–R(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 10th April, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No- 1071/2004
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Bhavnagar Division, Bhavnagar Para,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Western Railway KamdarSangh,
T.B.Z. – 17, Gurunagar, Gandhidham,
Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201
… Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri N.J. Acharya
For the Second Party
: ShriPrabhatsinhParmar
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3611
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/5/30/31/97–
IR(B-I) dated 24.10.1997 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Western Railway KamdarSangh, Gandhidham against the management of Western Railway,
Bhavnagar for regularisation of 28 loaders engaged in the work of loading and unloading of goods and parcels which is
legal and justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 24.10.1997 and received on 04.11.1997 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.
In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on
05.12.1997 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 3 on 18.03.1998.
3.
The second party workmen through the General Secretary, Western Railway Kamdar Sangh, T.B.Z. – 17,
Gurunagar, Gandhidham, Kutch in his statement of claim Ex. 2 has stated that the workmen detailed in the list
annexure A 1 have been working as loaders on outsourced basis through different contractors on the railway
stations shown in the annexure A 1 against the name of each workman under Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Bhavnagar w.e.f. 11.08.1994 since last 15 years. The last contractor was M/s Chirag and
Company. The railway management later on took over the work of loading and unloading of goods and parcels to
be done under the supervision of concerning Station Master/Superintendent as the ex-officio handling contractor
that to from 11.08.1994. The Divisional Railway Manager was required to register his establishment with the
Assistant Labour Commissioner under the Abolition of Contract Labour Act but it was not done.
4.
These Station Masters and Superintendents were doing as work of contractor illegally as their contract was sham
and bogus and camouflage being not registered under the aforesaid Act. These workmen were also not paid
minimum wages besides bonus, gratuity, pension, provident fund, medical and travel facilities etc. Therefore, they
have prayed that the new contract system of loading and unloading under the Station Masters and Superintendents
of various stations be declared as illegal being sham and bogus under the Abolition of Contract Labour Act. They
have also prayed that their services were treated as regular and permanent railway employee.
5.
The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 3 denying the averments made in the statement of claim stating
that the questioned operation of loading and unloading by the Station Masters and Superintendents of Western
Railway was not Industrial Disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act and the first party establishment was not an
Industry as defined under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it was a sovereign function as performed
by the Department of Railway under the Government of India. It is further submitted that these workers were
contract labours. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act is not applicable in this case. These
workmen were paid labour charges as per notified rates. They were not on the muster roll. Therefore, the prayers
sought by the union are not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
6.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
ii.
Whether the demand of the Western Railway KamdarSangh, Gandhidham against the management
of Western Railway, Bhavnagar for regularisation of 28 loaders engaged in the work of loading
and unloading of goods and parcels is legal and justified?
iii.
To what relief, if any, the concerned workmen are entitled?
7.
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 workmen. The second party workman Aljibhai Mithabhai Parmar was examined
vide Ex. 14 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim stating on be half of all the workmen and has
not said anything contrary to his examination-in-chief.
8.
I heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the evidence available on record. The main contention of
the first party is that the work of loading and unloading under the supervision of railway authority was a sovereign
function but relevant law and decision was referred by the first party. It is admitted fact that the Indian Railways
and its disputes with the workman comes under the jurisdiction of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)
under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, this contention is irrelevant and rejected. It is admitted fact by both
3612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the parties that these workmen were doing loading and unloading work under the various contractors from time to
time and the last contractor was M/s Chirag and Company and since 11.08.1994, the said operation of work was
took over by the railway permitting these workmen to continue to do the work of loading and unloading under
various Station Masters and Superintendents. The first party in his written statement has not denied that these
workmen were not permitted to work as loader under various Station Masters and Superintendents since
11.08.1994 but the first party has not explained as to why these workmen at the time of retrenchment were not paid
the retrenchment compensation and other dues admissible under the law. Thus after considering the evidence and
argument, I come to the conclusion that the first party acted arbitrarily considering as sovereign and treating the
workmen as petty baggers. Thus the retrenchment of the workmen without giving notice and retrenchment pay
cannot be said to be legal and just. The advocate for the second party has admitted that the workmen either have
attained the age of superannuation or likely to attain the age of superannuation and some of them have died also.
Therefore, it would be proper to declare the termination as illegal and order the first party to pay Rs.50000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to each workmen as retrenchment compensation and other dues. Both the issues are
decided accordingly.
9.
The first party The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Bhavnagar Division, Bhavnagar Para,
Bhavnagar is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to all 28 workmen as
retrenchment compensation and other dues within 30 days from the publication of this award.
10.
The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 15 मई, 2019
dk- vk- 851-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bankSj ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40/2006) dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15/05/2019 को izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012/231/2005- vkbZvkj ¼ch-1½]
ch. ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 15/05/2019.
[No. L-12012/231/2005–IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/40/2006
The General Secretary,
PrathadithKaramchariKalyanManch,
9, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain (MP)
… Workman/Union
Versus
Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,
Bhopal(MP)
… Management
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3613
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of April, 2019
1. As per letter dated 21-7-2006 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/231/2005-
IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Sushil Tiwari and not regularizing him as messenger w.e.f. Jan
1993 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2. Parties filed their statement of claim and defense wherein it is admitted between the parties that the workman was
engaged for 10 days in September 1983 as casual labour in Mahaveer Nagar Branch Bhopal and for the period of
86 days from 10-2-84 to 9-3-85 as casual labor in MP Nagar Branch Bhopal as casual labor. It is also admitted between
the parties that in the light of the understanding reached between the management and association on 27-10-88 which
required that the persons engaged in any capacity by the Bank within a period of 1-7-75 till 31-7-88 who had completed
30/70 days of engagement in any Branch of the Bank would be given opportunity to appear in regular selection process.
Also admitted is fact between the parties is that the applicant workman was also given an opportunity to take part in
selection process with regard to the vacancies released on 1-8-88. It is the case of the workman that he appeared before
the interview board on 21-9-89 and was declared selected in the selection list. He was given appointment from 20-1-93
on the post of temporary messenger in the Chhola Road Branch of the Bank and was issued identity card accordingly.
Interview was held in the year 1997 and it was circulated by the employer Bank vide their circular No. उम/भो/का-
मसिव/अवाड/4564 फरवरी1997wherein it was provided that the candidates who appeared before the interview board in the
year1989 and wereselected neednot appear again beforee the interview board as alleged by theworkman.The persons
who had worked for a period lesser than the present workman were given appointment on the basis of interview held in
1997. Further it was alleged that after completing 4 years in the service of Bank in its Chhola Road Branch, Bhopal as
temporary messenger, the workman was terminated after giving compensation on 11-12-1998. According to workman,
the principle of last come first go was not followed in his retrenchment and list of the retrenched employees were not
published on the notice board. Also other daily wage workers were engaged after the retrenchment of the workman. The
workman further alleged that he was given bonus for the period of 20-1-98 to 11-12-98 by Bankers cheque No. 281-95
dated 12-1-05 amounting to Rs.10938/- and was also paid gratuity Rs 1089 for the said period. According to the
workman, his termination was against law and he was entitled to be regularized since 20-1-93 which was illegally denied
to him. He raised a dispute on the basis of which reference was sent to this court.
3. The case of the employers in their written statement is that workman was engaged as a daily wages labor for the
period mentioned by the workman. His engagement was on the exigency of work. As soon as the work was over, he was
not required to work. No appointment order was issued to him and he was not engaged against any vacant post or
vacancy. He was free not to come on next day and similarly management was also not at liberty in not engaging him on
next day. He was paid on daily wage basis and in continuous employment at any point of time. Also it was pleaded that
his non-engagement could not be termed retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of ID Act because he was
purely daily rated casual employee. he was not entitled to get retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act
because of the reason firstly he was never in employment of the Bank, 2nd – his services were contractual, 3rd- he never
completed 240 days continuously in a calendar year hence his termination would fall under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.
Further it was pleaded that since the workman was much below in the waiting list of candidates on the basis of interview
held on 21-9-89, he could not be given appointment since he has not worked more than 240 days in one calendar year
preceding the date of his non-engagement or his termination, he is not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of the Act.
Accordingly it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
4. Workman has filed photocopy of certificate dated 2-4-97 issued by Mahaveer Nagar Branch, photocopy of certificate
dated 1-1-98 issued by Maharana Pratap Branch. Interview letter & letter dated 12-2-94 issued by Assistant General
Manager along with list of empaneled employees in subordinate cadre. All admitted by management marked Exhibit
W-1 to W-4 respectively.
5. Workman also filed category wise selection list of 1997 (copy) which is admitted by management and is marked
Exhibit W-5. Management has filed and proved copy of settlement of 1987 dated 17-11-87, copy of settlement dated
16-7-88, copy of settlement dated 27-10-88, copy of settlement dated 9-1-91, copy of list of General messenger, copy of
document shows cut off date 31-3-97. All admitted by workmen hence marked Exhibit M-1 to M-6 respectively.
6. Workman did not examine himself on oath nor did he examined any witness in support of his claim. It is also worth
mentioning here that the workman has filed many documents (copy) which are denied by management hence require
proof but they have not been proved by the workman. Management’s witness has admitted the advertisement (Copy) and
interview letter of Feb-1997 which are Exhibit W-6 & W-7 respectively.
3614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. I have heard argument from side of workman submitted by his representative. Learned counsel for management has
filed written argument which is on record. Workman also filed written argument on record. I have perused written
argument as well as the file.
8. After having perused the record in the light of rival argument, following points come up for determination in the
present reference—
(1)
Whether the action of employer in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. January 1993 and his
non-regularization is justified.
(2)
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief.
9. Point for determination No. 1—
According to the workman, his disengagement is against law on the ground that he had completed 240 days continuous
engagement on the date preceding his date of termination and that principal of last come first go was not followed as
well as list of the retrenched employees was not published. Respective pleadings of the parties on this point have been
detailed earlier. The workman has filed photocopy of documents certificate dated 2-4-97, 1-1-86 which certify that
workman was engaged temporarily as messenger for 10 days in September 1983 and for 88 days between the period
10-12-84 to 9-3-85. These documents are admitted by management hence marked Exhibit W-1 & W-2. Another
photocopy document which is letter issued for interview has been admitted by management and is marked Exhibit W-3.
List of employees shortlisted on the basis of interview(copy) filed by workman and admitted by management marked
(ExhibitW-4) is also on record. As it has been stated earlier that the admitted position is between the parties that the
workman applied for regular post in the light of advertisement issued and was issued interview letter, he appeared before
the interview board but was placed much low in merit hence he could not get appointment. These facts are not relevant to
the fact in issue which is whether the workman had completed 240 days of continuous engagement in the year preceding
the date of his termination which is January 1993 as mentioned in the reference. Workman has not examined himself on
oath nor has produced any other document or oral statement of any witness to support his claim on this point. On the
other hand, management witness B.L.Ahirwar Branch Manager of the employer Bank has categorically stated on his
statement of oath that firstly the workman was not employed against any vacancy. He was not issued any appointment
letter, he was simply casual daily laborer engaged on daily wage basis on the exigency of work and was paid
accordingly. This witness also stated that he appeared before the interview board but was not selected hence was
disengaged though later on he was again engaged on daily basis after some years in February 1997. Hence in the light of
aforesaid evidence, it is held that continuous engagement of workman for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his
disengagement January 1993 as referred in the reference is not proved. Accordingly his termination/ disengagement
cannot be held violative of Section 25-F of ID Act 1947. As regards the case of violation of Section 25-G and other
provisions as alleged by the workman in his statement of claim mentioned above. Since there is no evidence to support
his case on the point that first come last go policy was not followed or list was not competent hence it is held that from
the evidence on record, violation of Section 25-G or Rule 77 & 78 of ID(Central) Rules 1957 is not proved.
10. In the light of above findings, the disengagement of workman w.e.f. January 1993 as mentioned in the reference is
held justified in law. Accordingly his claim for regularization is also held not tenable. Point for determination No.1 is
answered accordingly.
11. Point for determination No. 2—
In the light of findings recorded on Point No.1, workman is held not entitled to any relief.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the Dy.General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Sushil Tiwari and not regularizing him as messenger w.e.f. Jan 1993 is proper and legal.
(2)
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules.
Dated: 23-4-2019
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3615
नई दली, 15 मई, 2019
dk- vk- 852-&vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ e/;
jsyos dks izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19/2018-19) dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15.05.2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&41012/87/2016- vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
ch. ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2018-19) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South East Central Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.05.2019.
[No. L-41012/87/2016–IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/19/2018-19
Date: 25.03.2019
Party No. 1
:
The Divisional Railway Manager,
South East Central Railwlay,
Station Road, Kingsway,
Nagpur (Maharashtra).
Versus
Party No. 2
:
The General Secretary,
Parcel Porter Sanghatana, SEC Railway,
New Mankapur, Plot No. 37,
Near Mahada Colony,
Nagpur (M.S.) – 440030.
AWARD
(Dated: 25th March, 2019)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of South East Central Railway and their union, Parcel
Porter sanghatana for adjudication, as per letter No.L-41012/87/2016-IR (CM-II) dated 07.05.2018, with the following
Schedule:—
“Whether or not the period of absence from duty from 26.05.2015 to 09.06.2015 of Shri Atul Ramesh
Gajbhiye, Asstt. Loco Pilot in SEC Railway will be treated as lay off from duty as per ID Act and what
directions are necessary in the case?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
by registered post with acknowledge due fixing the date on 13.07.2018. On that day, both the parties were absent. On
27.08.2018, Shri Nitin Lambat, advocate filed vakalatnama for the management. On 01.10.2018, petitioner was present
and filed an application for time to file statement of claim. From that day, petitioner has been absent and no statement of
claim has been filed. It shows that, the petitioner is not interested to proceed with this reference. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
3616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 15 मई, 2019
dk- vk- 853-&vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bankSj ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20/2010) dks izdkf“kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15.05.2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-&12011/40/2008- vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
ch. ,l- fc’V] अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 853.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.05.2019.
[No. L-12011/40/2008–IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/20/2010
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan,
F-1 Karambhoomi, Triptivihar,
In front of Engg. College,
Ujjain.
… Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager (First),
State Bank of Indore, Regional Office,
765-766, Nagpur Road,
Mahanadda, Gorakhpur,
Jabalpur.
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of April, 2019
1. As per letter dated 2-2-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/40/2008-
IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangathan for payment of bonus by the
management of State Bank of Indore, Teekamgarh Branch to Shri Ramkumar Verma for period of
services rendered by him for the period from 10-9-97 to 28-12-2001 is legal and justified? If yes, what
relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. According to the workman, he has been working firstly in State Bank of Indore, Teekamgarh branch for the period
10-9-97 till 28-12-2001 as a peon on daily wage basis and was paid wages as well as bonus as mentioned in Para-2 of the
claim which is as follows-
Year
Working days
Wages received
Bonus
Payment date
1997-98
165
9900
824.67
27-10-98
1998-99
313
18780
1570
21-8-99
1999-00
312
18840
1564.37
4-10-2000
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3617
He was illegally terminated from service on 28-12-2001 and was not paid bonus for the services rendered by
him to the period 1-4-00 to 28-12-01. He filed applications with the management but of no avail, therefore he
raised dispute and after FOC, reference was sent by Central Government to this Court. Workman has
accordingly prayed that he be awarded bonus for the period 1-4-00 to 28-12-01 along with admissible interest.
3. The employer Bank has stated in its claim for defence that State Bank of Indore was a banking company which was
acquired by State Bank of India vide notification of Government of India dated 28-7-2010. The Branch Manager is not
authorized to appoint any peon, messenger or guard in the branch. Appointments are done by appropriate authority
against vacancies under a defined procedure. The workman was never appointed according to procedure. He never
worked for a period of more than 2 hours at any day. He was engaged on daily basis on contract for cleaning work only.
His claim that he had worked for a period of 8 hours per day within 10-9-97 to 28-12-2001 is false. The Union is not
authorized to raise the dispute hence the dispute is not maintainable as such. Accordingly it is prayed that the reference
be answered against the workman.
4. The workman has filed one photocopy of I Card which is denied by employers. He has further filed certified copy of
statement of Arvind Kumar Khare, Management witness recorded in the present case which is irrelevant because original
statement of this witness is already on record. Management has examined on oath Shri Arvind Kumar Khare Chief
Manager. No document has been filed by management.
5. I have heard argument from both the sides. Both the sides have filed written argument which are on record. I have
gone through the written argument as well as the record.
6. The burden to prove the fact that the workman has worked with the employer is on the workman. He has not filed any
oral or documentary evidence to assert his claim. He relies on statement of management witness wherein the
management’s witness has stated that the workman was engaged as casual labour just for cleaning bank one hour before
and after bank hours. He never worked for 8 hours a day. Keeping this statement of management witness does not help
the workman in establishing that he has worked 8 hours a day on regular basis hence holding the claim of the workman
proved, he is held not entitled to any bonus as prayed by him.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The demand of the Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangathan for payment of bonus by the
management of State Bank of Indore, Teekamgarh Branch to Shri Ram Kumar Verma for period of
services rendered by him for the period from 10-9-97 to 28-12-2001 is not justified.
(2) Workman Shri Ram Kumar Verma is not entitled to any relief.
8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules.
Dated: 24-4-2019
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
3618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2019
dk- vk- 854-&vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj टेट
बक ds ऑफ इंदौर izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] जबलपुर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2010½ dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
15-05-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011/43/2008- vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
ch. ,l fc’V, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 15.05.2019.
[ No. L-12011/43/2008–IR(B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/18/2010
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan,
F-1 Karambhoomi, Tripti Vihar,
In front of Engg. College,
Ujjain.
… Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager (First),
State Bank of Indore, Regional Office,
765-766, Nagpur Road,
Mahanadda, Gorakhpur,
Jabalpur.
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of April, 2019
1. As per letter dated 2-2-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12011/43/2008-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangathan for payment of bonus by the
management of State Bank of Indore, Chhattarpur Branch to Shri Rajendra Yadav for period of services
rendered by him for the period from 9-4-99 to 21-8-2004 is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman filed statement of claim. The case of workman
as stated in his statement of claim is that he was engaged in Chhattarpur branch of State Bank of Indore now merged
with State Bank of India from the period 9-4-99 to 21-8-2004, details mentioned in para-1 of the claim as follows :
9-4-99 to 13-6-99 - Rs. 35/- ShriVinod Jain
14-5-99 to 7-11-99 - Rs. 40/- Shri Wale
8-11-99 to 31-10-00 Rs. 50/- Shri Pradeep Kori
1-11-00 to 12-11-01 Rs.55/- -
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3619
13-11-01 to 28-11-02 Rs. 60/- Shri Laxman Sardar
29-11-02 to 24-10-03 Rs. 65/-
25-11-03 to 21-8-04 Rs.70/-
3. It is alleged that the workman was entitled to get bonus but the employers did not provide him bonus for the period
for which he raised a dispute and on FOC, the reference was sent by Central Government to the Court. It is further the
case of the workman that he was paid his wages through vouchers, records available with the employers and sought a
relief directing the employers to pay his bonus as per law for the period of service rendered by him as stated above.
4. The employer Bank has pleaded in Written Statement of defence that workman was never appointed on regular basis
at any post nor was he working at Chhattarpur branch of the Bank. The employers further denied the allegation that the
workman had worked with the employers for 8 hours a day for the period between 9-4-99 to 21-8-04 hence he is not
entitled to any bonus. He has never worked as an employee rather he was engaged on contractual rate for cleaning of
bank and toilet one hour before and after opening of the bank for which he was paid. His engagement was on daily
basis. Accordingly it has been prayed that the claim of bonus made by workman be rejected and the reference is
answered in negative.
5. Workman has filed photocopy of documents which he has not proved. These documents have been denied by
management hence cannot be read in evidence.
6. Award passed by the Tribunal in R/75/06(photocopy) filed by the workman which is admitted by the employer hence
marked Exhibit W-1.
7. The workman has not examined himself nor any witness in support of his claim. Management has examined its
witness Arvind Kumar Khare, Chief Manager of the Bank. I have heard argument of ShriR.Nagwanshi and learned
counsel for the Bank Shri Vijay Tripathi. Both sides have filed written argument. I have gone through written argument
as well as record.
8. The main point of argument on behalf of workman is that since he had worked for the period as mentioned earlier, he
is entitled to get bonus in the light of Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act as submitted by learned counsel for employers
since workman was never in employment of the Bank, rather he was only a casual daily wager engaged for cleaning one
hour before and after the bank hours and was paid accordingly hence he is not entitled to get bonus. The point remains to
be decided is whether the workman has successfully proved that he was in continuous engagement of employer Bank to
qualify him to get bonus according to Section-8 of Payment of Bonus Act.
Section-8 of Payment of Bonus Act reads as under:-
“Eligibility for bonus.—Every employee shall be entitled to be paid by his employer in an accounting
year, bonus, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, provided he has worked in the establishment
for not less than thirty working days in that year.”
9. Workman has not examined himself on oath to prove his case. The photocopy of documents filed by him have not
been proved by him and since they have been denied by employers, they cannot be read in evidence. Only admitted
document is an award of the Court with reference to the disengagement of the workman on 21-8-04 without
regularizing him. According to award, his disengagement was found illegal as violative of Section 25-F of ID Act 1947.
There is finding of the Court that the workman proved himself to be in continuous engagement of employers in the year
preceding the date of his disengagement and since 9-4-99 to 21-8-04. This finding of fact recorded between the parties
on the basis of evidence though in separate case but this finding will operate as res judicata hence in the light of this
finding recorded by Competent Court, the oral statement of the management of Bank against this finding carries no value
in law. Accordingly holding that the engagement of workman for the period 9-4-99 to 21-8-04 as daily wager proved the
workman is held entitled to get bonus according to Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act to be calculated as provided in
the Act.
10. Learned counsel for management has further submitted that the claim of the workman suffers with delay and latches
hence it is liable to be rejected. He has referred to case KrishiUtpadanMandiSamity versus Pahal Singh reported in
2007(12)SCC-193 in this respect but the facts of the referred case are different from case in hand. in the referred case,
the dispute was raised after 18 years and the Apex Court held the claim barred by delay and latches. Another case Range
Forest Officer versus S.T.Hadimani reported in (2002)3SCC-25 and Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation versus
JadejaGovubhaChhanubha reported in 2014(16)SCC-130 also not applicable to the case in hand because of facts being
different.
11. On the basis of above discussion, the reference is answered in favour of the workman holding the refusal of bonus to
the workman for his services rendered from 9-4-99 to 21-8-04 illegal and unjustified. He is held entitled to bonus as per
law.
3620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The demand of the Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangathan for payment of bonus by the management
of State Bank of Indore, Chhattarpur Branch to ShriRajendraYadav for period of services rendered by him
for the period from 9-4-99 to 21-8-2004 is legal and justified.
(2) Management is directed to pay bonus for the above period to the workman as per rules.
Dated: 22-4-2019
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 मई, 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk- vk
vk
vk
vk- 855
855
855
855-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj टेट
बक ऑफ इंदौर ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] जबलपुर ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
15-05-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12011/42/2008- vkbZvkj (ch&1)]
ch. ,l- fc’V, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 15/05/2019.
[No. L-12011/42/2008– IR(B-1) ]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/17/2010
General Secretary,
Dainik VetanBhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan,
F-1 Karambhoomi, Triptivihar,
In front of Engg. College,
Ujjain.
…Workman/Union
Versus
Asstt. General Manager (First),
State Bank of Indore, Regional Office,
765-766, Nagpur Road,
Mahanadda, Gorakhpur,
Jabalpur.
…Management
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3621
AWARD
Passed on this 25th day of April 2019
1. As per letter dated 2-2-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is received. The
reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12011/42/2008-IR(B-I).
The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangathan for payment of bonus by the
management of State Bank of Indore, Chhattarpur Branch to ShriRajnarayanRaikwar for period of
services rendered by him for the period from 1-1-96 to 8-4-99 is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman filed statement of claim. The case of workman
as stated in his statement of claim is that he was engaged in Chhattarpur Branch of State Bank of Indore now merged
with State Bank of India from the period 1-1-96 to 8-4-99. That the wages were increased from Rs.20/- to Rs.25/-, 30/-,
40/- & 50/- after completion of continuous 240 days working from 1-1-96.
3. It is alleged that the workman was entitled to get bonus for the period 1-1-96 to 8-4-99 as per Section 8 of Payment of
Bonus Act but the employers did not provide him bonus for the period for which he raised a dispute and on FOC, the
reference was sent by Central Government to the Court. It is further the case of the workman that he was paid his wages
through vouchers, records available with the employers and sought a relief directing the employers to pay his bonus with
interest as per law for the period of service rendered by him as stated above.
4. The employer Bank has pleaded in Written Statement of defense that workman was never appointed on regular basis
at any post nor was he working at Chhattarpur Branch of the Bank. The employers further denied the allegation that the
workman had worked with the employers for 8 hours a day for the period between 1-1-96 to 8-4-99 hence he is not
entitled to any bonus. He has never worked as an employee rather he was engaged on contractual rate for cleaning of
bank and toilet one hour before and after opening of the bank for which he was paid. His engagement was on daily
basis. Accordingly it has been prayed that the claim of bonus made by workman be rejected and the reference be
answered in negative.
5. Workman has filed photocopy of documents which he has not proved. These documents have been denied by
management hence cannot be read in evidence.
6. The workman has not examined himself nor any witness in support of his claim. Management has examined its
witness Arvind Kumar Khare, Chief Manager of the Bank.
7. I have heard argument of Shri R.Nagwanshi and learned counsel for the Bank Shri Vijay Tripathi. Both sides have
filed written argument. I have gone through written argument as well as record.
8. The main point of argument on behalf of workman is that since he had worked for the period as mentioned earlier, he
is entitled to get bonus in the light of Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act as submitted by learned counsel for employers
since workman was never in employment of the Bank, rather he was only a casual daily wager engaged for cleaning one
hour before and after the bank hours and was paid accordingly hence he is not entitled to get bonus. The point remains to
be decided is whether the workman has successfully proved that he was in continuous engagement of employer Bank to
qualify him to get bonus according to Section-8 of Payment of Bonus Act.
Section-8 of Payment of Bonus Act reads as under:-
“Eligibility for bonus.—Every employee shall be entitled to be paid by his employer in an accounting
year, bonus, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, provided he has worked in the establishment
for not less than thirty working days in that year.”
9. Workman has not examined himself on oath to prove his case. The photocopy of documents filed by him have not
been proved by him and since they have been denied by employers, they cannot be read in evidence. There is on record
copy of award dated 4-5-2016 passed by this Court in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/90/2001. In this award, a finding of fact has
been recorded on evidence that the claimant workman was successfully proved to be in continuous engagement/
employment of the employers for the relevant period. This is a finding of fact recorded by Competent Court. There is
nothing on record to show that the award was challenged by any of the parties hence keeping this finding of fact between
the parties recorded on the basis of evidence which operates as resjudicata. It is held that the engagement of workman for
the period 1-1-96 to 8-4-99 as daily wager proved the workman is held entitled to get bonus according to Section 8 of
Payment of Bonus Act to be calculated as provided in the Act.
10. Learned counsel for management has further submitted that the claim of the workman suffers with delay and latches
hence it is liable to be rejected. He has referred to case KrishiUtpadanMandiSamity versus Pahal Singh reported in
2007(12)SCC-193 in this respect but the facts of the referred case are different from case in hand. in the referred case,
3622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the dispute was raised after 18 years and the Apex Court held the claim barred by delay and latches. Other referred cases
Range Forest Officer versus S.T.Hadimani reported in (2002)3SCC-25 and Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation versus
JadejaGovubhaChhanubha reported in 2014(16)SCC-130 also not applicable to the case in hand because of facts being
different.
11. On the basis of above discussion, the reference is answered in favor of the workman holding the refusal of bonus to
the workman for his services rendered from 1-1-96 to 8-4-99 is illegal and unjustified. He is held entitled to bonus as per
law.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The demand of the DainikVetanBhogiKaramchariSangathan for payment of bonus by the management of
State Bank of Indore, Chhattarpur Branch to ShriRajnarayanRaikwar for period of services rendered by him
for the period from 1-1-96 to 8-4-99 is legal and justified.
(2) Management is directed to pay bonus according to rules for the above period.
Dated: 25-4-2019
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 ebZ] 2019
dk vk
dk vk
dk vk
dk vk- 856
856
856
856-&vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds
vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj आईडीबीआई िलिमटेड के izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k नागपुर ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 35/2011.12) dks izdkf’kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15.05.2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y- 12012/77/2011- vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
ch.,l fc’V, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 15th May, 2019
S.O. 856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.35/2011-12) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of I.D.B.I. Limited and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 15/05/2019.
[ No. L-12012/77/2011–IR(B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/35/2011-12
Date: .25.03.2019
Party No.1 : The Branch Manager,
I.D.B.I. Limited,
Branch Arvi, Tehsil: Arvi,
Distt.Wardha (M.S.).
Versus
Party No.2 : Shri Pravin Rameshrao Mandwe,
R/o Balaji Ward, Arvi,
Tehsil: Arvi, Distt. Wardha (M.S.).
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3623
AWARD
(Dated: 25th March, 2019)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of I.D.B.I. Limited and their workman,
ShriPravinRameshraoMandwe for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/77/2011 (IR (B-I) dated 24.11.2011, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of IDBI Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Parvin
R. Mandwe, a daily wage temporary workman, w.e.f. 01.02.2008, is legal and justified? To what relief the
workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement
and accordingly, the petitioner, ShriPravin R. Mandwe (‘Party No. 2” in short), filed the statement of claim and the
management of IDBI Limited (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.
3. The Party No. 2 filed statement of claim by asserting that, he was appointed initially as Sweeper in 1997-98 in United
Western Bank Limited, Satara. They he subsequently appointed as Peon. According to Party No. 2, United Western
Bank Limited came to merged in IDBI Bank, he worked continuously without break, duly completed 240 days in earlier
preceding years and he acquired the status of permanent employee. He was getting salary as per the Peon i.e. 2750/- per
month with bonus. On 01.02.2008, he was prevented from working and signing on muster roll. He orally informed that,
his services are no more required. No retrenchment compensation was given to him, so he prayed that, benefit available
to him under provision of Section 25 B, 25 F, 25 G and 25 H of the above act must be given.
4. According to the Party No. 2, he had initially approached to the Labour Court, Wardha. That case was dismissed in
default. Then he approached to the proper forum i.e. ALC. He also prayed that, he is reinstated in his former post with
full back wages and continuity in services from the date of his termination i.e. 01.02.2008 and declare award in
affirmative.
5. The Party No. 1 filed its written statement by asserting that, scheme of amalgamation dated 30.09.2006, the Bank
namely, United Western Bank (“UWB” in short) came to be amalgamated with Party No. 1 i.e. IDBI Bank. According
to the Party No. 1, no statutory or contractual right has been breached between Party No. 2 and Party No. 1. The Party
No. 2 has unnecessarily dragged the Party No. 1 in this litigation to create pressure and also asserted that, Party No. 1 has
their own Recruitment Rules i.e. Written Test, Group Discussion and Interview and requires some formalities, but Party
No. 2 does not have any document to establish the factum of regular employment. According to the Party No. 1,
appointment of Party No. 2 was on ad-hoc basis and terminable without notice and Party No. 2 had no right to continue
in the post.
6. According to the Party No. 1, a contract of employment is based by an offer of acceptance, but Party No. 2 induced by
undue influence by way of unnecessary litigation. Hence, statement of claim ought to be rejected in limine and Party
No. 2 failed to establish his constitutional and contractual rights. Party No. 1 denied all material facts by asserting matter
of record or general denial and they prayed that, claim of Party No. 2 is not genuine; statement of claim is devoid of
factual matrix, Party No. 2 is not entitled to any relief and prayed that, reference deserves to be dismissed in limine with
cost.
7. Point of determination:
i. Whether Party No. 1 illegally terminated Party No 2?
ii. Whether Party No. 2 is entitled to any relief?
Reason of determination:
8. The Party No. 2 relied on case laws: (i). Rattan Lal and others etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1985 Service law
cases 276 and (ii) Dr, Sumati P. Shere, Appelant Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1989 SC 1431 and argued that, Party
No. 2 was employed by the Party No. 1 as Sweeper from 1997-98 till termination as on 01.02.2008, virtually employer
Party No. 1, bank extracted work of peon in addition to his duties as Sweeper, Party No. 1 did not pay retrenchment
compensation, not produce relevant records, but bonus provision sheet show the employment. Party No. 2 also argued
that, he is entitled to former post with full back wages. That fact was denied by the Party No. 1.
9. Party No. 1 relied on case laws: (i). Chairman, ONGC Vs. Shyamlal Chandra (2006) LLR 70 (SC) and Secretary,
State of Karnataka and other Vs. Umadevi and others 2006 AIR 1806 and argued that, appointment of Party No. 2 in
UWB was on ad-hoc basis and terminable without notice, Party No. 1 is a Public Sector Bank owned and controlled by
the Govt. of India, he alternatively argued that, Party No. 2 was employed as daily wager and received bonus for certain
period, would not make entitle him to claim as permanent employee. The Party No. 1 also argued that, there is no
employer and employee relation between them.
3624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. Now I want to discuss firstly the evidence of Party No. 2 in the light of above argument. The Party No. 2 examined
himself with certain documents, but he plainly admitted that, he did not file any appointment letter, he passed IX class,
IDBI Bank is Govt. undertaking bank, he did not mention the name of his co-workers in UWB and IDBI and he also
admitted that, he did not mention the name of appointing authority. He also admitted that, presently he does the labour
work for his livelihood. He denied that, he was not appointed on regular basis. In this way, he remained un-crossed
some material points. In my opinion, he did not file bank’s document and salary vouchers, which are concerned with his
employment, because these documents are not available with him.
11. Now I want to see the evidence of Party No. 1. On behalf of the Party No. 1, Smt. ZeenaPaynter, Dy. General
Manager, was examined to support his defence. She admitted that, they are not disputing the appointment of the Party
No. 2, he was employed with erstwhile UWB and UWB came to be transferred in IDBI Bank. She also admitted that,
old employee of the said bank with other staff; there was no occasion for Party No. 1 to engage him afresh. She also
admitted that, they did not file any document showing his wage slip. She denied that, Party No. 2 was working in UWB
for more than 8 years and also denied that, Party No. 2 worked for 247 days from April 2003 to March 2004 and 291
days from April 2004 to March 2005. She asserted that, she has no knowledge, whether any retrenchment compensation
was given to Party No. 2 or not, but she admitted that, in every bank or offices, need sweeper and work of sweeper is
perennial and essential nature. She also admitted that, she has not filed any document, which shows that, Party No. 2
was working in the bank as casual employee.
12. Now I want to see the legal position and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court” in the above case
laws:-
(i).
“The policy of ‘ad-hocism’ followed by the State Government for a long period has led to the breach of
Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. The State Government is expected to function as a model
employer”.
(ii). “The employee should be made aware of the defect I n his work and deficiency in his performance ----
Without any such communication, it would be arbitrary to give a movement order to the employee on the
ground of unsuitability”.
(iii). A class of employment, which can only be called ‘litigious employment’ has risen like a phoenix seriously
impairing the constitutional scheme ----- The passing of orders for continuance tends to defeat the very
Constitutional scheme of public employment”.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws, State of Haryana &ors etc. Vs. Piara Singh &ors etc. AIR 1992 SC 2130
and State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) AIR 2006 SC 1806, held that:-
(i)
“The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of
administration may sometimes call for an ad-hoc or temporary appointment to be made ------The
appointment of regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such
an ad-hoc temporary employee”.
(ii)
“For regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already
framed the same may be made consistent without our observations ----- If a casual labourer is continued
for a fairly long spell-say two or three years – a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his
services”.
14. In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where principles
of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if termination
of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering LaghuUdhyog Employees Union vs
Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was held that:- “no difference
whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by Standing
Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as well that its
order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no
enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to satisfy
the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” These principles are also laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh (2016) 7 SCC-571,
UPSRTC Vs. GopalShukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017) 13 SCC 269, V.D.
Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School Vs. A. Harnoon
(2017) 2 SCC 510.1
15. In the above discussions, I found that, in the statement of ZeenaPaynter that, she admitted, work of sweeper is
perennial and essential nature. She also admitted that, Party No. 1 did not produce documents related to wages and
employment of Party No. 2. Party No. 2 also gave two applications regarding notice to admit documents, which is
marked as Exhibit P-5 and notice to produce documents, Exhibit P-4. Party No. 1 hotly opposed these applications.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3625
Neither they neither admit any documents nor produce any document. Party No. 1 witness, Smt. ZeenaPaynter has no
knowledge about the letter dated 09.08.2002, which is written by UWB Manager to the General Manager of same bank.
Party No. 1 also admitted that, they did not give notice to the Party No. 2, because it was not required, but on behalf of
the Party No.2, they produce bonus calculation sheets of two years i.e. 2003 to 2005 and statement of daily wages paid to
the Party No. 2 by IDBI bank, these documents are Xerox copies. The Party No. 1 denied these documents, but true or
original documents have not been produced. In my humble opinion, prima facie, forward and backward presumption
may be drawn regarding service of Party No. 2. These symptoms show that, Party No. 1 did not behave as model
employer. It also appears that, the service of Party No. 2 was terminated without notice.
16. Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, as I observed that, Party
No. 2 has prima facie proved that, Party No. 1 illegally terminated or retrenched him without notice. In my opinion,
Party No. 2 worked for more than 9 years. The Party No. 2 also admitted that, he does labour work for his livelihood.
So, the workman is entitled for Lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) in lieu of
reinstatement as well as retrenchment compensation. The Party No. 1 within three months shall consider the service
record for regularisation of Party No.2. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of IDBI Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of ShriParvin R. Mandwe, a daily wage
temporary workman, w.e.f. 01.02.2008, is not legal and justified. The workman is entitled for Lumpsum monetary
compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) in lieu of reinstatement as well as retrenchment compensation,
which is payable within one month from the publication of this award in official gazette, failing which, amount due to
workman will carry interest of 6% per annum from the date of due to the workman to the date of actual payment of the
amount to the workman. The Party No. 1 within three months shall consider the service record for regularisation of Party
No.2 as per direction given in the above discussion. The workman is not entitled for any other relief.
SHYAM SUNDAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 16 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 857
857
857
857.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के !ीय सरकार
मेसस" भारत पे&ोिलयम कॉप(रेशन िलिमटेड - कोि+ ,रफाइनरी के /बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक4 और उनके कम"कार4 के बीच
अनुबंध म िन6द7 औोिगक िववाद म के !ीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म यायालय, एना"कुलम के पंचाट (संदभ"
सं:या 27/2011) को /कािशत करती है जो के !ीय सरकार को 14.05.2019 को /ा= >आ था।
[सं. एल-30011/50/2010-आईआर(एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 857.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited – Kochi Refinery and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 14.05.2019.
[No. L-30011/50/2010-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
3626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer
(Tuesday the 07th day of May, 2019)
ID No. 27 of 2011
Workman
:
The. General Secretary,
Cochin Refinary Employees Association,
Ambalamukal, Kochi-682 302.
By Adv. Ajith Prakash.
Management
:
The General Manager,
BPCL-KR, Ambalamughal,
Ernakulam
By M/s Menon & Pai.
This case coming up for final hearing on 13.03.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 07.05.2019 passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-
30011/50/2010-IR(M) dated 21.09.2011 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
The dispute is:-
2. “Whether the action of the management of M/s BPCL - Kochi Refinery, Ambalamukal, Kochi Kerala
632302 in awarding the punishment of withholding of 2 increments with cumulative effect vide order
dated 29/06/2009 on Sri. Surendran Nair, Staff No. 81205 is justified? To what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
3.
After appearance the union filed a statement claiming that the workman is the General Secretary of
Kochi Refinery Employees Association (CREA) for the last 16 years. CREA is a recognized union in the
Management Company and it has raised several industrial disputes on genuine employee issues. The
management framed the following charges against the workman.
a.
Surrounding, blocking or detaining the worker inside the premises. This includes riots or disorderly behavior or
any act subversive to good discipline (Standing order No. 29.14).
b. Threatening, intimidating or coercing any other employee or interference with work of any other employee in a
manner inimical to the Company’s interest (Standing order No. 29.15).
c.
Making false accusation, use of impolite or insulting language against any other employee (Standing order No.
29.16).
The union alleged certain procedural irregularities and impropriety in the inquiry proceedings. As per clause 30
(3) of Standing orders the management ought to have given a statement of allegations along with the charge
sheet. The workman is the General Secretary of a recognized Association and has espoused and caused legal
actions, agitations on various issues touching the welfare of employees. From the Charge Memo issued it is
very clear that the initiation of the proceedings amount to victimization and unfair labour practice adopted
against a trade union leader.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3627
4.
According to the show cause notice dated 08/06/2005 the workman is alleged to have committed the following
misconducts.
I.
On 06/06/2005 at around 10:30 am the workman along with Sri. M K Gopinathan, Badge number 1129,
another employee of the company blocked the movement of Mrs..Indu Thomas who was on duty and Mrs.
Deena K A near SBI ATM counter in Company premises.
II.
The workman tried to unduly influence Mrs. Deena K A, an employee in Occupational Health Center who is
likely to be the key witness in the matter of a domestic inquiry ordered against Sri. M K Gopinathan
III.
In pursuance of above the workman along with Sri. M K Gopinathan abused the two lady employees near
SBI ATM counter.
IV.
When the ladies reminded the workman that it is a public place and the matter can be discussed in the
Medical Center the workman continued to abuse them and blocked their movement for five minutes.
V.
The workman obstructed Mrs. Indu Thomas who was on duty, from doing her duty.
VI. The above act by the workman caused insult, mental agony and strain to both the ladies.
5.
The workman alleged that the inquiry proceeds were vitiated with malafieds and bias on the part of the
Inquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority also did not consider the vital evidences and relied on the finding in
the biased report.
6.
The workman alleges that MW 2 in the inquiry (Dr. John K John) who is inimically disposed towards him has
played a very vital negative role in the whole episode which was ignored by the Inquiry Officer. The whole
inquiry was initiated on a complaint filed by MW 3 and MW4. But their oral evidence was completely
ignored by the Inquiry Officer.
7.
This is a case of no evidence and the findings arrived at, leading to the guilt of the workman is on a perverse
finding. Page 1 to 58 of the Inquiry report is only a selective translation of the evidences of the witnesses and
is not a verbatim translation of the oral evidences given by the witnesses in the inquiry.
8.
The Management filed written statements denying all the above allegations. According to the Management
there was a pending disciplinary action against Sri M K Gopinathan, Ambulance Driver, for delay in taking
one coworker, Sri. V Krishnan from Colony to Hospital. Smt.Deena K A was the staff nurse on duty in
Medical Center and was the key witness in the disciplinary inquiry against Sri. M K Gopinathan. The
workman along with Sri. M K Gopinathan was using strong arm tactics to unduly influence the witness. The
workman along with Sri. M K Gopinathan blocked the movement of Smt. Indu Thomas and Smt. Deena K A
and obstructed them from doing their duty and abused them. Since intimidation and coercion are serious
misconduct, the workman along with Sri. M K Gopinathan was placed under suspension which culminated in
the disciplinary proceedings. The evidence in the inquiry clearly revealed that Sri. Surendran Nair along with
Sri. M K Gopinathan had indulged in a deliberate act of intimidation by blocking the movement of two lady
employees within the refinery premises, all of which were clearly a pressure tactics to prevent Smt. Deena
from appearing as a management witness in the domestic inquiry against Sri. M K Gopinathan.
9.
The inquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice and the Inquiry Officer found that all
charges were proved against the workman. The workman being a protected employee, the management sought
permission of this Court to impose penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect on
the workman. This Court in MP No. 1 of 2007 granted permission vide order dated 15/05/2009 and
accordingly punishment was imposed on the workman.
10.
Proved misconduct is antithesis of victimization and unfair labour practice. On the face of proved charges the
allegation of victimization and unfair labour practice fails. The domestic inquiry was initiated against the
workman on a complaint filed by two lady staff who happens to be the members of the very same union in
which the workman is the General Secretary.
11.
The management pleaded that the validity of domestic inquiry be heard as a preliminary issue and in case it is
found that the inquiry conducted by the management is not valid the Management may be given an
opportunity to adduce fresh evidence to substantiate the charges.
12.
In view of the above the validity of the Inquiry report was a taken as a preliminary issue. The Inquiry Officer
was examined on commission as MW 1 and the inquiry file (Volumen1 to 4) was marked as Exhibit M 1 on
the side of the Management. After hearing elaborate arguments on either side, this court vide its order dated
26/05/2017 held that “there is no irregularity or illegality or impropriety in the conduct of Inquiry by the
Inquiry Officer. The proportionality or justifiability of the punishment imposed by the Management is left
open to be adjudicated at the final stages of the proceedings.”
3628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
The learned counsel for the workman submitted that this is a case of clear victimization and unfair labour
practice. Being the General Secretary of a recognized union, the workmanfiled a lot of cases and initiated
action against the management for irregularities andillegalities committed by them. Hence the
management was waiting for an opportunity to fix him. Further MW 2 in the inquiry who got a written
complaint prepared and rewritten against the workman was inimically disposed against the workman as he
pursued a complaint by a lady staff against MW 2.
14.
The learned counsel of the Management argued that the finding of the Inquiry Officer is fully supported by
legal evidence and hence the same calls for no interference by this Court. It was also argued that the
punishment imposed on the workman is just, legal and proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved
in the inquiry.
15.
In view of the pleadings by both of the parties the issues that are required to be decided are:
1.
Whether the findings entered against the workman by the Inquiry Officer calls for any interference?
2.
Whether the punishment imposed on the workman is legal and justified and proportionate to the
charges proved against the workman?
3.
What is the relief the workman is entitled to?
Issue number 1
16.
As already pointed out this court found that the inquiry conducted against the workman is valid as there is no
irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the conduct of the inquiry by the Inquiry officer. Hence the issue to
be considered here is whether the finding given by the Inquiry Officer is supported by legal and valid
evidence. Both the learned counsels took pains to impress upon this Court the limitations of this proceedings
and also the limit upto which the evidence can be re-appreciated in such proceedings by this court to interfere
with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
17.
The learned counsel for the workman relied on Anil kumar vs Presiding Officer, Laws (SC 1985, 528) to
hold that the Labour court can interfere with the findings of inquiry in appropriate cases. On perusal it is seen
that the facts in that case will not support this case. Khardah and Co Ltd vs Workman, laws (SC 1963,
526) also will not support the case of the workman. That wa s a case where there was no inquiry report.
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated its position that Labour Court shall interfere with inquiry
reports only in specified circumstances. In the case of M/s Bharat Iron works vs Bhagubhai Balubal Patel,
1976 Lab.i.c.4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the principles of law while dealing with disciplinary
inquiry reports by Labour Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that,
“it must be made clear in following the above principles, one or the other, as may be applicable in a particular
case, the Tribunal does not sit as a court of appeal, weighing or re-appreciating the evidence for itself but only
examines the findings of Inquiry Officer on the evidence in the domestic inquiry as it is, in order to find out
either whether there is a prima facia case or if the findings are perverse.”
In Delhi Cloth and General Mills vs Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 SCC 595, quoting its own
various decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was only to satisfy itself whether a prima
facia case has been made out by the Management and that the Management has not acted malafide and that
the inquiry has been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down in
thestanding orders, if any. The Industrial Tribunal can interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer if the
same are not based on legal evidence and no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion on the
basis of the materials available before the Tribunal. In B C Chathurvedi vs Union of India, (1995) 6 SEC
749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“the Court/Tribunal in its powers of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-
appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere, where the authority hold the proceedings against the diligent officer in a manner inconsistent with
the rules or natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or whether the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence, if the conclusions or
findings be such as no reasonable person could have reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the
conclusion or findings and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of the case.”
18.
Having set out the legal position as above let us examine the facts of this case.
19.
The allegations in the show cause notice dated 08/06/2005 is that the workman along with one Mr.
Gopinathan blocked the movement of Mrs. Indu Thomas (MW 3) and Mrs. Deena K A (MW 4) near the SBI
ATM counter in the company premises. The workman was trying to unduly influence Mrs. Deena K A who
is likely to be a key witness in a domestic inquiry against Mr. M K Gopinathan. In that process the workman
abused the two lady employees uttering “you are crucifying Mr. Gopinathan for some time now – how many
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3629
times Mr. Gopinathan called Deena over telephone – You shall disclose everything in the inquiry”. Further
when the two ladies reminded the workman that it is a public place and issue if any can be discussed in the
Medical Center, the workman continued to abuse them and blocked their way for 5 minutes. The workman
obstructed Mrs. Indu Thomas from discharging her official duties. This action on the part of the workman
had caused insult, mental agony and strain to the two lady staff. The explanation given by the workman was
rejected and a charge sheet dated 11/07/2005 was issued to him. The charge sheet specifically refers to
misconduct mentioned in the certified standing orders at 29.14, 29.15 and 29.16 ie; surrounding, blocking the
workman inside the premises, threatening, intimidating or coercing any other employee or interference with
the work of any other employee in a manner inimical to Company’s interest making false accusations, use of
impolite or insulting language against any other employee.
20.
As already pointed out this court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence adduced before the Inquiry
Officer. However to examine whether there is any perversity in the finding by the Inquiry Officer, we will
have to examine the evidence in a limited way along with the Inquiry report. The Inquiry report is available
from page 1687 to 1768 of Vol. 4 of Exbt. M 1. The first 56 pages of this report is selective translation of the
deposition of witnesses in the inquiry. Having decided to translate the deposition of the witnesses, it is not
clear, why the Inquiry Officer resorted to selective translation instead of verbatim translation. This becomes
relevant when we look at the evidence of the witnesses as a whole. The most crucial and critical evidence in
the inquiry on the side of the management is that of Mrs. Deena K A (MW 3) and Mrs. Indu Thomas (MW 4).
The oral evidence of MW 3 is available at pages 174 to 215 and that of MW 4 is available at pages 216 to 302
of Vol. 1 of Exbt. M 1. An impassionate reading of the above depositions will clearly indicate that these
witnesses who were the original complainants retracted every word in the complaint dated 06/06/2005 (ME
3). The learned counsel for the Management argued that the withdrawal of the complaint vide letter dated
19/11/2006 (ME 6) will not in any way help the workman. He cited the decision in Sri Ganapathi Mills Co
Ltd vs Presiding Officer, 2002 (101) FJR 53. This is a case of violence committed by the workman in front
of the mill. On the basis of a compromise the victim withdrew the complaint. However he supported his
case before the Inquiry Officer at the time of evidence. In the present case the complainants withdrew the
complaint and also gave evidence against the complaint during the course of inquiry. In the case of S Tamilje
Selvan vs Registrar Tamilnadu Adminstrative Tribunal 2006 (2) LLN 272 it was held that the withdrawal
of the complaint was not relevant in the circumstance of that case as the charges were proved otherwise. In
the present case the complainants denied the contents of the complaint and also explained the circumstances
leading to the complaint. Ignoring all these evidence the Inquiry officer relied on Exbt. ME 3 complaint alone
and answers to some leading questions to arrive at a finding that the charges are proved. The allegations of
misconduct in the show cause notice reproduces the words such as blocking, surrounding, threatening,
intimidating, coercing etc; as available in the certified standing orders. However all the above allegations are
specifically denied by the complainants before the Inquiry Officer. As come out in evidence it can be seen
that Exbt. ME 3 is not a complaint given by MW 3 and MW 4 suo moto. It is a redrafted complaint at the
instance of MW 2.
21.
Coming to the show cause notice dated 08/06/2005, it can be seen that
1.
The first allegation is a statement of fact and will not constitute a misconduct.
2.
The second is that the workman blocked the movement of MW 3 and MW 4 near SBI ATM counter.
The blocking is specifically denied by both the witnesses.
3.
The third allegation is that the workman tried to unduly influence Mrs. Deena K A. The actual words
used by the workman is quoted in the charge memo i.e. “you shall tell the truth in the inquiry”. It is
not clear as to how this statement will constitute an undue influence?
4.
The fourth allegation is that the workman abused the two ladies. The above allegation is denied by
the ladies in the inquiry. Further the acts attributed to the workman and verbatim quoted in the show
cause notice cannot by any imagination be called an abuse in any connotation of the word.
5.
The fifth allegation is that the workman continued to block the ladies and continued to abuse them
when they suggested that the matter can be discussed in the Medical Center. This allegation is totally
rejected as false by both the ladies.
6.
The sixth allegation is that the workman obstructed Smt. Indu Thomas who was on duty. Smt. Indu
Thomas admitted in her evidence that she met the workman at the ATM counter when she was
proceeding to open the gas cylinder. The further allegation that the workman obstructed her from
doing her duty was denied by her.
7.
The seventh allegation is that the aforesaid acts caused insult, agony and strain to the two ladies.
This is denied by both the witnesses. Further they stated in the inquiry that giving the complaint
against the workman and redrafting the same as per the instructions of MW 2 had caused a lot of
mental agony and strain. The statement of Mrs. Deena K A is quoted by the Inquiry Officer in his
3630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
report to conclude that her discussion with workman caused her strain and agony.
22.
Without going into further analysis of evidence it can be safely concluded that an ordinary man of normal
prudence will not arrive at such findings and conclusions on the basis of available evidence on record.
23.
The workman also raised the issue of victimization and unfair labour practice. The workman is Secretary of
Cochin Refinery Staff Association which is a recognized Trade Union of the Management. In his evidence
the workman narrated in detail the actions that
he has taken against the management as a Trade union leader. He has also supported the same with
documentary evidence. The case of the workman is that Management was looking for an opportunity to fix
him. It is in this context that the allegation of the workman regarding the involvement of MW 2, Dr. John K
John and MW 7, Shibu Mani, Senior legal advisor becomes relevant. The workman fairly succeeded in
proving through AW 4, Smt. Gracy Mambilli that Dr. John K John had personal animosity against the
workman as he helped her in a case of harassment against Dr. John K John. Presence of MW 7 Sri. Shibu
Mani in the Medical Center along with MW 2 also leads to a reasonable doubt regarding his involvement in
the redrafting of the complaint given by MW 3 and MW 4. MW 7 is the Senior Law Officer who is a front
line Management representative dealing with Trade union issues. His presence along with MW 2 in the
Medical Center when the complaint was got redrafted sufficiently indicate the involvement of the
management in the episode. It is clearly on record that MW 2 is antagonized with the workman as he
supported the case of another employee against MW 2.
24.
In M/s Bharath Iron Works vs Babubhai Balubhai Patel, AIR 1976 SC 98, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that “inflicting a monstrous punishment which no rational person would impose will amount to
victimization. However “a proved misconduct is antithesis of victimization”. However the courts can infer in
appropriate cases where there is proof of victimization. In industrial relations as pointed out by Supreme
Court in Workman vs Williamson Mayor and Company, AIR 1982, SC 98 the ordinary meaning of the
word victimization as being the victim of unfair and arbitrary action shall be accepted.
25.
The allegation of the victimization is dismissed by the Inquiry Officer holding that there is no role played by
the Management in lodging of the complaint. This finding by the Inquiry
Officer ignored the evidence on record that the workman is a trade union leader of a recognized union, the
written complaint given by MW 3 and MW 4 is at the instruction of
MW 2, the complaint is again redrafted at the instruction of MW 2 and MW 7 to fit into the code of discipline
in the certified standing orders, the complaint is withdrawn by the complainants, the complaints and charges
against the workman were retracted by MW 3 and MW 4 before the Inquiry Officer and the evidence of AW 4
that MW 2 is inimical towards workman as he as a trade union leader helped her in a case against MW 2.
26.
It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Management that the penalty was imposed with the
permission of this court under Section 33 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act and subsequently this court in the
preliminary order in this ID also held that there is no irregularity and illegality in the conduct of the inquiry by
the Inquiry Officer. Hence no interference with the punishment is called for at this stage of the proceedings.
It is seen that the first order is issued without prejudice to the rights of the workman to put forward his
contentions in a reference in Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act. In the preliminary order in this ID, the
justifiability of the findings and the proportionality of the punishment is left open to be decided at the final
stages of adjudication. Having found that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and based on no
evidence this court is entitled to interfere with the final orders of the disciplinary authority.
27.
The learned counsel for the management also argued that since this is not a case coming under Section 11 A
of Industrial Disputes Act no interference with the finding of the Inquiry Officer is called for. He referred to
the following judgments
1.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs BMTC and State Transport Naukarara
Sangh 2011 (3) LLN 626 (Kar.).
2.
Gen Secretary, South Indian Cashew factories Workers Union vs Managing Director, Kerala
Sate Cashew Development Corporation 2006 (3) LLN 761
In both the above cases it was held that the Labour courts shall not interfere with penalties in cases
where Section 11 A is not applicable if the Inquiry is conducted in proper and fair manner and the findings
are on the basis of evidence. In the case of Workman of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India
P. Ltd. vs Management 1973 (1) LLN 278, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the eventualities under
which Labour court can interfere with penalties even in cases where sect 11 A is not applicable. As pointed
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3631
out in earlier paras the facts and circumstances of the present case falls within the four corners of the above
guidelines warranting interference with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the penalty imposed by the
Disciplinary authority.
Hence issue number -1 is answered in favour of the workman holding that the finding of the Inquiry
Officer is perverse and is based on no evidence.
Issue number 2
In view of the finding in issue number 1, the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a
punishment of withholding of 2 increments with cumulative effect is illegal and is required to be set
aside
Issue number 3
In view of the findings in 1 and 2 above the workman is entitled all consequential benefits.
Hence an award is passed finding that the action of the Management of BPCL – Kochi Refinery,
Ambalamugal, Kerala in imposing the punishment of withholding of 2 increments with cumulative effect vide
order dated 29/06/2009 on Sri. Surendran Nair is not justified and is set aside and he is entitled for all
consequential benefits.
The award will come into force one month after publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by him and passed by me on this 7th day of
May, 2019.
Sd/-
V.VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
- Nil
Witness for the Management
- MW 1 -08/11/2012 Sri. Tom.P.Roy
Exhibits for the union
-Nil
Exhibits for the Management
- M 1 -Enquiry file.
नई दली, 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ
. आ
. आ
. आ. . . . 858
858
858
858.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के !ीय सरकार
मेसस" यू मंगलोर पोट" &ट के /बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक4 और उनके कम"कार4 के बीच अनुबंध म िन6द7 औोिगक िववाद
म के !ीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म यायालय, ब गलूर के पंचाट (संदभ" सं:या 253/1997) /कािशत करती है
जो के !ीय सरकार को 14.05.2019 को /ा= >आ था।
[स. एल-45012/1/1991-आईआर(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 253/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s
New Mangalore Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14.05.2019.
[ No. L-45012/1/1991-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
3632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BANGALORE
DATED : 03RD MAY 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R No. 253/1997
Advocate for I Party : Advocate for II Party:
Mr. D.R. Vishwanath Bhat Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-45012/1/91-IR(Misc.) dated 16.07.1997 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 New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur, Mangalore in
denying promotion to Shri Jagannath Shetty to the post of Assistant Painter is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?”
1. Concerned workman is dead and his Legal Heirs are brought on record.
The claim was brought before this Tribunal in respect of the member of the New Mangalore Port Dock Workers Union,
namely Sh. Jagannatha Shetty. He was removed from service by the 2nd Party i.e, the Management of New Mangalore
Port Trust. The 2nd Party was reconstituted under Major Port Trust Act as New Mangalore Port Trust. The order of his
termination dated 23.03.1976 was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 7135/1976, same came to be
allowed vide order dated 19.08.1980. While quashing the termination order 2nd Party was directed to give all
consequential benefits to the workman, liberty was given to the 2nd Party to hold a fresh enquiry. Consequently the
workman was reinstated into service w.e.f 17.12.1980. Initially he was appointed as Mali cum Mazdoor on 15.12.1972;
another Mazdoor namely Sh. Kunhi Kannan was also appointed to the same post w.e.f 23.03.1973. After reinstatement
he was restored to his earlier position, in the same seniority. As he was entitled for continuity of service and
consequential benefits, the Management paid him back wages for the period 08.12.1975 to 12.12.1982. They did not
hold any more enquiry against him. Sh. Kunhi Kannan was re-designated as Helper (Painting) but the 1st Party was not
re-designated to that Post. On 04.11.1983 he was treated as Helper (Painting) i.e. almost 3 years after treating Sh. Kunhi
Kannan as Helper (Painting) who was much junior to the concerned 1st Party workman. During next promotion, instead
of promoting by restoring his senority, Sh. Kunhi Kannan was promoted as Assistant Painter w.e.f 08.01.1990. The
1st Party workman protested and brought this matter to the union, when the union took up the matter with the
Management nothing materialised. Hence, the for promotion to the post of Assistant Painter with all consequential
benefits etc.,
2. The claim is contested. It is stated by the 2nd Party that, the 1st Party workman was appointed as Helper (Painting)
w.e.f 11.04.1983 on adhoc basis pending approval of the amendment to the Recruitment Rules. In the year 1991, he had
completed 15 years of continuous service in the same grade and as per existing rules he was given promotion on personal
basis w.e.f 16.04.1991 to the next higher pay scale, though there was no change in his designation; Post of Helper
(Painting) was not a promotional post from that of Mali cum Mazdoor and that appointment of the said post of
Helper/Painter is through direct recruitment of the eligible candidate, even from those belonging to other cadres such as
Mali cum Mazdoor. Subsequently he was appointed as Helper (Painting) on adhoc basis w.e.f 11.04.1983 and was
regularised with retrospective effect i.e. from 11.04.1983. As per order bearing No. 7/18/90/Adm.6, dated 22.12.1993,
he was further promoted as Assistant Painter on regular basis w.e.f 05.11.1999. The seniority in the cadres of Mali cum
Mazdoor is not the criteria for appointment to the post of Helper (Painting); it is only the seniority in the grade of
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
New Mangalore Port & Dock
Workers Union, Market Building,
Panambur,
Mangalore – 575 010.
The Chairman,
New Mangalore Port Trust,
Panambur,
Mangalore – 575 010.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3633
Helper/Painter and the 1st Party workman also secured his promotion on the basis of seniority in the grade of Helper
(Painting).
3. On behalf of 2nd Party its Law Officer is examined and there is no rebuttal evidence, during pendency of the
proceedings the 1st Party workman died and his Legal Representatives are on record.
4. MW-1 has produced its Recruitment Rules /Ex M-1, Ex M-2 is the order dated 22.12.1991 whereby Helper (Painting)
including the 1st Party workman working on adhoc basis as Helper (Painting) on regular basis and they were brought into
the pay scale in the order of seniority/merit, Ex M-3 is the order dated 04.11.1999 whereby the Helpers (Painting)
including the 1st Party workman were promoted as Assistant Painter on personal basis on its pay scale. It is shown at Ex
M-1 the appointment to the post of Helper (Painting) was by way of selection of Mali cum Mazddor/ Safaiwal, the
workers working on adhoc as Helper (Painting) and they are appointed to the said post temporarily.
5. It has come in the affidavit evidence of MW-1 that, there is nobody by name of Sh. Kunhi Kannan working in the
cadre of Mali cum Mazdoor or Helper (Painting) or Assistant Painter under the 2nd Party. The 1st Party workman is
given all eligible benefits and he voluntarily retired on 30.06.2001 by settling all his dues once for all. He has not
challenged the orders at Ex M-2 and Ex M-3.
6. That being the factual position there is no existing Industrial Dispute as of now which needs to be resolved. Hence,
the following
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 03rd May, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ.
. आ.
. आ.
. आ. 859
859
859
859.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के !ीय
सरकार मेसस" भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के /बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक4 और उनके कम"कार4 के बीच अनुबंध म िन6द7
औोिगक िववाद म के !ीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म यायालय सं. 2, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ" सं:या 6/2011)
को /कािशत करती है जो के !ीय सरकार को 14.05.2019 को /ा= >आ था।
[सं.17011/5/2010-आईआर(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 16th May 2019
S.O. 859.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 14.05.2019.
[No. L-17011/5/2010-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU,Under Secy.
3634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
M. V. Deshpande
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 6 of 2011
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LIC OF INDIA
The Zonal Manager,
LIC of India, Western Zonal Office,
‘Yogakshema,’
Jeevan Beema Marg,
Mumbai – 400 021.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The General Secretary,
Vima Kamgar Sanghatana,
Mumbai Divn. - IV,
Gulastan Build., 2nd Floor,
Maharshi Karve Road, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. M.V. Damle, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. C.S. Dalvi, Representative
AWARD
Mumbai, dated the 8th April, 2019
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-17011/5/2010 – IR (M) dated 25.02.2011. The terms of reference given in
the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the action of the management of Lice Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai in not giving the arrear
payment to the temporary / Badli employee employed by the LIC of India on their Muster Roll during the
period 1.8.2002 to 31.7.2007, as per LIC Amendment Rules, 2005 (Wage Revision) is legal, just and proper ?
To what relief the temporary / Badli employees concerned are entitled to ?”
2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their
respective representatives.
3. The second party union has filed statement of claim Ex.5. According to the union, employees involved in this dispute
are temporary employees. They have been appointed as per the instructions laid down in temporary employment
instructions, 1993. These instructions are binding force.
4. According to them, union on behalf of badli / temporary employees wrote letters on 9.4.08 and 28.8.08 urging upon
the first party to look into the matter and pay them arrears but first party has not replied to the letters. As such non-reply
of the letters shows the attitude of the first party to pay the revised arrears of payment of wage revision towards badli /
temporary workmen as per circular dt. 8.9.05. Having failed to get solution to those workmen, union moved conciliation
officer by raising an industrial dispute on 18.9.08 and same ended in failure. Thus the union is asking for directing the
first party to give wage arrears of badli / temporary employees who were on the roll of LIC of India from 1.8.02 to
31.7.07 under Zonal office building as per Central office circular dt. 8.9.05 along with interest and cost.
5. The first party management resisted the claim by filing written statement Ex.8 contending therein that the workmen in
the present reference were not appointed by the first party under LIC of India (employment of temporary staff)
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3635
instructions. They were engaged by way of reference from the existing employees as casual labours / daily wages
employees. They were not issued appointment letters showing the salary scale. The payment of daily wages to workmen
was paid as per the instructions regarding minimum wages paid to the casual / daily wage labours from repairs &
maintenance a/cs. of the first party.
6. It is then contention of the first party that LIC of India Staff Regulations were initially framed by the corporation with
the approval of Central Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by section 49 (2) of LIC Act, 1956. The LIC Act, 1956
was amended by amending act 1 of 1981. Section 48 of LIC Act, 1956 was amendment and clause (cc) was inserted in
sub-section 2 of section 48. Similarly, sub section 2 (aa), 2 (bb) and 2 (c) were inserted. By virtue of these amendments
LIC Staff Regulation, 1960, rules framed there under assume statutory character. The terms & conditions of services of
class – III & class – IV employees of the first party was revised in the year 2005 vide LIC of India class – III & class –
IV employees (revision terms & conditions of service) amendment rules 2005. Clause – 26 of the said rules read as
follows:
“26. Temporary, Badli, etc. Employees
The revision does not apply to temporary, badli, etc. employees. However, where salary paid to temporary,
badli, etc. employees is equal to the salary at the minimum of the scale of the post in which such appointment is
made the difference may be paid on a request from such temporary / badli employees.
For removal of doubts, it is clarified that while determining the wages to be paid to the temporary employees
the graduation increments and transport allowance shall not be taken into account.”
7. As such since the workmen in the present reference were not appointed by the first party under LIC of India
employment and temporary staff instructions. They are not entitled to wage revision as per circular dt. 8.9.05 since
clause 26 of the said circular is not applicable to the workmen in the present reference. The first party has sought the
dismissal of the reference.
8. Following issues are framed at Ex.13. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1
Whether the temporary / Badli employees of LIC of India are entitled to
the arrears in payment for the period 1.8.2002 to 31.7.2007 as per the LIC
Amendment Rules 2005 ?
No
2.
Whether the action of the management in not giving the arrears to these
workmen for the above referred period is justified ?
Yes
3.
What relief the temporary / Badli employees concerned are entitled to?
No
4.
What Order ?
As per final order
REASONS
Issue No.1 & 2.
9. So far contentions go, it is the contention of the concerned workmen that they have been appointed as temporary
employees as per the instructions laid down in temporary employment instructions, 1993. As per these instructions,
panels of candidates selected for recruitment is to be provided. According to the recruitment instructions after offering
the appointment to the candidates in these panels to the extent of vacancies which are available the remaining candidates
can be considered for temporary employment as & when the need arises. So far temporary employment in the post of
class – IV are concerned, as soon as panels for recruitment of staff on regular basis to the post of class – IV is prepared
by the Divisional office after offering appointment to the candidates to the extent of vacancies which are available, the
remaining panel may be engaged branch-wise and these lists may be sent to various branches under the control of
Divisional office. The recruitment process is to be initiated as per temporary employment instructions, 1993 and
procedure is to be followed for the appointment of such employees who are satisfying the eligibility criteria for
recruitment of staff under the recruitment instructions through local employment exchange.
10. So now it is to be seen whether the concerned workmen have been appointed as per the instructions laid down in
temporary employment instructions, 1993. In this respect one of the concerned workmen Mr. Anant Dhamaji Karge has
admitted in his cross examination that he has not applied against any advertisement against recruitment. No salary slips
were issued to him. Payment was made against vouchers. His glaring admission shows that the concerned workman have
not come through employment exchange. It appears therefore that the appointment of the concerned workman was not as
per the instructions laid down in temporary employment instructions, 1993.
3636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11. Similarly, Ajay Patil the another workman has also admitted in his cross examination that his employment was not
through employment exchange but some of the employees of LIC told him that LIC was recruiting employees and
therefore he had been there. He also admits that no salary slip was issued to him and their pay was against monthly
vouchers. Considering his evidence also it can be said that the concerned workmen were not appointed as per the
instructions laid down in temporary employment instructions, 1993.
12. In this respect if we see the documents below Ex.14, it appears that the appointment letter was given to Umesh
mentioning therein that he has been appointed as temporary / Badli workman for a particular period and on particular
dates against temporary vacancy. The appointment order mentions about the dates on which he was asked to do the work
for 8 hours a day. The temporary appointment order of Vilas shows that he was also appointed on temporary basis on
particular dates from August ’03 onwards as per the details given in the order. It clearly appears that they were paid
wages on the basis of vouchers from the repairs & maintenance accounts of the first party. Obviously, it shows that the
concerned workmen were not issued appointment letters showing the salary scale and their payment of daily wages was
made as per instructions regarding minimum wages paid to the casual / daily wages labours from the repairs &
maintenance accounts of the first party. The documents on record clearly show that the concerned workmen were not
appointed under LIC of India employment of temporary staff instructions but they were appointed as casual labours.
13. Once we come to the conclusion that the concerned workmen were not appointed under LIC of India employment of
temporary staff instructions then clause – 26 of the rules does not apply to the concerned workmen especially when
clause – 28 of the rules which provides with the revision as per the terms & conditions of services of class – III and
class – IV employees in the year 2005, does not apply to temporary / badli employees.
14. Precisely, the Learned Counsel for the first party submitted that so far as concerned workmen’s claim is concerned,
benefit of clause – 26 of revision of terms & conditions of service amendment rules 2005 are not applicable to the
concerned workmen and they are not entitled to the claim payment of arrears of salary arising out of wage or otherwise.
15. Even then it is submitted on behalf of the concerned workmen that as per the order of Hon’ble H.C. in WP No. 760 /
2003, the concerned workmen shall be given preference if the first party have the work and intend the employ
employees.
16. In my considered view the submission is not acceptable since in this reference the schedule refers to the action of
management in not giving the arrears payment to the temporary / badli employees on their muster roll during the period
from 1.8.02 to 31.7.05 as per LIC amendment rules. When it has been shown that the concerned workmen were not
appointed as per the instructions laid down in temporary employment instructions, 1993 then claim as regards the arrear
payment to them is not legal and proper. As such the action of the management in not giving arrear payment to them is
legal and proper.
17. In view of this, I find that the concerned workmen are not entitled to arrear payment as per LIC Amendment Rules,
2005 and therefore the action of management in not giving arrears to them is justified. Above issues are therefore
answered accordingly as indicated against each of them in terms of above observations.
Issue No. 3 & 4.
18. In view of my findings to the above issues, the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief and hence the
reference is liable to be rejected. Thus, the order.
ORDER
The reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 08.04.2019
M.V. DESHPANDE,Presiding Officer
नई दली, 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ.
. आ.
. आ.
. आ. 860
860
860
860.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947(1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म$ के%&ीय सरकार मेसस' ऑयल
ए)ड नेचुरल गैस कॉरपोरेशन िलिमटेड के 0बंधतं2 के संब3 िनयोजक5 और उनके कम'कार5 के बीच अनुबंध म$ िन7द8 औोिगक िववाद म$
के%&ीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म %यायालय सं० 2, मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ' सं;या 14/2008) को 0कािशत करती है जो
के%&ीय सरकार को 14.05.2019 को 0ा= >आ था।
[सं. एल-30011/70/2007-आईआर(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3637
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 14.05.2019.
[No. L-30011/70/2007-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
M. V. Deshpande
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/14 of 2008
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF O.N.G.C.
The Dy. General Manager-IR,
ONGC, NSE Bldg.,
Kurla Bandra Complex,
Bandra, Mumbai – 400 051.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The General Secretary,
ONGC General Kamgar Sanghatana,
Flat No. 102, I Floor, Acme Harmony-I,
Poonam Nagar, Off: JVC Link Road,
Jogeshwar [E], Mumbai – 400 102.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. G. D. Talreja, Representative
FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 9th April, 2019
AWARD
1. T his is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-30011/70/2007 – IR (M) dated 06.02.2008. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
“1. Whether the workmen (as per the List attached) are actually deprived of the entitled privileges and benefits,
after having been in continuous service for the past 08 years & so ? If so, what privileges and to what other
advantages can the services of workmen be altered ?
LIST OF GARDEN LABOURS, ONGC, URAN
1.
Mr. Amit Arun Naik
2.
Mr. Sudhir Raghunath Naik
3.
Mrs. Manisha Govind Mali
4.
Mr. Prashant Kamlakar Patil
5.
Mrs. Yogita Yashwant Gharat
6.
Mr. Sachin Satyawan Mhatre
3638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Mr. Jitendra Sadanand Mhatre
8.
Mr. Shishir Prabhakar Mhatre
9.
Mr. Ashok Chandrakant Naik
10.
Mr. Jayesh Sashikant Padate
11.
Ms. Harshala Hareshwar Kathe
12.
Mr. Ranjan Shridhar Mali
13.
Mr. Santosh Vasant Gharat
14.
Mr. Mahendra Vasant Mhatre
15.
Mr. Nilesh Prabhakar Mhatre
16.
Mr. Nishant Shridhar Warik
17.
Mr. Mahesh Mahadev Mhatre
18.
Mr. Kalpesh Mahadev Mhatre
19.
Mr. Dattaram Pandurang Patil
20.
Mr. Balkrishna Tulshiram Mhatre
21.
Mr. Ashok Harishchandra Patil
2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. Union has filed application [Ex.25] that except one workman all other workmen have accepted the benefits of fair
wage policies and hence their names are deleted from the reference. Only one workman whose name is not deleted from
the reference is also not in employment of ONGC as a contract labour.
5. Hence infact all the workmen excepting one whose name is not in the employment of ONGC have accepted benefits of
fair wage policies and hence their names have been deleted. In respect of one workman whose name is not deleted is also
not in the employment of ONGC as a contract labour and hence in that circumstance Kamgar Union filed this application
for disposing of the reference on the ground that the dispute does not survive in respect of workmen concerned in the
reference.
6. First party ONGC has no objection for disposing of the reference.
7. Hence the reference is disposed of since no dispute survives in respect of concerned workmen in this reference. Hence
Order.
ORDER
Reference is disposed of since no dispute survives in respect of concerned workmen in this reference.
Date: 09.04.2019
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ.
. आ.
. आ.
. आ. 861
861
861
861.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के !ीय सरकार
मेसस" भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के /बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक4 और उनके कम"कार4 के बीच अनुबंध म िन6द7 औोिगक
िववाद म के !ीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ" सं:या 35/2011) को
/कािशत करती है जो के !ीय सरकार को 14.05.2019 को /ा= >आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/16/2010-आईआर(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3639
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s
Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14.05.2019.
[No. L-17012/16/2010-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/35/2011
Shri Mukul Fanniz,
S/o Shri K.D.Fanniz, Kile Andar,
Mahavir Marg, Lahoti Bhawan,
Vidisha(MP)
…Workman
Versus
Divisional Manager,
LIC of India,
Divisional Office, Jeewan Prkash,
60-A, Arera Hills,
Bhopal (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of April 2019
1. As per letter dated 3-5-2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-17012/16/2010-
IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Bhopal in discontinuing job as
Hamml in respect of Shri Mukul Fadniz w.e.f. 30-8-08 is justified? What relief, he is entitled to?”
2. After registering reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman appeared and filed vakalatnama but he never
filed any statement of claim and absented himself during course of the proceedings hence the reference was ordered to
proceed exparte against workman.
3. The employer filed Written Statement of defence wherein it was pleaded that the alleged workman was never in
engagement or employment of the employers in any capacity at any point of time. He was given some job/work on job
rates and was paid according to approved rates in the year 1994, thereafter no job work was also allotted to him.
4. In the affidavit of management’s witness, this pleading has been supported on oath which is unrebutted. Since the
workman has failed to file Statement of claim inspite of particulars given, the reference is bound to be decided against
the workman. Hence holding the action of management of Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Bhopal is discontinuing job
of the workman as hammal w.e.f. 30-8-2008 is justified. The workman is held entitled to no relief. The reference is
answered accordingly.
Dated: 16.4.2019
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दली, 16 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 862
862
862
862.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म$ के%&ीय सरकार मेसस' भारतीय
जीवन बीमा िनगम के 0बंधतं2 के संब3 िनयोजक5 और उनके कम'कार5 के बीच अनुबंध म$ िन7द8 औोिगक िववाद म$ के%&ीय सरकार
औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म %यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ' सं;या 47/2012) को 0कािशत करती है जो के%&ीय सरकार को
14.05.2019 को 0ा= >आ था।
[सं. एल-17012/29/2011-आईआर(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
3640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of
M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
14.05.2019.
[No. L-17012/29/2011-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/47/2012
Shri Rekhram Rakeshiya,
S/o Shri Sukhlal Rakeshiya,
R/o Behind Janta Vyayan Shala,
Katangi Road, Seoni,
Seoni (MP)
…Workman
Versus
Branch Manager,
LIC of India, G.N.Road,
378, Branch Seoni,
Distt. Seoni (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of April 2019
1. As per letter dated 13-3-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947,hereinafter referred by word ‘Act’ as per
Notification No.L-17012/29/2011-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Seoni in
terminating the services of Shri Rekhram Rakeshiya w.e.f. 31-10-2007 is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?”
2. In his statement of claim, workman has alleged that he was appointed as chowkidar/watchman in the branch office
Seoni of the employers from 25-8-05 and continued in service. Thus attained the status of regularization as permanent
employee in view of his standard standing orders. After discharging his services continuously for more than 2 years
satisfactorily, his services were terminated by the employers without giving any reason and without conducting enquiry
on 31-10-07. It is the case of the workman applicant that there was no misconduct alleged against him. No enquiry was
conducted against him before termination. After his termination, he raised a dispute firstly with ALC, Chhindwara where
he was advised to raise dispute with Central Government. Thereafter he raised a dispute before Conciliation Officer,
RLC(C)Jabalpur on 28-8-2011. After failure of conciliation proceeding, the dispute was referred to this Court for
adjudication. According to workman, he was not given any showcause notice, any retrenchment compensation before
termination hence his termination was violative of Section 25-F of ID Act, hereinafter referred as word “Act” because he
had completed more than 240 days of satisfactory and continuous service in the year preceding date of his termination.
Also, it was alleged that after his termination, employers have engaged other persons which is violation of Article 14 &
16 of the constitution. Accordingly the workman has prayed for declaration of his termination illegal and his
reinstatement with backwages and benefits.
3. Management has pleaded in their statement of defense that the workman was never appointed against any post of
vacancy hence he was not an employee of the employers. His engagement was under a contract for which he was paid on
monthly basis. Hence no question of termination of services or any enquiry to be conducted before his disengagement.
Since he was working under contract which expired as soon as specific work was over hence there was no violation of
Section 25-F of the Act in his disengagement. Accordingly it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the
workman.
4. In evidence, the workman filed copy of application i.e. 31-8-09 filed before District Collector Seoni, payment
vouchers and applications from 4-8-05 to 2-3-07 which are Exhibit W-1 to W-35 respectively because these papers were
admitted by management. Workman did not examine himself on oath rather he absented himself. Management filed
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3641
affidavit of its witness Sanjeev Kumar Manager, Industrial Relations. Workman did not avail opportunity for cross-
examination.
5. No document was filed by management. At stage of argument also, workman was not present. None appeared on his
behalf for argument. Learned counsel for management was present. Her argument were heard. Written argument also
have bee filed by management.
6. After perusal of record, in the light of argument, following points arise for determination-
(1) Whether the action of management of of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Seoni in terminating
the services of Shri Rekhram Rakeshiya w.e.f. 31-10-2007 is legal and justified?
(2) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
7. Point for Determination No.1-
The pleadings of parties wr.t. this point have been detailed earlier and reproducing them is not required. Admitted fact
between the parties is that the workman was engaged for the period as stated by him. Parties defer on the point whether
the workman was duly appointed or he was engaged under a contract. Workman has not examined himself nor has he
examined any witness in support of his claim whereas the management’s witness has stated that he was engaged time to
time on contract basis whenever work was required. There are some documents filed by the workman which are Exhibit
W-1 to W-35 which are admitted by management. These documents are payment vouchers from October 2005 to March
2007. Material vouchers are of the year receding his date of disengagement which is 31-10-2007. These vouchers are
Exhibit W-30 dated 5-10-2006, W-31 dated 4-1-06, W-32 dated 2-12-2006, W-33 dated 4-1-07, W-34 date 3-2-07 &
W-35 dated 2-3-07. According to these vouchers, there are payment of watchman/labor charge made to the workman.
Section 25-F requires to be reproduced here which is as follows:-
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the
workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice
has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess
of six months; and
(c)
notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
Reading of this section makes it clear that to get benefit of this section workman should prove that he was
in regular service/engagement for a period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his
disengagement. There is nothing on these vouchers or any of the vouchers to show that this payment was
made for work of whole month or any specific number of days. Even if it be taken that these payment
vouchers are payment of work of whole month, they do not prove continuous engagement of the workman
for a period of 240 days preceding date of his disengagement. Since the fact that workman was in regular
service/engagement of employers for a period of 240 days receding date of his termination/disengagement
is not proved. The disengagement without notice or compensation is held legal and justified.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
8. Point No. 2
In the light of finding w.r.t. Point No.1, the workman is held not entitled to any relief.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1)
The action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Seoni in terminating the
services of Shri Rekhram Rakeshiya w.e.f. 31-10-2007 is legal and justified.
(2)
The workman Shri Rekhram Rakeshiya is not entitled to any relief.
Dated: 15.4.2019
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
3642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ.
.आ.
.आ.
.आ. 863
863
863
863.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म के !ीय
सरकार मेसस" ि/Dम सीम ट लाइम टोन माइंस ऑफ ि/Dम सीम ट िलिमटेड के /बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक4 और उनके
कम"कार4 के बीच अनुबंध म िन6द7 औोिगक िववाद म के !ीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं 9म यायालय, जबलपुर
के पंचाट (संदभ" सं:या 96/2012) को /कािशत करती है जो के !ीय सरकार को 14.05.2019 को /ा= >आ था।
[सं. एल-29012/16/2012-आईआर(एम)]
डी०के० िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 863.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 96/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Prism Cement Lime Stone Mines of Prism Cement Ltd. and their workman, which was received by
the Central Government on 14.05.2019.
[No. L-29012/16/2012-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/96/12
Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey,
C/o Shri Shyam Kushal Pandey,
Mansa Telecommunication,
State Bank Road,
Ramanujgan, Distt. Ambikapur (CG)
…Workman
Versus
The Mines Manager,
Prism Cement Lime Stone Mines of Prism Cement Ltd.,
Village Manakahari,
PO Bathia, Distt. Satna (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of April, 2019
1. As per letter dated 30-8-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-29012/16/2012-
IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Mines Manager, Prism Cement Lime Stone Mines of M/S
Prism Cement Limited, Mankahari, Satna in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey,
Ex-Mining Mate vide order dated 2-6-2011 is legal and justified?”
2. In his statement of claim, it is case of workman that he was appointed as Assistant Mate with the employer company
and was confirmed on this point on May 2009. He was issued chargesheet on 15-3-2011 alleging disobedience of order
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3643
issued by Manager. He submitted his reply denying the allegations. Vide order of management dated 30-3-2011, he was
put under suspension and DE was instituted against him. He was issued notice of enquiry dated 8-4-2011. The enquiry
concluded on 25-5-2011. Enquiry Officer held the charges levelled against workman proved and on the finding of
enquiry, the disciplinary authority issued order of dismissal dated 2-6-2011. According to the workman, the enquiry
proceedings and punishment is bad in law on following grounds mentioned in para-13 of the claim as follows-
A. That the Enquiry Officer acted as prosecutor rather than a judge.
B. That the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry violating principles of natural justice.
C. That the relevant documents were not supplied to the concerned workman which has caused great prejudice
to him and on this count the enquiry is vitiated.
D. That the findings of enquiry officer are perverse and contrary to records.
E. That the disciplinary authority mechanically approved the findings of the enquiry officer and the order is
totally baseless.
F. That the findings of Enquiry Officer has passed the order with a pre-determined mind.
Accordingly the workman has prayed that the order of dismissal be set-aside and he be reinstated with all
backwages and service benefit.
3. The employer management has denied the allegations and claim with regard to illegality of the enquiry on following
ground-
A. It is not admitted that the enquiry officer acted as prosecutor rather than a judge. The entire record of the
enquiry is being submitted and the Hon’ble Court, after perusal of the enquiry record, would be satisfied
that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry as per legal procedure.
B. That the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by following principles of natural justice and it is wrong to
say that the enquiry officer conducted enquiry violating the principle of natural justice.
C. That the relevant documents were supplied to the concerned workmen as such no prejudice has been caused
to him and it is wrong to say that on this account the enquiry is vitiated.
D. That the finding of the Enquiry Officer are neither perverse nor contrary to records.
E. That the disciplinary authority, after applying his mind to the findings of the enquiry officer has approved
the same therefore the order cannot be said to be baseless.
F. That the finding of the enquiry officer has not passed the order with a predetermined mind. It is submitted
that the enquiry report is based on the documents/evidence submitted by the parties during the enquiry
proceeding.
4. Additionally it was pleaded that the Enquiry Officer was independent Advocate who conducted enquiry on principles
of natural justice giving sufficient opportunity to the workman to defend himself. Workman was supplied the copies of
documents and was given opportunity to cross examine management’s witnesses, he did avail opportunity and cross
examined the witnesses. Workman had obtained blasting helper training in limestone mines for 2 years. Thereafter he
appeared in mining mate certificate examination which he cleared. He was further imparted refresher training as blaster
helper. The worker was authorized as mining mate as per MMR 1961 under clause 2(6) and authorization was given to
him. This fact was admitted by the workman during enquiry. The charge against the workman was that he was directed
3644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for blasting work on 12-3-2011. He presented himself on the spot but did not work as per direction resulting the stoppage
of blasting work and huge monetary loss to the company as well loss in production. Thus the workman disobeyed the
orders of his superior and committed grave misconduct as per standing orders for which he was found guilty in enquiry.
It is also submitted that the punishment of dismissal is also not disproportionate in the light of proved charges and
doesnot warrant any interference. Accordingly it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
5. The workman filed documents ordersheets dated 11-4-2011, 23-4-2011, 27-4-2011,29-4-2011,2-5-2011, 16-5-2011,
11-5-2011, 25-5-2011, domestic enquiry dated 25-5-2011, standing order, appointment of enquiry officer dated 1-4-11,
domestic enquiry dated9-4-15, domestic enquiry proceeding dated 14-5-2011, DE notices dated 8-4-11, 30-3-11,
chargesheet dated 18-3-11, explanation letter dated 23-3-11,letter dated 27-5-11, order dated 2-6-11, evidence during
DE, documentary evidence by department & documents filed during DE. All admitted by management.
6. Following issues were framed by my learned predecessor on basis of pleadings vide his order dated 20-1-2015-
(1) Whether the Departmental Enquiry conducted against workman is legal and proper?
(2) Whether the misconduct alleged against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings?
(3) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal?
(4) If so, to what relief workman is entitled?
7. Issue No.1 was decided by my learned predecessor vide order dated 3-5-2017 holding the domestic enquiry against
the workman legal and proper. This order is part of this award.
8. After finding on preliminary issue No.1, both the parties were given chance to adduce evidence on other issues. None
of the parties preferred to adduce any evidence hence closing evidence, argument were heard by me. I have heard
argument of the workman who was present before me in person and Mr. N.K.Mishra learned counsel for employers.
Counsel for workman and management filed written argument also which is on record. I have gone through the written
arguments.
9. Point for Determination No.2- The charge against the workman is that on 15-3-2011, he was directed by the
Departmental Dy. Manager Shri Pankaj Kumar for doing blasting work which he disobeyed and refused to work. He did
not present himself at work place though he was under obligation to do the blasting work and comply the directions of
the departmental officer. Accordingly by disobeying the directions of superior officers, refusal of work and sitting idle at
work place is misconduct as defined under Section 17.1. The relevant provisions of standing orders are as follows-
(e)
Drunkenness, riotous or disorderly behavior in the establishment or conduct endangering the life or safety
of any person, intimidation, physical duress, or any act subversive of discipline whether along or in
combination with others,
(r)
gross negligence in work or gross negligence resulting in loss to the company.
(f)
refusal to work on any other machine or in any other section or department,
(y)
Habitual absence without permission or leave from the appointed place of work.
Hence the charges are covered under the head “Grave misconduct” as mentioned in the rules referred to above. There is
on record the statement of management witness Ashutosh Mishra recorded during the enquiry. He has proved the
attendance of the workman on relevant dated 15-3-2011. Copy on record to show that the workman was present on that
date. Another witness Anup Kumar Bannerjee Dy. General Manager has stated during the domestic enquiry, copy of his
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s”B 4] 1941
3645
statement is on file. His statement shows that workman is duly qualified for blasting work. This witness has proved the
documents regarding his training and refresher training and has further stated that after retirement of Nathulal, Pankaj
Kumar Blasting Incharge moved an application for one blaster in the mines which was forwarded by this witness to
General Manager Mines and the workman Santosh Kumar Pandey was directed for blasting. This witness has proved the
request letter and direction to the workman for blasting job, copy of documents on file. This witness has further proved
the communication sent by Shri Arvind Dhakad to Shri Gopal Sharma, General Manager (Personal and IR) on 18-3-2011
wherein it was mentioned that the workman did not do blasting work inspite of being present at the site. This witness has
further stated in his statement that prior authorization has already been given to the workman for blasting work vide
memo dated 2-2-08, 3-11-09 & 28-1-2010. This statements along with the documents mentioned in the Enquiry Report
on file establish the charges. Accordingly the charges against the workman levelled against him during the domestic
enquiry are held proved. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
10.
Point for Determination No.3- It has been submitted by the workman that the punishment is disproportionate to
the charges proved. It has been submitted that before this alleged misconduct, the workman had discharged his duties
with all sincerity and integrity and was never awarded in adverse remark or punishment during his whole tenure. The
impugned dismissal order is on file, perusal of which shows that the Disciplinary Authority also perused the service
record of the workman which is clean according to him and holding the charges proved as grievous misconduct defined
in IE(SOs)Act as referred to above for which even extreme punishment of dismissal from service may also be awarded
point arises is when there is nothing on record that before this Court to show that the workman was given any adverse
remark or any punishment during the period prior to the charges levelled and keeping in view the fact that in the
dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, there is a simple vague observation regarding uncleanliness of
service record of the workman leads to the inference that the punishment awarded for one time misconduct is shockingly
dis-appropriate to the charges requiring interference by this Court. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
11.
Point for Determination No.4- In the light of finding that though the charge of grave misconduct are proved
against the workman, but the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, keeping in view the observations and
finding made earlier, following punishment will meet the ends of justice in my view-
“ Setting aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 2-6-11, workman be reinstated with the punishment of
holding of his 2 increments on 2-6-2011 with cumulative effect. Since there is nothing on record to show that
the workman has been out of job from the date of his dismissal till date, he is held not entitled to backwages but
entitled to other benefits like seniority etc.” Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
12.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Mines Manager, Prism Cement Lime Stone Mines of M/S Prism Cement
Limited, Mankahari, Satna in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Ex-Mining Mate
vide order dated 2-6-2011 is not justified.
(2) Workman Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey is held entitled to be reinstated without backwages but with
sincerity and other attendant benefits with punishment of withholding his two increments available to him
on 2-6-2011 with cumulative effect.
Dated: 24.4.2019
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
3646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 864.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
esllZ ctkt ,fy;kat ykbQ ba';ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&17012@23@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The management of
M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
14.05.2019.
[No. L-17012/23/2012–IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/1/2013
Shri Prabhat Kumar Agrawal,
S/o Shri Lalla Babu Agrawal,
Res. At Near Chandni Talkies,
Satna, Distt. Satna (MP)
… Workman
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer,
Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd.,
GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerawada,
Pune- 411006.
The Dy.Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Tiwari Tower, above Axis Bank,
Rewa Road, Satna (MP)
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of April 2019
1. As per letter dated 7-12-12 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.’Act’, 1947 as per Notification No.L-
17012/23/2012-IR(M) .The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the ‘Act’ion of the management of Dy.Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Satna in terminating the services of Shri Prabhat Kumar Agrawal, Ex-Customer Support Executive
w.e.f. 17-12-2011 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. According to statement of claim, workman was initially appointed on the post of customer support executive
w.e.f. 30-9-08 on vacant post after following prescribed procedure and completed one year of satisfactory
service therefore was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 26-9-09. He was not doing any supervisory or
managerial work hence he comes under the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of ID ‘Act’. He
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3647
continuously worked from 30-9-08 to 17-12-2011 during every period of 12 calendar months for more than 240
days but was terminated from service without assigning reason w.e.f. 17-12-2011 vide order dated 17-12-2011.
No permission from Appropriate Government was also obtained by employers before terminating his services.
The termination letter, with a cheque of one month salary was sent to him. He refused to receive or encash
cheque but received the termination letter on 2-1-2012. The employers are industrial establishment within
Section 25 of ID ‘Act’ and since his services were not terminated on ground of misconduct hence his
termination is covered as retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the ‘‘Act’’ which was done by the
employers without complying mandatory provisions of Section 25-F,M,G,H of ID ‘Act’ as well Rule 77 & 78
of ID(Central) Rules 1957. So many workmen junior to the applicant workman are still in employment of the
management. It was further alleged that the termination of the workman amounts to victimization hence unfair
labor pr’Act’ice and is illegal retrenchment. Workman is unemployed after his termination and could not get job
despite best of his efforts. Accordingly, the workman has prayed setting aside of his termination and his
reinstatement with back wages and benefits.
3.
In their Written Statement of defense, employer management has pleaded that being Insurance
company registered in Indian Company’s ‘Act’, the employer company is not covered as ‘industry’ as defined
under Section 2(j) of the ‘Act’ hence provisions of the ‘Act’ are not applicable in this case. It was admitted that
workman was appointed as per terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter dated 30-9-08 issued
by the employer company and accepted by the applicant workman. Hence, his appointment was under civil
contract between the parties which is binding on both the parties. Applicant estopped from raising any dispute.
It was also pleaded that as the nature of work assigned to the workman he was unable to fulfill the business
targets of the company assigned to him and accepted by him. His work and conduct was found highly
unsatisfactory as he had continuously failed to achieve the required business targets. In view of the said
position, the company issued him performance review letter dated 5-5-2011 calling him to improve his
performance but he did not improve his business performance hence another performance review letter dated
17-6-2011 was issued to him calling upon him to improve performance and achieve the business targets as
achieved to him but still he did not improve himself and 3rd performance review letter dated 25-7-2011 was
issued calling upon him to improve business performance and achieve targets. All these letters were received
and acknowledged by the workman but he never improved his business performance and never achieved
business targets assigned to him hence last and final performance review letter dated 9-9-2011 was issued
directing him to improve his business performance and achieve business targets failing which company would
initiate such action for consistent non-performance and non-achievement of targets. This letter was also
received and acknowledged by the workman but still he did not improve his work and failed to achieve business
targets hence left with no option, the employer company terminated his services vide letter dated 17-12-2011 in
compliance with the provisions of law and contract of appointment with immediate effect by payment of one
month salary towards notice pay which is Rs.10290 by cheque which was received by him on 15-12-2011 hence
his services were terminated according to law and terms of his appointment. His case does not fall in the
category of illegal termination and retrenchment. Accordingly, it has been pleaded that the reference be
answered against the workman.
4.
At evidence stage, the employer company filed appointment contract with salary slip which were
admitted by the workman hence marked Exhibit M-1 and M-2 respectively. Employer company further filed
copies of performance review letters which is not admitted by workman hence required to be proved but these
documents were not proved by the company.
5.
Workman has filed employment agreement, pay slip, confirmation letter, termination letter- all copies
which are admitted by management, they are Exhibit W-1 to W-4 respectively. Workman examined himself on
oath. Mr. Sanjay Dixit Regional Head of the employer company was also examined on oath by the
management.
6.
I have heard argument of learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the record. On perusal of
record in the light of rival argument, following points arise for determination in the case-
(1) Whether the applicant is a workman under ID’Act’?
(2) Whether the action of the management of Dy.Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Satna
in terminating the services of Shri Prabhat Kumar Agrawal, Ex-Customer Support Executive w.e.f.
17-12-2011 is legal and justified?
(3) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
3648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. Point for Determination No.1-
Before entering into any discussion, statutory provisions required to be referred as follows-
Section 2(j) ) “INDUSTRY” MEANS ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, UNDERTAKING, MANUF’ACT’URE
OR CALLING OF EMPLOYERS AND INCLUDES ANY CALLING, SERVICE, EMPLOYMENT, HANDICRAFT,
OR INDUSTRIAL OCCUPATION OR AVOCATION OF WORKMEN;
Section 2(k)-
(k) “industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between
employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labor, of any person;
Section 2(ka)-
1[(ka) “industrial establishment or undertaking” means an establishment or undertaking in which any industry is
carried on: Provided that where several activities are carried on in an establishment or undertaking and only one
or some of such activities is or are an industry or industries, then,- (a) if any unit of such establishment or
undertaking carrying on any activity, being an industry, is severable from the other unit or units of such
establishment or undertaking, such unit shall be deemed to be a separate industrial establishment or
undertaking; (b) if the predominant activity or each of the predominant activities carried on in such
establishment or undertaking or any unit thereof is an industry and the other activity or each of the other
activities carried on in such establishment or undertaking or unit thereof is not severable from and is, for the
purpose of carrying on, or aiding the carrying on of, such predominant activity or activities, the entire
establishment or undertaking or, as the case may be, unit thereof shall be deemed to be an industrial
establishment or undertaking;
Section 2(s)-
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment
be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this ‘Act’ in relation to an industrial
dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not
include any such person- (i) who is subject to the Air Force ‘Act’, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army ‘Act’, 1950
(46 of 1950), or the Navy ‘Act’, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer
or other employee of a prison, or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees
per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]
Section 2(A)-
2A. Dismissal etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute.- Where any
employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any
dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other
workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
Admitted between the parties is the fact that the employer company is an Insurance Company. The
admitted pay slip Exhibit W-2/M-2 shows that the applicant was getting basic salary of Rs.3100 per
month. Also, it is admitted that the applicant has not been working in a supervisory or managerial
capacity hence it is established that the applicant is a workman as defined under Section 2(s)(iv) of ID
‘Act’.
8. As regards the contention of employers that they are not industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the ‘Act’,
this provision has been reproduced as above. Keeping in view the admitted fact that the employers are engaged
in the activity of promotion of sales or business hence there is nothing on record to show that the employers are
not an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the ‘Act’. Accordingly, it is held that the employers are
‘industry’ as defined under Section 2(j) of the ‘Act’and the applicant is workman as defined in the ‘Act’.
9. As regards the contention of the employers that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute. This is also
unacceptable in the light of provision contained in Section 2(k) & 2(A) referred to above.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3649
Point for determination No.1 is answered accordingly.
10. Point for Determination No.2-
As it has been held earlier that the applicant is a workman and employers are industry also that the present
dispute regarding termination of services of applicant is an industrial dispute, now the question arises whether
the termination of services of the workman can be classified as retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo)&
2(bb) of the ‘Act’.
11.
Section 2(oo) & 2(bb) of ID ‘Act’ are as follows-
Section 2(oo)- “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any
reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not
include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a
stipulation in that behalf; or
Section 2(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the on-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman
on the ground of continued ill-health;
In the case in hand, the services of the workman has been terminated. His services have not been terminated
either on his retirement or non-renewal of contract of employment of continued ill-health hence termination of
his services in the case in hand will come in the category of retrenchment as defined in the ‘Act’. The principle
of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case State Bank of India versus N.Sundaramoney-
1976(1)SCC822. Now it is established that the present dispute is an Industrial Dispute and termination of
services of workman is retrenchment, it remains to be seen whether the termination has been done complying
the related provisions as mentioned in the statute or not.
12.
As alleged by the workman, his termination is against the mandatory provisions of Section 25-G,H,
Section 25-F,M& Rule 77 as well 78 of ID(Central) Rules 1957 hereinafter referred to as “Rules”. These
provisions are being reproduced as under:-
Section 25-F-
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has
been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer
until- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period
of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen
days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
Section 25-G-Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in
the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall
ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to
be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
Section 25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the
employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an
opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and
such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
Section 25M. Prohibition of lay-off.- (1) No workman (other than a badli workman or a casual workman)
whose name is borne on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies shall be
laid-off by his employer except 3[with the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as
may be specified by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to
as the specified authority), obtained on an application made in this behalf, unless such lay-off is due to shortage
of power or to natural calamity, and in the case of a mine, such lay-off is due also to fire, flood, excess of
inflammable gas or explosion]. An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the
3650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employer in the prescribed manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended lay-off and a copy of such
application shall also be served simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the prescribed manner.
(3) Where the workmen (other than badli workmen or casual workmen) of an industrial establishment, being a
mine, have been laid-off under sub-section (1) for reasons of fire, flood or excess of inflammable gas or explosion,
the employer, in relation to such establishment, shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of
commencement, of such lay-off, apply, in the prescribed manner, to the appropriate Government or the specified
authority for permission to continue the lay-off. (4) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (3) has been made, the appropriate Government or the specified authority, after making such enquiry
as it thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned
and the persons interested in such lay-off, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons for
such lay-off, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in
writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order shallbe communicated to the employer
and the workmen. (5) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been
made and the appropriate Government or the specified authority does not communicate the order granting or
refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such application
is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of
sixty days. (6) An order of the appropriate Government or the specified authority granting or refusing to grant
permission shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (7), be final and binding on all the parties concerned and
shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order. (7) The appropriate Government or the specified
authority may, either on its own motion or on the application made by the employer or any workman, review its
order granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (4) or
refer the matter or, as the case may be,
cause it to be referred, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made to a Tribunal
under this sub-section, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date of such reference. (8)
Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where no application for permission under
sub-section (3) is made within the period specified therein, or where the permission for any lay-off has been
refused, such lay-off shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the workmen had been laid-off and the
workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if they had not been laid-
off. (9) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate
Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the establishment or
death of the employer or the like, it is necessary so to do, by order, direct that the provisions of sub-section (1), or,
as the case may be, sub-section (3) shall not apply in relation to such establishment for such period as may be
specified in the order.] 1[(10) The provisions of Section 25-C (other than the second proviso thereto) shall apply to
cases of lay-off referred to in this section.
Rule-77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen:-The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the
particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated to be arranged according to the seniority of their
service in that
category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the
premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.
Rule-78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen:-(1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are
to be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of
the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of those vacancies by
registered post to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefor, to the address given
by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter : Provided that where the number of such vacancies is
less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall be sufficient if intimation is given by the employer
individually to the senior most retrenched workmen in the list referred to in rule 77 the number of such senior most
workmen being double the number of such vacancies: Provided further that where the vacancy is of a duration of
less than one month there shall be no obligation on the employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual
retrenched workmen:
1[Provided also that if a retrenched workman, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the employer,
does not offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation sent to him by the
employer under this sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies that may be filled on any
subsequent occasion.] (2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the employer shall also
inform the trade unions connected with the industrial establishment, of the number of vacancies to be filled and
names of the retrenched workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule: Provided that the
provisions of this sub-rule need not be complied with by the employer in any case where intimation is sent to
every one of the workmen mentioned in the list prepared under rule 77.
13. According to the workman, he was first appointed on 30-9-08, was confirmed on 26-9-09 and was in
continuous employment of his employers since the first date of his appointment till date of termination of his
services which is 7-12-2012. These allegations have not been denied from the side of employers in their Written
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3651
Statement of defense rather it has been admitted by them. Hence, it is held proved that prior to his termination,
workman had been in the service of the employer for a period of 240 days preceding the year of the date of his
termination. This fact is further established on statement of the workman given before the Court. It is admitted
between the parties that the appointment of the workman was regulated by an employment agreement filed from
both the sides and admitted between the parties. According to this service agreement, 3 months in writing or
basic salary of 3 months in lieu of notice will be given in case the workman is terminated from service. The
relevant provision reads as follows:-
After Confirmation-
It is understood and agreed that this engagement may be terminated by either party by giving to the other at any
time, notice in writing of three months. The termination shall take effect at the end of such notice period.
Termination with immediate effect may be made by either party by paying to the other an amount equivalent to
three months of basic salary in lieu of notice. In the event the termination with notice is at the instance of the
employee the company at its sole discretion reserves the right to relieve the employee on any date during the
notice period in full or part without paying any amount towards the balance notice waiving the notice period in
full or part without paying any amount towards the balance notice period.
At the sole discretion of the company your services are liable to be terminated without any notice or salary in
lieu thereof in the event of your involvement in any serious misconduct misdemeanor or any offence which may
or may not be directly connected with the business of the company.
Upon the termination of your employment, you will return to the company all documents and any other articles
and/ or copies thereof belonging to the company which may at the time be in your possession.
Admitted is the fact that workman was confirmed in service by the employers on 26-9-09 after successful
completion of his probation. According to the employers, workman consistently failed in discharging of his
duty with sincerity and responsibility and deliverables. His work was found highly unsatisfactory as he failed to
achieve the required business targets in respect of which he was issued 3 performance review letters details
mentioned in the judgment earlier and when he failed to improve his business performance and achieve business
target consistently even after receipt and acknowledgment of performance review letters, his services were
terminated. Workman has denied any such assessment or any such failure on his part to achieve the business
target in his rejoinder. He further alleged that he was never issued any show cause notice or any performance
review. Photocopy of this alleged performance review, though filed by management surprisingly have not been
proved by its witness for the reasons best known to its employers. In such factual scenario, this Court is
constraint to hold that the ground regarding termination of his services taken by the employers cannot be held
proved only by a bare statement of the Manager who does not care to prove the performance review letters. It is
not disputed that any notice before retrenchment was not issued to workman. Accordingly, it is held that the
termination of the present workman is against the provisions of ID ‘Act’ and is bad in law.
Point for determination No. 2 is decided accordingly.
14. Point for Determination No.3-
In view of my finding in point No.1 & 2 and keeping in view that the date of termination is not very old and
there is no evidence that the workman is in other engagement, ends of justice will meet if workman is reinstated
to his post but without back wages.
Point for determination No. 2 is decided accordingly.
15. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Dy.Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Satna in
terminating the services of Shri Prabhat Kumar Agrawal, Ex-Customer Support Executive w.e.f. 17-12-
2011 is illegal and unjustified.
(2) The management is directed to reinstate workman in service but without backwages.
Dated : 12.4.2019
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
3652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 865.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
esllZ vkbZchih ds- fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1055@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&30012@1@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 865 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1055/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2 Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
management of M/s IBP Co. Limited and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
14.05.2019.
[No. L-30012/1/2003–IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer.
ID No.1055/2005
Registered on:-20.09.2005
Sh. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Gopal, H.No.144,
Near Model High School, Saingarh, Gurdaspur.
…Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager, IBP Co. Ltd., Chandigarh and another
…Management
AWARD
Passed on:-07.05.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-30012/1/2003-IR(M) Dated 24.04.2003, under clause (d) of sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of the IBP Co. Ltd., representated through the Regional Manager, IBP
Co. Ltd., 1st floor, tel Bhavan, Plot No.6/a, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh. Ashwani
Kumar S/o Sh. Madan Gopal without complying with the provisions of 25-F of the ID Act, in not regularising his
services in terms of provisions of CL(R&A)Act, 1970, employed through a depot contractor viz. Sh. Joginder
Singh, C/o M/s Shingari Filling Station, Pul Number-5, Sujanpur, Pathankot, w,e,f, 01.04.2000 was just, fair and
legal? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed his statement of claim with the
averment that he was appointed as a Clerk w.e.f. 01.04.1982 at IBP Company at Pathankot as Delivery Challan-cum-
invoice receipt clerk. He has been allowed to continue work directly with the company upto 30.06.1993 thereafter the
company with a clever mind in order to adopt the unfair labour practice introduced the alleged contractor M/s Shingari
Filling Station, IBP dealer, Pathankot and allowed workman to continue the same work which he was working since
01.04.1981. The services of the workman abruptly terminated orally w.e.f. 01.04.2000 without any notice and charge
sheet in violation of the principle of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, without giving any retrenchment compensation as well as wages in lieu of notice. He has completed more than 240
days of working in preceding 12 months from the date of termination of his services. The workman was not concerned
with the alleged contractor M/s Shingari Filling Station, IBP dealer, Pathankot, in order to prove the assertion made by
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3653
the workman. He has submitted the documents regarding his service to the management as Delivery challan-cum-invoice
Annexure-A, Sales Tax Registration Annexure-B, various collection accounts pay in slips, drafts etc. Annexure-C,
statement showing the DCRs duly issued by the workman, Annexure-D Stock and Thruput Report Annexure-E, form
IBP of different dates Annexure-F and other work performed during his tenure as Annexure-G, Annexure-H, Annexure-
I, Annexure-J with the claim statement. It is submitted that the workman served the IBP company as Delivery Challan-
cum-Invoice receipt clerk at Pathankot w.e.f. 01.04.1981 to 30.06.1993 for a long period of service and that too in a
perennial nature of work. The workman/claimant in its original claim petition has also stated that his services were used
by the said contractor from 01.07.1993 to 30.06.1995. It is therefore prayed that workman/claimant be reinstated with
continuity of service by the respondent-management with continuity of service and all consequential benefits including
regularization of service as he is till date gainfully unemployed.
2.
Respondent-management has filed its written statement dated 16.11.2005 and subsequent written statement
dated 28.02.2006, alleging therein that present reference is not maintainable being without jurisdiction and liable to be
dismissed as the subject matter does not fall within the ambit of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
petitioner/workman has never been appointed by the management of IBP Company Ltd. as a Clerk nor any appointment
letter was issued to the petitioner by the answering respondent-management as such, there was no relationship of master
and servant/employer and employee between the management of IBP Company and the petitioner. The petitioner vide its
demand notice dated 10.06.2001(Annexure-1) has made the IBP Company Ltd., Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat
Petroleum Corporation and Joginder Singh, Depot Contractor as parties and had categorically stated that he was
appointed as a Clerk from 04.04.1981 under the respondent no.2 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, Pathankot, through its
Senior Depot Manager and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation. The workman has never stated that he is the employee of
the answering respondent-management of IBP Company Ltd. In fact, there was no privity of contract in regard to any
matter whatsoever between the claimant and the answering respondent-management. Admittedly, the claimant/petitioner
has been appointed by the proprietor of M/s Shamghari Filling Station, IBP Dealer, G.T. Road, Sujanpur, Pathankot,
District Amritsar as respondent-management had entered into the agreement with M/s Shamghari Filling Station, IBP
dealer, Pathankot, for collection of indents for the requirement of petroleum products from the dealers vide agreement
dated 01.09.1993 filed as Annexure-2 with the written statement. The petitioner/claimant provided his services in lieu of
that he had been paid by the contractor. Copy of another agreement dated 01.09.1998 for appointment of contractor has
been enclosed as Annexure-3. The answering respondent has no administrative and supervisory control over the
petitioner/claimant and was paid by the contractor. The present reference have to be dismissed as the petitioner has failed
to implead the aforesaid contractor and petitioner has deliberately with ulterior motive has not made the contractor has
party to the case. The stand taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal is against the facts alleged in demand notice
placed before the Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, Jammu. Since the workman was not in the
employment of the answering respondent therefore, the question of terminating his service has not arise and completion
of 240 days does not arise as such there was no violation of any of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the
respondent-management. It is also alleged that the contractor provided service which includes action of respondent-
management for the requirement of petroleum products from the dealer and deposited such payments in the account of
the answering respondent-management with Canara Bank after execution of the said indents and the contract received for
onward submission to the office/officers of the answering respondent-management. In view of the position explained
above, it is prayed that claimant/petitioner never worked with the aforesaid management from 04.04.1981 to 30.06.1996
as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
3.
In support of his claim, workman Ashwani Kumar has examined himself and filed his affidavit Ex.WW1 and
has proved the documents placed on record along with claim statement Annexure A to Z and also relied on photocopy of
the letter dated 08.06.2000. During the cross-examination, this witness has accepted that he was neither employed
through Employment Exchange nor any letter was issued regarding his employment by the management. He has
accepted in his cross-examination that he was engaged by the management-company. He has accepted the suggestion
given by the management-counsel that he was engaged by the contractor Sh. Joginder Singh, Proprietor of M/s Shangari
Filling Station, IBP dealer, since July 1993. He has also accepted that it is true that since July 1993, he was paid by M/s
Shangari Filling Station as he was taking the work from him. This witness has further accepted that he has placed the
record/documents pertaining to the year 1993 onwards. He has also admitted that it is true that the contractor had
engaged him as a Clerk. This witness has further admitted that the contractor was getting work from him as per the
contract he had entered with the management. This witness has accepted that he has mentioned in the affidavit that
officer used to supervise his work. Thus, the cross-examination of this witness by the management-witness had
demolished basic structure of the workman that he was engaged by the management IBP Ltd. since 04.04.1981 and
rendered his services till 30.06.1993. Legally admission is the best evidence for any facts as is envisaged under Section
58 of the Evidence Act. Workman has also examined Sh. Paras Ram as his witness, who filed his affidavit Ex.A2 but his
evidence does not serve useful purpose for workman as the facts alleged by him during the cross-examination is ample
proof that he did not know about the relation of workman with the management as well as contractor. According to this
witness, the workman was engaged by Joginder Singh contractor, Proprietor of M/s Shangari Filling Station, IBP dealer,
3654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in 2001. According to this witness, the contract was engered with the contractor in the year 2000. This witness has
narrated that the management IBP started keeping the employee in the year 2001. Thus, the evidence given by this
witness is of no use.
4.
Respondent-management IBP Company
Ltd. has examined witness Sh. S.N. Shukla, Chief
Manager(P&A)NR, Noida, UP who has submitted his affidavit Ex.M1 along with documents marked M-1 to M-3. This
witness has stated that IBP company ltd. have merged with Indian Oil Corporation in the year 2007 and workman was
never worked with the management because he was the employee of the contractor M/s Shingari Filling Station,
Pathankot. This witness has narrated that contractor Joginder Singh, proprietor of M/s Shingari Filling Station was
terminated after the year 2000. This witness has accepted that he has no personal knowledge about the contract entered
into between the management and contractor. This witness has accepted the copy of delivery challan-cum-invoice and
stock challan filed by the workman. Thus, nothing material is brought on record by this witness regarding the
relationship of workman with the management. Management has also examined Sh. Vishal, Manager(ER), Marketing
Division Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. who has filed his affidavit Ex.R1 and Annexure R2. During the cross-examination,
this witness has stated that workman used to work in the department on behalf of M/s Shangari Filling Station, IBP
dealer. This witness has also alleged that he is not aware with the fact that IBP has entered into under the Contract
Labour Act. R2 is a letter sent by the management IBP company ltd. to M/s Shangari Filling Station, IBP dealer,
regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement.
5.
I have heard the oral arguments of Sh. S.S. Meelu, learned counsel of the workman as well as Sh. Paul S.
Saini, learned counsel of the management and perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties counsels
carefully.
6.
Learned counsel of the workman has submitted that the workman has joined the respondent on 04.04.1981 as
Delivery Challan-cum-Invoice receipt Clerk and served in that capacity till his retrenchment 01.04.2000. It is also
submitted that subsequently claimant’s name was transferred on the roll of alleged contractor of respondent-management
M/s Shingari Filling Station, IBP Dealer, Pathankot from 01.07.1993. It is also contended that since induction as a Clerk
w.e.f. 01.04.1981 the workman had rendered his services as Delivery challan-cum-invoice receipt clerk with the
respondent-company. It is also submitted that work and duties given the same from the beginning to the
retrenchment/verbal termination without giving any notice, any charge-sheet in utter violation of principle of natural
justice as well as mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also submitted that the alleged
contractor Joginder Singh, proprietor of M/s Shingari Filling Station, was not a licenced contractor as such, respondent-
management who had also not taken licence for employment of labour through contractors had taken services against the
provisions of the Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition)Act 1970. Learned counsel of the workman has vehemently
argued that service of the workman was taken in utter violation of the Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition)Act 1970
and by legal implication, workman will be deemed to be re-employed by the respondent-management for all purposes.
Learned counsel has argued that the documents filed by the workman are indicative of the fact that he served throughout
his service directly under the supervision and control of the respondent-management company. Learned counsel has
placed reliance to the case of The Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh and other, AIR 1999
Supreme Court, 1160, Steel Authority of India Ltd.(supra), Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. vs. Shamin
Mirza, reported as (2009) 1 SCC(L&S) 70 as well as judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s HMM
Infra Limited and others vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and other CWP No.25578 of 2013 decided on
24.12.2015 and Balwinder Singh, vs. Industrial Tribunal Patiala and others CWP No.1500 of 2014 decided on
07.04.2016.
7.
Per contra, learned counsel of the management argued that claimant is neither workman nor appointed by the
respondent-management for the work of Delivery challan-cum-invoice receipt clerk. It is also contended that there was
no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and management as such, respondent-management has
no liability towards the workman. It is also contended that being the employee of the contractor, if any liability occurs, it
is between workman/claimant and contractor under whom he served during the employment period who has not been
made party by the workman in spite of the name specifically mentioned in the reference itself. Learned counsel of the
management has also submitted that workman has utterly failed to submit any documents before the contract entered into
between the management and contractor Joginder Singh, proprietor of M/s Shingari Filling station, Pathankot.
8.
The first contention regarding the claimant is that whether he comes within the definition of workman as is
defined in Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I may mention that claimant was appointed as Delivery
challan-cum-invoice receipt clerk as per his claim petition and affidavit submitted before the Tribunal. In plain words the
claimant was performing his duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post
requiring him to perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(S) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:-
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3655
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service,
the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a
workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any
distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the
plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person
employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on
fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”
Thus Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workmen also does not make any distinction
between full time or part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in plain language of
Section 2(S) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing
whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a
casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above
ruling, in my considered opinion the claimant herein admittedly falls within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section
2(S) of the Act.
9.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing 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 by the management before the engagement of the contractor dated
01.07.1993 has not been stated in the claim petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding the
payment of wages, salary, letter of appointment or anything likewise by the respondent-management from 01.04.1981
upto 30.06.1993. Similarly, workman Ashwani Kumar has not mentioned anything regarding the mode of payment of
wages, salaries etc. in his affidavit. Thus, this basic feature for holding the relationship of employer and employee is
totally lacking not in the pleading but also in the evidence submitted by the workman. In this connection, learned counsel
for the workman has contended that payment of salary was subject to the control and supervision of the management and
virtually it was paid by the management as is alleged by the witness Ashwani Kumar during the course of cross-
examination by the management. I am not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel of the workman as nothing
has been mentioned in pleading/claim petition as well as affidavit submitted by the witness in support of the claim
petition. It is also pertinent to mention that nothing is on record in the form of documentary evidence that the workman
was directly paid by the management except Annexure 1 dated 20.07.1984 and 11.02.2000 which relates to the expenses
incurred by the workman amounting to Rs.500/- and salary of December, January 2000 amount Rs.4,000/- It is Annexure
1 dated 11.02.2000 which reveals that cheque was issued in favour of M/s Shingari Filling Station. Thus, it does not
proved that workman was directly paid by the respondent-management. Similarly Annexure 1 dated 20.07.1984
amounting to Rs.500/- expenses which has been compensated by the respondent-management but on the basis of the sole
document, it could not be inferred that it was the management who was directly paying the salary to the workman. Thus,
on this issue, safely, it can be inferred that there is nothing on record to prove the factum of payment of salary by the
management.
10. Secondly, so far as, the question of controls and supervision is concerned. Claimant has stated that he worked under
the supervision of the official of the company namely S.P. Roy. The question remains to be seen whether the supervision
of management amount effective control. 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
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.”
3656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 complete control and
supervision. The management control includes the authority of dismissal, taking of disciplinary action and continuity of
service etc. Claim petition filed by the claimant is mum on this issue and the claimant has not mentioned any specific
averments in his affidavit regarding the appointment, authority of dismissal or taking of disciplinary action by the
management. There is nothing on record to prove that it is the management who grants his leave or has authority to take
any disciplinary action. I am of the considered opinion, that mere saying of control and supervision by S.P. Roy,
regarding the work as alleged by the claimant witness may not be called as effective and absolute control. Such control is
being emphasised to control the work of the management for a specific work inefficient manner done by the management
in the establishment.
12. Learned counsel of the workman while placing reliance on the documents submitted by the workman would contend
that there are sufficient documentary evidence to prove that workman was directly employed by management in the year
1981. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention towards carbon copies of current account pay slip dated
03.06.1992 and 04.06.1992 annexed as Ex.WW2/1 and WW2/2. Learned counsel of workman has argued that these two
papers are related before the introduction of alleged contractor Sh. Joginder Singh. w.e.f. 01.07.1993. Undoubtedly, these
two papers are related away back of the agreement entered into management & contractor. Contrary to this, learned
counsel of management argued while drawing my attention towards original signature of workman on the slips by saying
that workman has made his signatures subsequently as remaining all the figures and entries are in the carbor copy of
original except the signature of the workman reflecting that signature is made subsequently. It is further contended that if
these papers were prepared by the workman in original then his signatures should be on original pay slip instead of the
carbon copy annexed as Ex.WW2/1 and WW2/2l. Contention of the management counsel appears to be true as workman
has failed to produce any single documents which have been prepared by him from the year 1981 upto 01.07.1993 i.e.
the date of entry of contractor. Besides this, workman has filed more than thirty papers prepared after 01.07.1993 upto
his termination/retrenchment. Learned counsel of the workman could not explain the position as to how workman could
not file some documents prepared from the year 1981 upto 01.07.1993 while he was allegedly working with the
management directly. I am of the considered opinion that if workman would have been directly employed before 1993
by the management then he should be in possession of several documents prior to 1993 as he is in possession of more
than thirty documents after the year 1993. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel of workman counsel, in my
considered opinion has no force.
13. Learned counsel of the workman placing reliance in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. The Secretary,
Municipal Employees’ Union & Ors., has submitted that the alleged contractor Joginder Singh, proprietor of M/s
Shingari Filling Station has not valid licence to supply the labours/workers to the management and the management has
got no licence to that effect also. It is not disputed that the workman was employed through M/s Shingari Filling Station
since 01.07.1993. Question remains to be seen whether the alleged contractor Joginder Singh was a duly licenced
contractor under the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Respondent-management has not placed on
record any document to prove that he was duly licend contractor to supply the workman/claimant as well as other
workmen to the respondent-management. In fact, respondent-management has not filed even the copies of
contracts/agreements entered into between the respondent-management w.e.f. 01.07.1993.. The documents filed by the
respondent-management is in the form of letter addressed to the contractor Joginder Singh, proprietor of M/s Shingari
Filling Station, mentioning the work assigned to the contractor and mods of its execution. Thus, evidence and arguments
placed by the respondent-management is not supported by any documents relating to the agreement entered into between
the respondent-management and the contractor. Legally speaking if there was no employment between the workman and
the respondent-management and workman had been paid to work under premises of the contractor, it was the duty of the
respondent-management to maintain the prescribed register and records pertaining to the contractor’s labour as per
provisions of Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970(in short CLRA). The management being the
principal employer was legally responsible for the liability as envisaged under Section 29 of the Act and in terms of
Rule 75 of the Rules framed thereunder. The management has not produced any record being maintained in case of
management denying the relationship of employer and employee which could have been considered in the light of the
documentary evidence as well no such record available for their consideration before the Tribunal. Thus, I accept, it
clearly established by application of law relationship of employer and employee between the management and
claimant/workman. I am not convince with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the management that
number of workers were below 20 engaged by the aforesaid contractor under the aforesaid contract for the year 1995 to
2000. Therefore, there was no requirement under the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970(in short
CLRA) either for jurisdiction or for any licence by the aforesaid contractor. The arguments could not take the place of
pleading or evidence as per established legal proposition. Hence, in the absence of pleading and evidence to that extent
in written statement nullify the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of management.
14. Equally settled is the position of law that when relationship of employer-employee stands proved between the
parties, even by legal implication then onus will shift upon the employer/management to show that the workman had not
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3657
worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year or that the services of the claimant was terminated in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. It is a specific case of the workman/claimant that he was engaged as Delivery challanb-cum-
invoice receipt clerk on 01.04.1981 and he worked as such till his termination on 01.04.2000 when his services were
illegally terminated.It is not disputed that management has not issued any notice for his termination or in lieu of notice,
one month salary was given to him prior to the termination of his services by the management. Learned counsel of the
management contended that at the time of alleged termination, the workman was working under M/s Shingari Filling
Station as such, management is not required to give any legal notice or compensation in lieu of one month notice, salary
to the claimant/workman. To my mind, management ought to have examined the alleged contractor namely Joginder
Singh for substantive piece of evidence whether alleged contractor has issued any notice or has conducted preliminary
enquiry regarding the conduct and working of the claimant before his retrenchment or termination. It is observed that
once the so called contractor was not a licenced contractor under the Act, the inevitable conclusion is that had to be
reached was to the effect that so called contract system is a mere camouflage, smoke screen and disguised in exercise in
almost a transparent veil which could be easily be pierced and the real contractual relationship between the principal
employer on the one hand and the employees on the other could be clearly visualised. Similarly in the case of Steel
Authority of India Ltd.(supra) which is a decision by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, it has been held
that on issuance of probibition under the notification under Section 10(1) of the CLR Act which prohibits employment of
contract labour if the contract is not found to be genuine but mere a camouflage so called contract labour will have to be
treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in
the establishment concerned and if necessary be relaxing the condition.
15. Going through the above factual and legal scenario and on the strength of principal of preponderance of probability
regarding the appreciation of evidence on record, I am of the opinion that workman has at least proved that he was
working with the management since 01.07.1993 even on the role of contractor Joginder Singh, proprietor of M/s
Shingari Filling station, under the contract which is not genuine but shame and camouflage just to avoid the liability of
the management arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
16. Coming to the case at hand, I am of the view that punishment of terminating service of Sh. Ashwani Kumar without
complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a clear violation of law
enumerated therein. Hence, unjust, unfair and illegal and workman is liable to be reinstated in the light of the judgment
relied by the learned counsel of the workman namely M/s HMM Infra Limited and others vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Ambala and other CWP No.25578 of 2013 decided on 24.12.2015 and Balwinder Singh, vs. Industrial
Tribunal Patiala and others CWP No.1500 of 2014 decided on 07.04.2016. But, it is pertinent to mention that there is
nothing on record to prove the date of birth of workman as he has not mentioned his age in claim petition as well as in
his affidavit filed in evidence. Consequently, if it is presumed that he was employed in the year 1981 as is alleged in the
claim petition by the workman himself at the age of 20-22 years then he will be at the age of 58-60 years at present,
which is normally the age of superannuation in any establishment. In such circumstances, there cannot be any order or
reinstatement in the light of the judgment(supra) relied by the workman-counsel and awarding of lump sum
compensation which will be the end of justice. Considering the length of service of the workman/claimant with the
establishment/contractor and his deprivation of the job over the years elsewhere in my considered view, lump sum
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice in lieu of reinstatement. In result, respondent-management is
directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the workman as compensation within 2 months from the notification of the award failing
which the said amount is payable @ 8% per annum with liberty to recover the amount from the contractor i.e. M/s
Shingari Filling Station. This award is accordingly passed.
17. The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as
required under Section 17 of the Act.
A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 866.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
esllZ Hkkjrh; foekuiÙku izkf/kdj.k ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2005½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&11011@79@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
3658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 866.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
09.05.2019.
[No. L-11011/79/2004–IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW
DELHI.
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 32/2005
Date of Passing Award- 25th March, 2019.
Between: The General Secretary, Workmen as represented by,
Indian Airport Kamgar Union,
WZ-216, Gali No. 16, Hastsal Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
… Workmen
Versus
The Chairman,
Airport Authority of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi- 110037.
…Management
Appearances:-
Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,
For the Workman.
(Advocate)
Shri Digvijay Rai,
For the Management.
(Advocate)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer i.e. the management of M/s Airport Authority of India, and its workman/claimant herein, under
clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-
11011/79/2004-IR(M) dated 13.04.2005 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the Industrial Dispute raised by Indian Airport Kamgar Union against the management of Airport
Authority of India over reinstatement/regularization of service of S/Sh. Manjit Singh and Rabindra Kumar Das
Justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman are entitled?”
Being noticed the claimants as well as the management filed their claim statement and written statement respectively. On
behalf of the claimants it has been stated that having come to know about the vacant post of Junior Office Assistant in
the Airport Authority of India both the workmen had submitted their application and bio-data. As per the recruitment and
Promotion policy of corporate office in National Airport Division of the AAI, both the claimants/workmen submitted
their application. Whereas the claimant/workman Rabindra Kumar Das employee of National Textile corporation
(W.B.A.B and O) Orissa Cotton mills had applied through his previous management alongwith no objection certificate
the claimant/workman Manjit Singh Had submitted his bio-data directly. Both the workmen were called for a skill test
and interview by the management. Rabindra Kumar Das was appointed as Junior Office Assistant on 13th June 1995 and
Manjit singh was appointed as Junior Office Assistant on 27th June 1995 by the management of AAI as they satisfied all
the requisite eligibility criteria for such appointment. Initially they were paid remuneration at par with the regular
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3659
employees of the management in the post of Junior Office Assistant. But during that period they were not paid Pro-rata
ex-gratia/productivity linked incentive. Repeated request made by the workmen for their legitimate dues perhaps irritated
the management. Suddenly the management without affording showcause, reduced the wage of the workman
retrospectively from 1st September 1995 and this retrospective order was passed in February 1996. As an effect of this
order the previous salary drawn by the workman which was equal to minimum of the time scale of Rs 950-
1500+allowances drawn by their regular counter-parts in the category of Junior Office Assistant in AAI, was reduced to
Rs 92/- per day. This was not even in the line of minimum wage prescribed by the government of NCT Delhi. Not only
that the excess payment made between Sep 1995 to Feb 1996 were also recover at the rate of Rs 600/- per month from
the salary paid in March 1996. Though the workmen were working for more than 5 days a week and the nature of their
work was similar to the permanent counter-part, discrimination was caused in respect of their pay and allowances. The
workmen thus, ventilated their grievance to the management through the Union i.e. Indian Airport Kamagar Union
demanding equal pay and allowance with the permanent employees from the date of respective employment. They also
demanded that having completed 90days service in AAI they are entitled to equal pay for equal work and for having
worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year are also entitled to regularization of their services with the
management. While the matter stood thus, the management in order to harass the workmen terminated the service of both
the workmen w.e.f. 1.04.1997. Though the workmen had worked till 15.04.1997 no remuneration was paid to them for
that period. From 16.04.1997 to 25.04.1997 though the workmen had reported for work, they were not taken to work by
the management.
The other grievance of the workman is that by completing more than 240 days in a calendar year they were entitled to
regularization of service. The management at the time of termination neither served termination notice nor paid the
retrenchment compensation or one month salary in lieu of notice in gross violation of provision of section 25-F of the ID
Act. The workmen than approached the Labour Commissioner where a conciliation proceeding was taken up. On failure
of the conciliation proceeding the Appropriate Government made a reference to this tribunal for adjudication of this
dispute.
The management in its written statement has taken a plea that (IAAI) International Airport Authority of India and
National Airport Authority (NAI) were merged to form Airport Authority of India (AAI). For such merger an expert
committee was constituted in June 1995. The purpose of the committee was specific and the time limit of the function of
the committee was also specific. In order to render ministerial and logistic assistance to the committee, temporary
appointment were made. In that process both the workmen were appointed as casual workers to work as junior office
assistant on daily wage basis and the wage was paid to them under the minimum wages act 1948 as per the order of
Government of NCT Delhi.
The expert committee submitted its final report on 31.03.1997 and on that day stood wound up. The service of the person
appointed as casual workers for the committee including the present workmen also came to an end w.e.f. 31.03.1997
when the work of the committee was completed. Thus, all the persons appointed to work for the committees were paid
their remuneration vide order No. A-12024/04/95-EH dated 25.04.1997. It has been admitted by the management that the
workmen were paid wages as per the Minimum Wages Act from time to time. Initially they were paid remuneration in
the time scale prescribed for the Junior Office Assistant of AAI. But the nature of work of the permanent employees was
totally different from the present workmen. When this mistake surfaced steps were taken for recovery of the Excess
payment and there after payment were made on daily wage basis. While denying the claim of the workman that they
were appointed against regular vacancy, following due procedure and that person junior to the workmen were absorbed
against regular vacancy the management has stated that the engagement of these workmen was co-terminus with the
tenure of the expert committee. They being casual workers the provision of section 25-F need not be complied. It is also
the stand taken by the management that the workmen were fixed term employees which was known to them and they
cannot claim regularization in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnatak
vs. Uma devi.
On this rival pleading the following points emerge for adjudication.
1. Whether the workmen Rabindra Kumar Das and Manjit Singh were appointed against regular
vacancies of the management.
2. If their services were terminated illegally by the management.
3. If the workman are entitled to reinstatement/regularization of service.
4. To what other relief the workman are entitled to.
The workmen examined Rabindra Kumar Das as WW1 and Manjit Singh as WW2. They also proved the documents in a
series of WW1/1 to WW1/15 and WW2/1 to WW2/6 which include the applications submitted by the workman for their
engagement , the bio-data, certificate of qualification and the absentee statement for drawal of monthly remuneration and
the vouchers showing payment to the workman on monthly basis. On behalf of the workmen the General Secretary of the
Indian Airport Kamgar Union has also been examined to prove the espousal. On the contrary the management examined
its witness Shri Praveen Kumar the Assistant General Manager to rebut the Stand of the workman that they were
3660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
engaged against regular vacancies. By filing photocopies of the documents relied upon this witness proved the same in a
series of MW1/1 to MW1/17.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the workmen submitted that the workmen were made victims of unfair
Labour practice. Though they were appointed against regular vacancies of Junior Office Assistant and initially salary
was paid to them in the times scale pay of Junior Assistants of AAI, subsequently that was revised to daily wage and
excess payment was recovered. Not only that their names were reflected in the Muster roll only for the 2 months i.e.
March 1996 and June 1996. The other documents like Muster Roll have been withheld by the management though
several applications were made for production of relevant documents. Not only that the management neither issued
appointment letter nor the termination letter to the workman. Though they had worked continuously for a period of 90
days for the management and also 240 days of work in a calendar year making themselves eligible for regularization, the
management ignored the same and terminated their services illegally.
In reply argument the Ld. A/R for the management submitted that the workmen were appointed for a fixed term as casual
workers to assist the expert committee. The Tenure of their service was co terminus with the tenure of the expert
committee. They being casual workers, there is no statutory obligation on the part of the management to follow the
provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. He also argued that in view of the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble
Supreme court in the case of State of Karnatak vs. Uma devi, the present workmen cannot be absorbed against the
permanent vacancy.
FINDINGS
POINT NO. 1
Though both the workmen and the General Secretary of their association testified in the proceeding, no documentary
evidence has been adduced to show that the workmen were appointed against the permanent and regular vacancy.
Workmen Rabindra Kumar Das had admitted during cross examination that he came to know about the vacancy from the
notice board of the AAI. He also admitted that during the relevant time the AAI has its own rules and regulations for
recruitment of the base level post. Though the workman has stated that he was subjected to skill test and interview by the
management, no evidence to that effect has been adduced. Similarly the workman Manjit Sing has stated that initially he
submitted his bio-data and subsequently submitted his application. He is unable to produce personal copy of the
application and bio-data received by the official of the AAI.
The management has admitted that these 2 workmen were engaged as casual workers to assist the expert committee and
for the service rendered by them remuneration was paid. It is also admitted by the management that initially they were
paid salary in the time scale of the Junior Assistant and such payment was made for the period from September 1995 to
February 1996. When this came to the knowledge, from March 1996 to April 1997 that till the date of termination of
their services, payment was made on daily wage basis as per the government Delhi notification according to minimum
wages Act. This has been admitted by workmen Rabindra Kumar Das and Manjit Singh. Rabindra Kumar Das as WW1
has further admitted that he never made any representation when his remuneration was reduced from time scale to daily
wage. This implies that the workman had sufficient knowledge about his casual employment on daily wage basis. The
workmen had further admitted that in the expert committee they were working alongwith regular employees. But they
never demanded the benefits what those regular employees were getting at that time. On the other hand the witness
examined on behalf of the management stated that to facilitate merger of IAAI and NAI to form AAI the expert
committee was constituted and some extra hands were recruited on casual basis to assist the committee. The witness also
stated that at different point of time the workers union demanded regularization of casual workers but that was not
considered by the management. He strongly denied during examination that these workmen were not engaged against
regular post and their engagement being temporary for a fixed term, came to an end when the expert committee wound
up its assignment. While denying the alleged unfair labour practice in payment of minimum wage, this witness stated
that the workmen were never discriminated in respect of the wage. This witness Shri Praveen Kumar examined on behalf
of the management was cross examined at length but nothing substantial was elicited to conclude that the present
workmen were appointed against regular vacancies. In absence of documentary evidence the oral testimony of the
witnesses in this regard cannot be accepted as convincing evidence. Hence it is held that the workmen were appointed for
a fixed term as casual workers to assist the expert committee and their engagement came to an end when the committee
wound up its assignment on 31.03.1997. The evidence of the management witness also shows that all the remuneration
due to the workman were paid to them vide letter dated 27.05.1997 marked as N. Hence, this tribunal has no hesitation to
conclude that on termination of the employment of the workmen, all the dues payable to them were released. It is also
held that the workmen were appointed against the casual vacancies for a specific purpose and time. This point is
accordingly answered in favour of the management.
POINT NO. 2
In the pleading the workmen have stated that all of a sudden on 16.04.1997 their service was terminated by the
management and at the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay, or termination compensation, were paid
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3661
which violates the mandatory provision of section 25-F of the ID Act. In reply the management has stated that the
workmen being casual employee there is no need for compliance of section 25-F. However, it has been stated that all the
dues and wages payable to them were cleared. Thus, it is admitted by the management that no termination notice, notice
pay etc were paid to the workmen. The Ld. A/R for the workmen by placing reliance in the case of Delhi Cantonment
Board vs. CGIT & Others reported in 129(2006)DLT 610 submitted that section 10 and 25-F are to be complied in
case of termination, whatever the category or the name given to the workmen. The Ld. Counsel for the management
counter argued that the judgment referred supra was in respect of probationers whose service was temporary and does
not apply to casual workers.
Schedule 1 of the Industrial employment central rule 1946(Model Standing Order) defines different categories of the
workmen which distinguishes a casual workmen whose employment is of casual nature from a probationer appointed
provisionally against permanent vacancy. In the case of Delhi Cantonment Board referred Supra Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi while observing that there is no distinction between permanent employees and a temporary employees as
probationers further came to hold that section 25-F is required to be followed. Any violation of section 25-F will have
the effect of holding the termination illegal. The Hon’ble Court also held that the workmen though appointed temporarily
had completed 240 days of work in the preceding calendar year, their termination for none compliance of section 25-F is
illegal. The facts of that case is distinguishable from the case in hand as the present workmen were appointed as casual
worker for a time bound project and their employment ended on completion of the project. Hence it is held that section
25-F was not required to be complied by the management as claimed by the workmen.
The other stand taken by the workmen is that they had completed 240 days of work in the preceding calendar year and
thus, had acquired the status of permanent employees. Their termination is thus, illegal. The management has disputed
that the workmen had worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a preceding calendar year of their termination.
During cross-examination attention of WW2 was drawn to his wage payment voucher, were he admitted that for the
period December 1996 January 1997 and March 1997 he had worked for some extra days and proportionate wage was
paid to him. But for the remaining months he had not worked for more than 21 days in a month. The same was the
statement of witness Rabindra Kumar Das elicited during cross examination. The burden of proving 240 days work in a
calendar year being on the workmen, in this case they have miserably failed to discharge the said burden. Thus, the stand
taken by the workmen that having worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year their termination was illegal is held
devoid of merit. This point is accordingly answered.
POINT NO. 3
The Ld. A/R for the workmen argued much on the legal rights of the workmen to be absorbed permanently with the
management. He submitted that the post of junior office Assistant is permanent in nature and management has recruited
persons every year to fill up those posts. There is also a departmental circular for filing of the base level post of junior
office assistant from among the person working in public sector undertaking with 10 year experience and by direct
recruitment of graduate. Workman Rabindra Kumar Das had offered his candidature with 10 year experience from a
public sector and Manjit singh being a graduate had applied for the post. They were selected through Skill Test and
interview. Thus, their appointment cannot be held as through back door.
The Ld. Counsel for the management raised serious objection about the eligibility of these workmen. He questioned the
eligibility of these workmen who were a fixed term casual employees never appointed against regular vacancies. He also
raised objection regarding their selection and appointment procedure. During course of argument he also drew the
attention of the tribunal to the fact that one of the casual workers standing in the same footing of the workmen was
reemployed against another casual vacancy and she had filed a writ before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for his
regular absorption but the Hon’ble High Court refused the claim. To support his contention he has relied upon the case of
Pinaki Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2009)5 SCC193 and submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred supra have discussed the principle decided in the case of State of
Karnatak vs. Uma Devi and held that when engagement was made for any casual work under the project the same does
not amount to regular recruitment. The posts held by such recruitees being purely casual and not against any cadre post
and they having not been appointed following the recruitment rules of the department cannot claim regularization.
In the instance case both the workmen while testifying as witnesses have admitted that at the time of their initial
engagement they were never informed that the appointment is against permanent vacancy. They have also admitted that
after being paid on the time scale of junior office assistant for few months their remuneration was change to daily wage.
They have also admitted that from the beginning they had ample knowledge about their engagement for a temporary
period on casual basis. Not only that though the workmen are clamming about their selection through a skill test and
interview, there is no document to support the said plea. On the contrary they have admitted that AAI has its own Rules
for recruitment to base level post and they were not selected through the said procedure. Hence while following the
principle decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma devi and Pinaki Chatterjee referred supra, this
tribunal is of the opinion that the workmen having not been recruited through the procedure of recruitment and since
3662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointed for a time bound project cannot be equated with temporary workers to be made permanent on availability of
vacancy in regular cadre. Hence it is held that workmen are not entitled to reinstatement/regularization of service.
POINT NO. 4
It is evident on record that the workmen were paid all their dues at the time of termination and letter to that effect was
issued to them on 25.04.1997. Hence, it is held that the workmen are not entitled to the claim as advanced in the claim
petition. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is dismissed as without merit and the reference is accordingly answered. Copy be supplied to
the parties and the record be consigned in the record room.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 867.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
esllZ vt; baVjizkbtst] dkWUVªDVj vkWQ vkbZth,y ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 02] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
04@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&30012@28@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 867.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
management of M/s Ajay Enterprises, Contractor of IGL and their workman which were received by the Central
Government on 10.05.2019.
[No. L-30012/28/2008–IR (M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW
DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 04/2009
Date of Passing Award- 26th March, 2019.
Between: Shri Pawan Kumar, C/o IGL (CNG)
Shramik Sangh, 118,
Kishan Ganj Mkt.
Old Rohtak Road.
New Delhi-110007.
… Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
IGL, IGL Bhawan,
Plot No. 4, Community Centre, Sector-9,
R.K. Puram.
New Delhi- 110066.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3663
2.
M/s Ajay Enterprises,
533, Air Force Naval Ent. Society,
CGHS Ltd., Plot No. 11, Sec-7,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri J.R Maurya,
For the Workman.
(Advocate)
Shri Anurag Ranjan,
For the Management.
(Advocate)
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing between
employer i.e. the management of IGL, IGL Bhawan, and its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section
(1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L- 30012/28/2008-IR(M) dated
29.01.2009 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of management of M/s Ajay Enterprises, a contractor of IGL, New Delhi in terminating the
services of Shri Pawan Kumar Saini w.e.f. 05/02/2007 is just and legal? To what relief the workman is entitled
and from which date?”
Being noticed all the parties appeared. Through their respective A/R
The averment of the workman as per the claim statement is that on 14.01.2006 he was appointed as a technician for IGL,
but it is not known how his service was connected with management No.2 i.e. M/s Ajay Enterprises New Delhi. He was
posted at Okhla Mor CNG station and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 4931/-. During the tenure of his service he had
never given opportunity to his employer of complaint. The management No. 1 and 2 were not providing the legal
entitlements to its workers and as such the workman on behalf of himself and others was often raising objection and
demanding issue of appointment letter payment of leave salary overtime allowance, ESI and PF Facilities etc. On the
allegation of the workman some action were taken by the ESI and PF authorities against the management. Being
aggrieved and with an intention of taking revenge on 05.02.2007 his service was terminated illegally. Before such
termination no Domestic Inquiry was conducted nor any termination notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to him.
With such assertion the workman has stated that his termination from service by the management i.e. Ajay enterprise is
illegal and he being an employee of IGL is entitled to reinstatement to service with all service benefits and back wages.
Being noticed the management No. 1 IGL and management No. 2 Ajay Enterprises entered appearance on 24.08.2009
and took several adjournments for filling of Written Statement. At that juncture the management No. 1 filed the Written
Statement denying employer employee relationship between the workman and management No. 1. Added to that
management No. 1 filed a petition under O1R10 of the CPC praying deletion of its name from the proceeding since
Appropriate Government forwarded the reference for adjudication of the dispute between the workman and management
No. 2. However that petition is pending for consideration.
The management No. 1 in the Ws denied its relationship with the workman and thereby denied its liability to comply the
demand of the workman.
Management No. 2 filed a separate Written Statement refuting all the allegation leveled by the workman. The specific
stand of the management No. 2 is that he is a contractor having a proper license from the government under the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act)1970 and engaged in providing manpower. It had a contract with IGL the
principal employer for providing manpower to, its different Gas Station. Contract of the management no. 2 with
management No. 1 is effective since 2006. This workman was engaged in service in February 2006 as a technician and
posted in the Gas Station at Okhla Mor. He was an adamant person and in the habit of disobeying the instruction of the
superiors. On several occasions he was warned for such misconduct but no fruitful result was obtained. One day he
unauthorizedly took Rs. 4000/- from the sale proceed and the matter being reported by other employees a showcause
notice was issued. He did not receive the showcause notice but made be fund of the money. He was thus, placed under
suspension. But the workman refused to accept the suspension order. On the contrary he made several correspondence
with the Managing direction of IGL making false and frivolous allegation. On an inquiry, those were found to be false
and another showcasue notice was issued to him. This management has also challenged the authority of the Union
representing the workman and also challenged the proceeding for want of valid demand notice prior to raising the
dispute. It is the further stand of the management No. 2 that for the misconduct of the claimant which was duly prove the
management removed him from the service and at that the time of such removal, due procedure was adopted. The
management has also claimed that during the inquiry proper opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself
3664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and the provision of section 25-F were never violated. With such assertion, the management has pleaded for dismissal of
the reference.
The workman filed rejoinder against the Written Statement of the management No. 2 where in he stated that the
management No. 2 has no locus standee to remove him from service as he was an employee of IGL. Moreover the
contract between management No. 1 and 2 was sham and camouflage.
On this rival pleading following issues were framed for adjudication.
1. Whether the action of the management of M/s Ajay Enterprises, a contractor of IGL, New Delhi in
terminating the services of Sh. Pawan Kumar Saini W.e.f. 05.02.2007 is just and legal? If so its
effect?
2. To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
During the hearing the workman testified as WW1 and proved certain documents which were marked as WW1/1 to
WW1/7. These documents include the Id card issued to the workman by M/s Ajay enterprises the Showcause notice, the
letter of termination the ESI Card, bank Passbook etc. the workman has also filed the reply submitted by him to the
showcause notice and the postal receipts etc marked on its behalf. With these documents the workman has stated that he
had never misconducted himself during the tenure of his employment. There was no proper domestic inquiry and thus
the termination is illegal.
The statement given by the workman during this proceeding was not subjected to cross-examination since the
management did not turn up to do so. On a later date though an application was filed by the management No. 2 for cross-
examination of the workman the same was refused and management was called upon to adduce evidence. But the
management did not adduce any evidence.
The evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the workman remained uncontroverted during the proceeding.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No.1
From the very beginning the workman has asserted that he was employed by management No. 1 and with some
mischievous intention management no.1 had placed his service under the disposal of management No. 2. Hence, the
management No. 2 has no authority to terminate his service. In the Written Statement, the management No. 1 has denied
the stand and management No. 2 has admitted the workman to be his employee. A document has been filed which shows
the correspondence between the workman and the management No. 2 where in on receipt of the showcause notice the
workman has submitted his reply to management No. 2. The documents has been marked as C and D for identification.
Nowhere in the recital of the documents the workman had ever disputed the authority of management No. 2 for issue of
showcause notice. He has simply denied the allegation made in the showcause notice. Apart from this no other document
has been produced by the workman to prove that he was an employee of management No. 1. Thus from the totality of the
evidence it has been proved that the workman was the employee of the management No. 2 and the management No. 2
has terminated the service of the workman w.e.f. 05.02.2007.
Now the other aspect which needs adjudication is about the legality and correctness of the termination order. The
workman has alleged that the provision of section 25-F was not complied nor any domestic inquiry was conducted
against him. In reply the management No. 2 has stated that section 25-F of ID Act was complied properly and domestic
inquiry was conducted properly too. It would be profitable to refer to the provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act which
precisely speaks that no workman employed in an industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than 1 years
under the employer shall be retrenched, until the workman has been given one month notice in writing or has been paid
retrenchment compensation. In this case though the management has taken a plea about the compliance of the provisions
of section 25-F of the ID Act no evidence in this regard has been adduced. Rather the pleading of the management No. 2
clearly suggest that no termination notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman.
Though the workman as well as the management no. 2 have admitted that on 2 occasions showcause notices were served
on the workman, it is the stand of the management no.2 that the workman had refused to receive the same. But the
workman has pleaded that the notices were received by him and he also gave reply to the same. On behalf of the
workman the copy of the reply and the postal receipts showing dispatch of the same have been filed. This leads to a
conclusion that at some point of time for the alleged misconduct by the workman he was served with showcause notice
and he replied the same by denying the allegation. But the management thereafter instead of conducting a domestic
inquiry on the allegation, unilaterally took a decision and terminated the service of the workman w.e..f. 05.02.2007
which is illegal and improper. It is thus, held that for non compliance of the provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act and
for not conducting domestic inquiry on receipt of the reply of the workman on the showcause, the order of termination
has become illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the workman.
Now it is to be considered what relief the workman is entitled to for the illegal termination of his service.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3665
In the case of Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2015(1) SCALE360 the Hon’ble apex court have held that
when neither notice nor notice pay was served and retrenchment compensation was not paid and it is found that the
workman had worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year of the retrenchment date, the order of termination is
void ab-initio and he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. In another case i.e.
Director Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in( 2010) ILLJ 3 SC the Hon’ble Apex
court have further held that non compliance of the conditions specified in section 25-F of the ID Act and when the
workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year, the purported order of retrenchment is illegal.
Thus in this case the workman while discharging his burden of proving 240 days of work has stated that he was a
permanent employee appointed on 14.01.2006 and had worked continuously till the date of his termination i.e.
05.02.2007 and thereby completed work for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year. Thus, on analysis of law
stated above and the evidence adduced by the workman it is held that the workman is entitled to the relief of
reinstatement to service with back wages.
It is a rule of law that for no work no remuneration is to be paid. In this case there is a long gap between the date of
termination and this order after adjudication. During this intervening period no service has been rendered by the
workman to management no. 2. Though the workman has stated that he has not been gainfully employed till now, it is
felt that payment of 20% of the back wage to the workman from the date of his termination till reinstatement without
interest will do justice in the circumstances. This point is accordingly answered. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim petition be and the same is allowed. It is held that termination of the workman by the management no. 2 is
illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement to his service with Management no. 2 alongwith 20% of the back wage from the
date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Management no. 2 is further directed to reinstate the workman to the
service within 3 months from the date when this award would become executable and shall pay the back wages
accordingly. On the event of nonpayment, the back wages so accrued, shall carry interest at the rate 12% Per annum
from the date of notification of this award till the final payment is made. Copy be supplied to the parties and the record
be consigned in the record room.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 868.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad
vkQ bafM;k ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 74@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 16-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&12011@66@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 74/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-12011/66/2011–IR (B-II]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
3666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/74/2012
General Secretary,
DainikVetanBhogi Bank KarmchariSangathan,
F-1, TriptiVihar, Opp Engineering College,
Ujjain.
…Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Bank of India, Head office,
Bandra Kurla(E),
Mumbai.
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of April 2019
1. As per letter dated 20-6-2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947,hereinafter referred by word
‘Act’,as per Notification No.L-12011/66/2011-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether Shri Gopal Makwana is entitled for payment of bonus for the period from 17-2-97 to
24-7-2001? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”
2. The case of the workman as stated in his statement of claim is that he has been in continuous engagement of the
employer in Mandsor branch of the employer Bank as peon since 17-2-97 till 24-7-01 when he was disengaged
without any notice or compensation hence he is entitled to bonus as per law.
3. This claim has been denied by the employers on the pleading that there never existed relationship of employer
and employee between the parties. Workman was never employed by the Bank on regular basis. He was not
employed against permanent and sanctioned post hence he is not entitled to bonus. Further it was pleaded that
Branch Managers have been given power to engage labor on casual basis in case of exigency of work and
persons so engaged are duly compensated by wages but they are not employees of the bank by any corner hence
not entitled to bonus.
4. At evidence stage, workman filed bunch of photocopy of documents which have been denied by the employers.
Workman did not examine himself or witness to prove these documents hence they cannot be read into
evidence.
5. Workman further filed certified copy of his statement recorded in R/44/07, certified copy of statement of
Mahendra Singh Makwana management witness recorded in R/44/07, certified copy of statement of Subhash
Kulkarni recorded in R/19/00 & certified copy of circular filed in R/19/00. He has also filed photocopy of
award passed in R/75/12 relating to another workman Lalchandra Chouhan.
6. Management has also not filed any document nor has examined any witness.
7. At stage of argument, Shri R.Nagwanshi, Union representative appeared for workman and Mr. A.K.Shashi for
management. Argument from both sides have been heard. Both sides have filed written argument which is on
record.. I have perused written argument as well as the record. After perusing the record in the light of rival
argument, point which come up in the present case for consideration is as follows-
Whether workman Shri Gopal Makwana is entitled for payment of bonus for the period from 17-2-97 to 24-7-
2001?
8. Case of both parties have already been detailed earlier. Burden lies on workman to prove his continuous
engagement with the employers. He has not examined himself on oath nor has he proved any photocopy of
document which he filed and were denied by employers. His representative refers to certain photocopy of
statements of workman and other persons recorded in different cases but they are not relevant to the case in
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3667
hand because had the workman been examined or the witnesses whose statements he has filed been examined in
the present case, the other side would have got opportunity to cross examine the witness in relation to the point
in controversy in this case. Hence on the basis of above discussion, I am constraint to record the finding that
workman has miserably failed in proving his case.
9. On the basis of above discussion, holding the case of the workman not proved, he is held not entitled for
payment of any bonus for the period from 17-2-97 to 24-7-2001.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:-
“The workman Shri Gopal Makwana is not entitled for payment of bonus for the period from 17-2-97 to
24-7-2001.”
Dated : 30.4.2019
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 869.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
bykgkckn cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; dkuiqj ¼m-iz-½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 79@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&12011@44@2017&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 869.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur(U.P.) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the the management of Allahabad Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-12011/44/2017–IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAKESH KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT, KANPUR.
Industrial Dispute No. 79 of 2017
Between: Allahabad Bank Staff Association (UP), Allahabad Bank,
Hazaratganj Branch, Lucknow.
And
The Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank,
Mandaliya Karyalay,
1/142, Babu Gulab Rai Marg, Agra- 282005.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol & Employment, New Delhi vide notification no.L-12011/44/2017-IR (B-II), dated
02.11.2017, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-
3668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of the Divisional Office, Allahabad Bank, Agra in awarding
punishment on Sri Sheoraj Singh of of “Be brought to down to two lower stage in the scale of pay by
one stage”, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. After receipt of reference order from the Ministry, registered notices dated 23.11.2017 and 12.02.2019 were
issued from the tribunal directing the Association to file claim petition supported with relevant documentary
evidence by fixing dates for hearing of the case i.e., 22.12.17, 09.02.18, 17.04.2018, 19.06.2018, 07.08.2018,
09.10.2018, 14.11.2018, 17.01.2019, 06.02.2019, 27.03.2019, and on 08.04.2019, but strange enough to note
that on none of the dates fixed in the case neither any representative of the Association raising the present
dispute appeared in the case nor any claim petition was filed in the case.
3. On behalf of the management Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla and others have filed their authority letter to represent
the management in the case on 22.12.2017.
4. By a bare perusal of the records, it is evident that the Association raising the present dispute on behalf of the
workman, despite availing of sufficient and reasonable opportunities have palpably failed in discharging its
obligation in filing the claim petition in support of its case, therefore, it is abundantly clear that neither the
Association nor the workman is interested in prosecuting the present case.
5. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, the case is adjudicated against the Union / Association holding
that the Association/workman is not entitled for any relief for want of pleadings and proof.
6. Award in the present case is as above.
Dated : 09.05.2019
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 870.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
;wfu;u cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; dkuiqj ¼m-iz-½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&12012@43@2017&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 870.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur(U.P.) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-12012/43/2017–IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAKESH KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT, KANPUR.
Industrial Dispute No. 38 of 2018
Between: The Secretary, Union Bank Staff Association (UP),
C/o Union Bank of India,
Main Branch, 24/55 Birhana Road
Kanpur (UP) 208001.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3669
And
The General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Field General Manager Office,
Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol & Employment, New Delhi vide notification no.L-12012/43/2017-IR (B-II), dated
28.03.2018, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-
“1). Whether posting on promotion of Shri Satya Narayan Yadav from Dafry to Clerical Cadre to Lalitpur
Branch from Akbarpur Branch, Kanpur Dehat vide Memorandum dated 16.11.2015 is violation of
Bipartite Settlement Circular no. 3712 dated 08.03.1991?
2).
If yes, whether the demand of the Union for his retention at Kanpur on promotion, is legal and
justified? And what relief is the workman entitled to?”
2. After receipt of reference order from the Ministry, registered notices dated 16.04.2018 and 27.02.2019 were
issued from the tribunal directing the Association to file claim petition supported with relevant documentary
evidence by fixing dates for hearing of the case i.e., 10.06.18, 03.08.18, 10.10.18, 27.12.18, 26.02.19, 13.03.19,
25.03.19 and on 08.04.19, but strange enough to note that on none of the dates fixed in the case neither any
representative of the Association raising the present dispute appeared in the case nor any claim petition was
filed in the case.
3. On behalf of the management Sri Neeraj Shrama, has filed his authority letter to represent the management in
the case..
4. By a bare perusal of the records, it is evident that the Association raising the present dispute on behalf of the
workman, despite availing of sufficient and reasonable opportunities have palpably failed in discharging its
obligation in filing the claim petition in support of its case, therefore, it is abundantly clear that neither the
Association nor the workman is interested in prosecuting the present case.
5. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, the case is adjudicated against the Union / Association holding
that the Association/workman is not entitled for any relief for want of pleadings and proof.
6. Award in the present case is as above.
Dated : 07.05.2019
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 871.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
dksjiksjas'ku cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@1991½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 16-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&12012@113@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 871.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/1991) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
3670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Corporation Bank and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-12012/113/1991–IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 08TH MAY 2019
PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer
C.R No. 66/1991
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/113/91-IR-B.II dated 30.09.1991 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 Corporation Bank in terminating the services of Sh. D. Murthy,
Janta Deposit Collector is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
1. The case of the 1st Party Union is the concerned workman Sh. D. Murthy, Janata Deposit Collector (JDC) was
working at Anderson pet Branch of KGF Branch of the Respondent Bank. The Manager of the Bank issued a
letter informing him that he ceases to be a J.D Collector forthwith; prior to that they had not issued any show
cause notice and had not initiated Disciplinary Proceedings as per the procedure and practice of the Bank, and
he was forced to keep a part of his earnings as security deposit. Accordingly, he had deposited Rs. 13,586.20/-
on 30.04.1991, two fixed deposits of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 6,713.75 were due for maturity on 03.03.1992 and
01.06.1991 respectively. These security deposits are with held by the Bank, his request to the Management to
reappoint him or refund the FD is condoned. He is unemployed. Hence, prayer for appointment with all
consequential benefits.
2. The 2nd Party in its statement contradicted thus:-
The is not a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Act, there is no master and servant relationship
between the parties; his appointment order was made as per the terms and conditions set out in the order dated
28.02.1980 read with agreement executed by him, on the said date he was not getting wages but only
commission of the collection; he was not subject to normal working hours of the Bank, his appointment was
purely on contract basis. He had collected a sum of Rs. 3,495/- on three days i.e. 13, 14 and 15 of August
1988, but did not deposit the amount, when he was called at the Branch on 16.08.1988. On 19.08.1988 he
deposited Rs. 2,380/- towards Janata Deposit Collections, when the Branch Manager enquired about the short
fall of Rs. 1,115/- he did not give any satisfactory explanation. The Branch Manager submitted a report to the
Higher Authorities at Bangalore. The JDC agreement was terminated on 14.11.1988; in the ‘Honnudi’ Local
Kannada Daily, notice was published. When he requested to release his security deposit he was called upon to
I Party
II Party
The Joint Secretary,
Corporation Bank Employees
Union (Regd),
C/o K.P.B.E.F. No. 84,
H-5, Manish Towers, J.C. Road,
Bangalore – 560 002.
Advocate for I Party :
Mr. K Dinakara Holla
The Chairman,
Corporation Bank,
Head Office,
P.B. No. 38,
Mangalore – 575 001.
Advocate for II Party:
Mr. Pradeep S Sawkar
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3671
surrender the JDC identity card besides bringing 2 sureties for identification, but he did not turn up. His
termination is in order.
3. After completion of pleadings, 2nd Party adduced evidence of MW-1/ the Internal Auditor of 2nd Party. He had
reiterated the allegation of the 2nd Party. The 1st Party failed to cross examined him and witness was
discharged without cross examination. The witness had marked Ex M-1 a Apology letter addressed by the
workman to the Bank, Ex M-2 is the letter of the Manager to the 1st Party, Ex M-3 the letter of the Manager
dated 14.11.1988 whereby the 1st Party ceased to be J.D Collector, Ex M-4 is the Kannada Local Daily
informing the public that the workman has no authority to collect the deposit on behalf of the Bank, Ex M-5 is
the letter addressed by the Manager to the Regional Manager for permission to close the Janata Deposit
Accounts served by the 1st Party workman. Evidence of MW-1 remained unchallenged in the absence of
rebuttal evidence.
4. On earlier occasion this Tribunal had passed award on 30.04.2002 against the 2nd Party and the matter was
taken to the Hon’ble High Court by the 2nd Party, the award was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court with
direction for reconsideration. Though liberty was given further evidence is not adduced since 1st Party as
remained absent. By way of memo it is placed on record that J.D scheme is abandoned by the policy of the 2nd
Party. Similar policy decision is endorsed by the Apex Court in its Judgment of A.P. Bank Deposit Collectors
Association and Another vs State Bank of India & Another dated 28.02.2008 Civil Case No. 79/2005. It has
been the settled position of law when the workman admits the guilt there is nothing for the Management to
enquiry further. Vide letter Annexure-M he has admitted his guilt and apologised.
5. In the circumstance it is inevitable to hold that the 2nd Party has rightly terminated the service of the workman
consequent upon the misconduct committed by him. The misconduct is bound to have further ramification on
the Business of the Bank. The 1st Party workman is not entitled for any relief under this reference.
AWARD
The reference is rejected
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 08th May, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 872.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
dksphu iksVZ VªLV ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] bZjukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 44@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&35011@2@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 872.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Cochin Port Trust and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-35011/2/2004–IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
3672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Friday the 3rdday of May, 2019)
ID No. 44 of 2013
Union
:
The General Secretary,
Cochin Port Staff Association,
Wellington Island, Cochin
By Adv. N.K. Karnis
Management
:
The Chairman,
Cochin Port Trust,
Wellington Island, Cochin.
By M/s B.S. Krishna Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 03.05.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 03.05.2019 passed
the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section(2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-35011/2/2004-IR(B-II) dated
11/09/2013 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
1. The dispute referred for adjudication is;
“Whether the decision of the Management of Cochin Port Trust, Cochin to exclude house rent
allowance for calculation of over timeisfair, proper and justified.”
2. The Union entered appearance and filed the claim statement. According to the Union the issue was taken
up for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Eranakulam and the conciliation
failed. The Central Government declined to refer the case for adjudication and hence the Union
approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition number 36430/2004. Vide its judgment
dated 06/06/2013 the Hon’ble High Court directed the Government to refer the dispute for adjudication
before this Tribunal. As per the Minimum Wages Act,overtime wages at double the wages are payable to
the employees working overtime. Wages include house rent allowance also as per definition in the Section
2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act. This benefit was extended to the employees by the Management. The
Wage Board constituted by Government of India in 1964 resolved to continue the practice. It was again
included in the settlement dated 02/08/2000. Hence the employees of the Management were paid overtime
wages quantified by including house rent allowance. While so the Management issued a circular dated
21/04/2003 stating that the benefit will not be extended to employees not covered by Minimum Wages Act
with effect from 01/04/2003. The action of the Management in stopping a benefit which was available to
the employees for a long period by issuing a circular is irregular, illegal and is not justified.
3. The Management filed their written statement stating that the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping
by their letter dated 28/02/2003 had directed the Management to discontinue the practice of including
House rent allowance for calculation of overtime allowance in respect of the employees not covered under
the Minimum Wages Act. In compliance with the above orders, the Management issued a circular dated
21/04/2003. This dispute was taken up before the Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Officer
directed the Managementto maintain status quo. The Government declined to refer the case for
adjudication on the ground that the procedure adopted earlier to include the element of house rent
allowance for the purpose of calculation of overtime wages has been discontinued as a result of anomaly
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3673
pointed out by the Audit Department. The Union again approached the Regional Labour Commission
(Central) and the Regional Labour Commission (Central) directed the Management to defer the
implementation. The Union approached the Hon’bleHigh Court and the Hon’bleHigh Court directed
Government of India to refer the dispute to Central Government IndustrialTribunal Cum Labour Court for
adjudication. According to the Management the inclusion of house rent allowance for calculating overtime
benefits is not correct since the employees staying in quarters are not entitled for house rent allowance but
will be entitled for house rent allowance for calculating the overtime payment. Further it is also pointed out
that if an employee works overtime and the element of house rent allowance is included in the overtime
wages he will be getting double payment of house rent allowance. There is no violation of Section 9A of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The Managementthrough the above referred circular was making a
correction of the mistake that they have committed by giving overtime wages on inadmissible house rent
allowance.
4. On completion of pleadings, the union examined WW 1 and marked exhibits W 1 to W 15. Marking of W
11 was objected by the Management. However the Union produced original documents for verification.
The Management examined MW1 and marked document Exbt. M 1 to M 9.
5. Hence the issue to be decided in this reference is;
Whether the decision of the Management of Cochin Port Trust, Cochin to exclude house rent allowance for
calculation of overtime is fair, proper and justified.?
6. The Union’s case is that inclusion of house rent allowance in calculation of overtime allowance is in vogue
even before 1964 wage settlement (Exbt. W 11). The Central Wage Board resolution for Port and Dock
workers 1964 clearly indicates the existence of this practice prior to 1964. This provision of wage
settlement in 1964 was included in all subsequent wage settlements for the employees of Port Trust. This is
clear from Exbts. W 12, W 13, W 14 and W 15.
7. According to the Management the Government of India attempted to correct an anomaly which was in
existence for quite long time and accordingly a direction was issued to stop the inclusion of house rent
allowance in calculation of over time allowance. Though a decision to this effect is taken by the Board of
Port Trust as instructed by Government of India thesame could not be implemented because of various
interventions. The Management also pleaded that Section 9A notice under Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is
not required as it is only a correction of an anomaly pointed out by the Audit as per the direction of
Government of India.
8. It is not possible to agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Management that Section 9A
Notice is not called for in the present case. As already pointed out the inclusion of house rent allowance in
overtime allowance is part of various wage settlements from 1964. Any change in the terms of settlement
without notice under section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act is irregular and illegal. As pointed by Hon’ble
High Court of Madras in ThanthaiPeriyarPokkuvarthuKazhakaOozhiyarSanghamvsManagement of
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, 2005 LLR 780 (Mad.), the benefits which have been approved
through settlement cannot be withdrawn unless notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is
given.
9. In this case it is seen that the Government of India direction came as per Exbt. M 1 order dated 28/02/2003
and same was ordered to be implemented vide Exbt. M 2 dated 21/04/2003 from 01/04/2003 and Section
9A notice is issued vide Exbt. W 5 dated 25/09/2003. Hence the Exbt. M 2 order dated 21/04/2003 is
irregular and illegal.
10. Coming to the issue under reference it was argued by the Counsel for the Management that an employee
provided with staff quarters by the Management will not be entitled for house rent allowance whereas
anemployee residing in his own house is entitled to house rent allowance. An employee staying in quarters,
though not entitled for house rent allowance, while calculating overtime allowance takes into account house
rent allowance which he is not otherwise entitled to, as per the present calculation. Further an employee
staying in his own house is entitled for house rent allowance. But when his overtime allowance is
calculated one more house rent allowance is accounted thereby he will be getting double house rent
allowance. Though the counsel for the Union did not appear on 16/11/2018, 15/01/2019 and 07/03/2019
when the matter was finally posted for hearing,the only defense taken by the Union is that only 10 percent
of the employees stay in staff quarters. This means that 90 percent of the employees are entitled for double
house rent allowance if and when they do overtime work. On a perusal of Exbt. W 11 it is very clear that
3674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
there was difference in opinion among the members of Wage Boardregarding this benefit in 1964 itself and
the same was agreed to be continued only because it is a practice going on for a long time.
11. After perusal of the pleadings, evidence, both oral as well as documentary I am of the considered view that
the decision of the Management of Cochin Port Trust to exclude house rent allowances for calculation of
overtime allowance is just and proper. Hence the issue is decided in favour of the Management.
In view of the above an award is passed in favour of Management holding that the decision of the Management
of Cochin Port Trust, Cochin to exclude house rent allowance for calculation of over time allowance is fair,
proper and justified. However the decision shall be implemented prospectively considering the fact that proper
procedure is not followed before issuing the executive order dated 21/03/2004.
The award will come into force one month after publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by him and passed by me on this 3rd day of May, 2019.
V.VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the Union
WW1 01/01/2016 - Radhakrishnan
Witness for the Management
MW 1 -
13/05/2016
- Sri.N. Pradeepkumar
Exhibits for the Union
-
1. W 1 – Circular dated 21/04/2003.
2. W 2 – Letter No. LB – 12012/1/2002-RO dated 28/02/2003 from Ministry of Shipping to Chairman Port
Trust.
3. W 3 – Strike notice dated 25/04/2003 Cochin Port Staff Association.
4. W 4 – Memorandum of understanding dated 11/08/2003.
5. W 5 – Form E notice of change of service conditions proposed by the employer dated 25/09/2003.
6. W 6 – Minutes of meeting held on 19/04/2004.
7. W 7 – Order number L-35011/2/2004-IR(B-II) dated 29/09/2004 from Under Secretary, Ministry of
Labour.
8. W 8 – Circular dated 10/12/2004 from Secretary, Cochin Port Trust.
9. W 9 – Interim order dated 16/12/2004 in repetition no. 36430/2004.
10. W 10 – Final order of H HC of Kerala in repetition no. 36430/2004.
11. W 11 – Wage Board recommendation resolution dated 13/11/1964 (Marked subject to objection. Copy of
the original resolution produced).
12. M 12 –Protection of existing benefits.
13. M 13 – Settlement on wage revision with effect from 01/01/1997.
14. M 14 – Settlement on wage revision with effect from 01/01/2007.
15. M 15 – Settlement on wage revision with effect from 01/01/2012.
Exhibits for the Management
-
1. M 1 - Letter No. LB – 12012/1/2002-RO dated 28/02/2003 from Ministry of Shipping to Chairman Port Trust.
2. M 2 – Circular No. A8/158/OT/99-S dated 21/04/2003 of Secretary, Cochin Port Trust.
3. M 3 – Circular No. A8/158/OT/99-S dated 06/05/2003 of Secretary, Cochin Port Trust.
4. M 4 – Letter No. A8/158/OT/99-S dated 18/10/2003 from Secretary, Cochin Port Trust to Secretary,
Government of India.
5. M 5 – Copy of letter of Government of India, Ministry of Labour dated 29/09/2004.
6. M 6 - Circular No. A8/158/OT/99-S dated 10/12/2004 issued by Secretary, Cochin Port Trust.
7. M 7 - Circular No. A8/158/OT/99-S dated 16/12/2004 issued by Secretary, Cochin Port Trust.
8. M 8 – The relevant page of report of Wage Revision Committee for Port and Dock workers January, 1977.
9. M 9 – The Judgment of the H HC of Kerala in repetition No. 36430/2004.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3675
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 873.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
bykgkckn cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydRrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2019 dks izkIr gq, FksA
[la- ,y&12011@123@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 873.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and their
workmen which were received by the Central Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-12011/123/2005–IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Reference No. 12 of 2006
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank
AND
Their workmen
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra
…Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the : Mrs. Sreeja Rani S, Senior Manager (Law)
…Management
On behalf of the : Mr. Chira Ranjan Kanjilal, Vice President of the union.
…Workmen
Dated: 8th May, 2019.
Industry: Banking.
AWARD
Factual aspect of the case is that the post of Computer Operator in Allahabad Bank is allowance carrying
clerical grade post. As per settlement dated 25th September, 1995 (Circular No. 4268) persons who passed in aptitude test
shall be eligible for selection to the post of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator. According to above circular the
management of the bank was required to conduct aptitude test every year and to maintain a list of successful employees.
Once the employee is qualified in the aptitude test, he need not reappear in the subsequent aptitude test. It has been
further provided in the circular that as and when vacancy occurs, options will be invited from the employees who had
earlier qualified in the aptitude test. After receipt of options from the employees the management was required to prepare
a list in terms of seniority. The management of Allahabad Bank held first aptitude test on 10th March, 1996. About 195
persons were declared passed in the said aptitude test. The workman concerned, Shri Naba Kumar Dey also passed the
test. The management again declared on 28th October, 1996 the date of second aptitude test to be taken on 19th January,
1997 vide circular No. 5169. The management on 20th December, 1996 declared 99 vacancies of CO/DEO and options
accordingly were invited. Management issued a circular on 17th January, 1997 for posting of 99 CO/DEO on the basis of
seniority from the first panel on 10th February, 1997. Shri Naba Kumar Dey and about 96 others could not be posted and
remained in the panel. In second aptitude test about 211 persons were declared passed, but the management mixed the
panel of previous 96 persons with these 211 persons and prepared a fresh list of 307 persons on the basis of seniority, as
a result of which juniors of the first panel went behind the seniors of second panel. The concerned workman also went
3676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
behind in clubbed panel due to this. The action of the management was protested by the union, but the problem could not
reach the solution due to suppression of vacancies of CO/DEO, hence locking of permanent selection of CO/DEO. Bank
management, however, is continuously allowing officiation of post of CO/DEO and despite great number of vacancies
the workman, Shri Naba Kumar Dey is in waiting panel for selection. An industrial dispute arose between the employer
and the employees which has been referred by the Government of India to this Tribunal for adjudication vide Order
No.L-12011/123/2005-IR(B-II) dated 20.04.2006 in following terms:
“(1)
Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in clubbing or merging the panel prepared after
conducting a test held in the year 1996 with the panel prepared after the test held in 1997 in respect of
Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator is justified?
(2)
Whether the employees though passed in the test held in 1996, but who were not appointed or designated as
“Computer Operator or Data Entry Operator” should be kept senior to the persons who got qualified in
the 1997 test?
(3)
Whether Mr. Naba Kumar Dey, Clerk presently carrying out the duties of “Data Entry Operator/ Computer
Operator” at Makardah Branch, Dist. Howrah and who has already passed the aptitude test, and who is
being utilized as “Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator” by the Allahabad Bank, by paying some
officiating allowance, is entitled to be re-designated as Data Entry Operator/Computer Operator or not? If
not, to what relief Mr. Naba Kumar Dey is entitled?”
2. After above reference, the union espousing the cause of the workman concerned filed statement of claim claiming that
the workman, Shri Naba Kumar Dey should be posted as permanent CO/DEO. He should also be allowed to officiate in
the post of permanent CO/DEO as the existing officiating clerk allowed by the management has not qualified in the
aptitude test. It has further been claimed that Shri Naba Kumar Dey is deprived of getting permanent posting/officiating
post of Computer Operator for which he was entitled to get Computer Operator Allowance of Rs.633+DA+HRA per
month from July, 1999 to October, 2002 as per 7th bipartite settlement and Rs.910+DA+HRA since November, 2002 as
per 8th bipartite settlement.
3. The management in its reply denied the allegations made by the union and pleaded inter alia that there exists no valid
industrial dispute as the union raising dispute is not recognized union and therefore, it has no locus standi. It is also
pleaded that there is no clubbing or merging of the panels of 1996 and 1997 in respect of CO/DEO. There is no
compulsion under the rules that all the employees who passed the test in 1996 but not appointed, should be kept senior to
those employees who passed the test in 1997. As per settlement dated 12th September, 1995 seniority is reckoned area-
wise upon receipt of option from the employees who have passed the aptitude test. Seniority according to aptitude test is
not contemplated. Shri Naba Kumar Dey is not entitled to be re-designated as Computer Operator in view of the fact that
exercise of regular filling of the post of Computer Operator as per process laid down in the rules has not been decided by
the management. Right to the designation of Computer Operator accrues only after an employee who passed the aptitude
test is selected for posting as Computer Operator. Shri Dey was given opportunity to apply for the declared vacancies of
Computer Operator but he was very selective and he opted for some branches where the persons senior to him had
applied. Shri Dey qualified in the aptitude test and was empanelled also but he could not be offered the post of Computer
Operator due to reasons that offer of posting was made on the basis if interse area seniority of the concerned candidate.
Till vacancies are duly filled up officiation is allowed and done to meet the temporary exigency as per rule.
4. Rejoinder was filed by the union disputing all the averments made in the written statement of the management.
5. The management of the bank again filed its reply to the rejoinder of the union wherein it is averred that the post of
Data Entry Operator is required for smooth functioning of day-to-day works of the bank, therefore, the management
initiated selection process for appointment of CO/DEO and in terms of settlement successful candidates required to
exercise options. The workman concerned did not fill all the columns of application for appearing in the aptitude test.
The Regional Office processed the application in good faith and the workman was offered the assignment of Computer
Operator at Beliaghata Branch of the bank as per his seniority which was calculated on the basis of information furnished
by the workman. Subsequently while consulting C.R. file of the workman it was found that in the said application the
workman deliberately made false statement in respect of his date of birth and date of appointment. He mentioned his date
of birth as 20th April, 1959 instead of 20th April, 1956. Had the workman not practiced above fraud, he would not have
got the offer of assignment, therefore, he was reverted back to his original position. The action of the management is
strictly in accordance with the service condition of the workman. Facts regarding officiation of post by non qualified
clerks are beyond the subject matter of reference.
6. The workman concerned examined himself as WW-01 and on behalf of the bank MW-01, Shri Debojyoti Paul, MW-
02, Shri Ashim Pramanick and MW-03, Shri Krishnasis Chatterjee have been examined. Apart from this, documentary
evidences were also filed which shall be taken up at the relevant point of time.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3677
7. Before dwelling upon the merit of the case it would be just and proper to deal with issue of maintainability as raised
by the management. The management in its written statement has pleaded that there exists no valid industrial dispute as
the union raising dispute is not a recognized union. It has been settled in various cases that espousing of the cause of the
workman by a union is not essential. What is required is espousal of cause by a body of workmen, it may a union or a
considerable number of workmen having common cause with the individual workman. Thus collective interest in the
cause of workman makes an espousal valid to convert individual dispute into industrial dispute. In the present case it is
not disputed that the dispute has been espoused by the union connected with the industry. In Express Newspaper
Private Ltd. v. 1st Labour Court, West Bengal & Others, 1959 (60) 17 FJR 413 (Cal) it is held that a dispute is an
industrial dispute even where it is sponsored by a union which is not registered, but the trade union must be connected
with the employer or the industry concerned. Thus even if the union espousing the cause of the workman in the present
case is not a recognized union, it has no bearing for conversion of an individual dispute in an industrial dispute.
8. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the answer of the question referred to this Tribunal depends upon the
interpretation of settlement dated 20th September, 1995 (Circular No. 4268) and subsequent Circular No. 4379 issued by
Allahabad Bank on 22nd January, 1996 with regard to selection of CO/DEO. This fact is not disputed that on 12th
September, 1995 memorandum of settlement was recorded between the management of Allahabad Bank and their
workmen in the matter of filling of the vacancies of CO/DEO. According to settlement the management shall conduct
aptitude test for CO/DEO every on the basis of area in which the employees in clerical grade shall be eligible. It is
further provided in the settlement that list of all successful employees shall be maintained by the management and as and
when vacancy occurs, options would be invited from the employees who had already qualified in the aptitude test on the
basis of area. After receipt of options, list would be prepared in terms of seniority.
9. It has been alleged by the union that though management of the bank held the aptitude tests in the year 1996 and
1997and prepared list of successful candidates, the management without any authority merged the panel prepared in the
year 1996 with the panel prepared after the test in the year 1997. The management has denied merging of two panels in
respect of CO/DEO. From the records it is established that after the settlement of 1995 an aptitude test was conducted by
the bank in the year 1996 and a panel of 195 successful candidates to be posted as against existing vacancies was also
prepared. Thereafter second aptitude test was held on 19th January, 1997 in which 211 employees were declared passed.
In the list of first aptitude test the workman concerned, Shri Naba Kumar Dey is shown at Serial No. 69. It is not denied
by the management that subsequent aptitude test was held in which 211 employees stood passed, but ignoring terms of
settlement in which merger of panels are not provided, the management appears to have merged the two panels and
prepared a combined list of 310 employees was prepared. Copy of which is Ext. W-15. In this combined list the
workman concerned, Shri Naba Kumar Dey is shown at Serial No. 54. Thus it is established that the panels prepared in
the year 1996 and the second panel prepared in the year 1997 were merged without any authority from the settlement of
1995. The argument of the management contrary to it is without any basis.
10. The second question referred is with regard to anomaly in seniority of the employees while merging the two panels
in as much as the employees included in the first list but not appointed were made junior to the employees who passed
the second aptitude test. The management has pleaded that there is no compulsion under the circularized rules that
employees who passed in the test held in 1996 but not appointed should be kept senior to those employees who qualified
in second aptitude test held in the year 1997. Answer to this issue can be traced out in the terms of settlement dated
12.09.1995. From the terms of settlement it is evident that list of successful candidates shall be prepared by the
management and as and when vacancy occurs the successful candidates would be invited to give options for the posting.
It is also evident that an employee who is qualified in the aptitude test need not reappear in the subsequent aptitude test.
Thus it appears that the list of successful employees is treated in the settlement as waiting list. The first list is intended to
be valid till the successful candidates are posted as against existing vacancies, otherwise there was no need to mention
that an employees once qualified need not reappear in subsequent test. It has already been seen while answering the
question that in the terms of settlement merger of two panels is not provided. Hence both the panels have to be kept
independently. Now coming to the list of successful employees in first aptitude test and combined list prepared after the
second aptitude test, it appears that the employees who had qualified in the first aptitude test but not appointed as
Computer Operator and placed lower in the first list have been kept junior to the employees who qualified in the second
aptitude test. To name few of such employees, it would be suffice to say that Shri Subir Mukherjee, Shri Arindum Bose,
Shri Pinaki Bhattacharjee and Miss Sima Biswas who were at Serial No. 96, 182, 184 and 195 have been placed at Serial
No. 304, 307, 268 and 297 respectively. Fixation of seniority of above employees in combined list is beyond
comprehension, but it is established that the employees who stood at bottom of first list have been placed again at the
bottom of combined list to make them junior in the combined list also whereas the terms of settlement are otherwise. It is
true that the seniority is to be decided area-wise as contended by the management. In that case also the seniority list
should have been prepared area-wise. From the perusal of list of first aptitude test or the combined list it does not appear
that the seniority of employees has been shown according to area in which they were posted or according to the area
opted for. In the first list Shri I.K. Kundu Chowdhury posted at Head Office has been placed much below Shri Subrata
Chatterjee also posted at Head Office. Thus posting in the area has not been taken as a basis for fixing seniority. Be that
3678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as it may, the settlement of 1995 provides that the aptitude test shall be held every year in accordance with the existing
vacancy. It also provides that the employee who has passed the test, need not re-appear in test again. The underlying
meaning of the above terms of settlement is that all successful employees must be given post of Computer Operator/DEO
before second aptitude test, otherwise the existing vacancy for the purpose of second aptitude test cannot be determined.
Therefore the employees who are successful in first aptitude test are invariably senior to the successful employees of the
second panel. Otherwise interpretation of terms of settlement would place the employees successful in first aptitude test
but not appointed, in a situation in which knife cuts on both sides. Such an employee, on one side is not given posting of
Computer Operator and on other side he is not permitted to re-appear in second test. Hence the successful employees in
the first test are invariably to be placed senior to the successful employees of second aptitude test.
11. As it has already been seen above, the list once prepared has to be exhausted. The employees whose name appeared
in the first list would certainly be senior to the employees who passed subsequently not for purpose of service but for the
purpose of posting as CO/DEO which is a special allowance carrying post.
12. Now coming to the case of Shri Naba Kumar Dey it is not disputed that he passed aptitude test held in 1996 and his
name appeared in the first list at Serial No. 69. The management at the first instance denied that he was under the zone of
consideration because after receipt of options he was found to be junior to the employees in the branches he had opted
for. Therefore, the case of the management is that Shri Naba Kumar Dey was not given posting as Computer Operator,
but subsequently after filing of rejoinder and the documents the management changed its stand and by filing a reply to
the rejoinder of the union, it has been pleaded that Shri Naba Kumar Dey came in seniority and was also posted in
Beliaghata Branch, but after his posting it was found that he had played fraud on the bank by wrongly mentioning his
date of birth as 20th April, 1959 instead of his actual date of birth which was 20th April, 1956. It has been further pleaded
that the workman concerned joined the bank as Peon-cum-Farash on 16th April, 1982 and was posted to Clerk-cum-
Cashier on 16th September, 1991, but his initial date of appointment is 16th September, 1987. Therefore, on detecting
fraud played by the workman concerned he was removed from the post of Computer Operator.
13. The approach of the management appears to be whimsical and incomprehensible. The date of birth cannot be said to
be relevant to decide seniority of an employee. According to settlement of 1995 list of successful employees shall be
prepared on the basis of area-wise seniority. Admittedly the workman had joined the service of bank on 16.08.1981 as
Peon-cum-Farash. Thereafter he was promoted as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 16.09.1991 but it is not explained as to how
notional date of appointment was fixed as 16.09.1987.
14. Moreover the Circular No. 4379 issued by the bank on 22nd January, 1996 mentions that after submission of
applications by the employees the same shall be sent by the branches to the Regional Office and the Regional Office in
its turn after scrutiny of applications sent the same to the Zonal Office and it was the duty of the Zonal Office to prepare
a consolidated statement of such applications on verification of data. Thus, if any wrong date had been mentioned by the
workman concerned, the Zonal Office must have verified the data submitted by the employee. But it is not the case of the
management, instead the workman concerned was given posting as Computer Operator with effect from 10th February,
1997 where he remained posted for two months and also drew salary accordingly. The workman concerned has filed pay
slips for the month of March, 1997 and April, 1997 which are Ext. W-17.
15. Thus, it is established that due to unfair and illegal action of the management the workman concerned, Shri Naba
Kumar Dey was deprived of what was due to him. It is not disputed that his services have been utilized as Computer
Operator after payment of some officiating allowance. Hence he was entitled to be re-designated as Computer Operator
but as the workman has retired, he cannot be re-designated as Computer Operator. However, he is entitled for special
allowance since July, 1999.
16. Award is passed accordingly giving answer to all the three questions as below: -
(1)
The action of the management of Allahabad Bank in clubbing or merging the panel prepared after
conducting a test held in the year 1996 with the panel prepared after the test held in 1997 in respect of
Data Entry Operator/ Computer Operator is not justified.
(2)
The employees who passed in the test held in 1996, but not appointed or designated as Computer
Operator/Data Entry Operator should be kept senior to the persons who got qualified in 1997 test.
(3)
Since the workman concerned, Shri Naba Kumar Dey was deprived of what was due to him, he was
entitled to re-designated as Computer Operator. But as he has retired, he is entitled only for special
allowance from July, 1999 till the date of his retirement.
Dated: Kolkata,
the 8th May, 2019
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ebZ 25] 2019@T;s"B 4] 1941
3679
ubZ fnYyh] 16 ebZ] 2019
dk-vk- 874.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad
vkQ egkjk"Vª cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; la- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-05-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@92@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 874.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra Bank,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-12012/92/2011–IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
Present: M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/31 of 2012
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
The Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Banda Branch, Sawantwadi,
Distt. Sindhudurg, Maharashtra.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Shri Vishnu Govind Bandekar,
A/P: Banda, Harijinwadi, Tal. Sawantwadi,
PO : Box. No. 90,
Distt. Sindhudurg
Maharashtra.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. M. B. Anchan
Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Absent
Mumbai, dated the 9th April, 2019.
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-12012/92/2011 – IR (B-II) dated 29.05.2012. The terms of reference given
in the schedule are as follows :
3680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2019/ JYAISTHA 4, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“1. Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Banda Branch in terminating the service of
Shri Vishnu Govind Bandekar w.e.f. 15.5.2006 is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled ?
2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
3. On going through Roznama, it appears that the concerned workman is absent since 25.3.13. He has not filed affidavit
in support of the claim. Hence there is no evidence on record in support of the claim of the concerned workman.
4. In view of that the reference is liable to be rejected for want of evidence.
5. Hence the reference is rejected for want of evidence with no order as to costs. Hence Order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected for want of evidence with no order as to costs.
Dated : 9.4.2019
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
MANOJ KUMAR
VERMA
Digitally signed by
MANOJ KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2019.06.11
21:18:16 +05'30'