2520 GI/2019
(3681)
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- 22]
ubZ fnYyh] ebZ 26—twu 1] 2019] 'kfuokj@T;s"B 5—T;s"B 11] 1941
No. 22]
NEW DELHI, MAY 26—JUNE 1, 2019, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 5— JYAISTHA 11, 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
िव
िव
िव मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग
िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग
िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग
िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
शुि
शुि
शुि
शुि-प
प
प
प
नई द ली, 24 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 875
875
875
875.—दनांक 10.3.2019 क समसंयक अिधसूचना (ितिलिप संल) के आंिशक संशोधन म सुी टी. एल.
अलामेलु के कायकाल को ‘पदभार हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध अथवा अगले आदेश" तक, जो भी पहले हो’ के
#थान पर ‘पदभार हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध अथवा 62 वष क आयु ा% करने तक अथवा अगले आदेश"
तक, जो भी पहले हो’ पढ़ा जाए।
[फा. सं. आर-16011/02/2012-बीमा-I]
भूिमका वमा, संयु& िनदेशक
3682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2019
S.O. 875.—In partial modification of Notification of even no. dated 10.03.2019 (copy enclosed) the tenure of
Ms. T. L. Alamelu be read as ‘for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge, or till attaining the age of
62 years, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest’ in place of ‘for a period of three years with effect from the date
of assumption of charge of the post or until further orders, whichever is earlier’.
[F. No. R-16011/02/2012-Ins.I]
BHUMIKA VERMA, Jt. Director
कामक
कामक
कामक
कामक, लोक
लोक
लोक
लोक िश
िश
िश
िशका
का
का
कायत
यत
यत
यत और पशन
और पशन
और पशन
और पशन मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
(कामक और िशण िवभाग
कामक और िशण िवभाग
कामक और िशण िवभाग
कामक और िशण िवभाग)
नई द ली, 13 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 876
876
876
876.—जबक क) सरकार का यह मत है क ी ए. के. .सह व/र0 लोक अिभयोजक, सीबीआई से संबंिधत
िवभागीय जांच के योजनाथ, ी संजय चं), गैर-सरकारी 7ि& को सा8ी के 9प म बुलाने/ कोई द#तावेज पेश करने के िलए
समन करना आव;यक है।
इसिलए अब, िवभागीय जांच (साि8य" का हािजर कराना तथा द#तावेज पेश कराना) अिधिनयम, 1972 (1972 का
18) क धारा 4 उप-धारा 1 Eारा दF शि&य" का उपयोग करते Gए, क) सरकार एतHवारा ी ए. के. .सह व/र0 लोक
अिभयोजक, सीबीआई के िव9I अनुशासनाJमक कायवािहय" के संबंध म अिधिनयम क धारा 5 म िविनLदM शि&य" का
योग करने के िलए जांच ािधकारी के 9प म ी बी.एस. लसपाल, सीडीआई, सीवीसी को ािधकृत करती है।
[सं. 221/12/2013-एवीडी-II(बी)]
अिPनी दFाQेय ठाकरे, उप सिचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 13th May, 2019
S.O. 876.—WHEREAS the Central Government is of the opinion that for the purpose of departmental inquiry
relating to Shri A.K.Singh, Sr PP, CBI, it is necessary to summon as witnesses/call for any document from Shri Sanjay
Chandra, private person.
NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Departmental
Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central
Government hereby authorizes Shri B.S. Laspal, CDI, CVC as the Inquiring Authority to exercise the power specified in
Section 5 of the Act in relation to the disciplinary proceedings against Shri A.K.Singh, Sr PP, CBI.
[No. 221/12/2013-AVD-II(B)]
ASHWINI DATTATRAYA THAKARE, Dy. Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3683
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
कोयला मंालय
नई द ली, 27 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 877
877
877
877.—केS )ीय सरकार को यह तीत होता है क, इससे उपाबI अनुसूची म वUणत प/र8ेQ क भूिम म से
कोयला अिभाV त कए जाने क संभावना है ;
उW त अिधसूचना म वXणत 8ेQ के रेखांक धारक सं या सी-I(ई)III/जेजेएम/947-0719, तारीख 20 अैल, 2019
का िनरी8ण, वे# टन कोलफ ^स िलिमटेड, (राज# व िवभाग) कोल इ# टेट, िसिवल लाईS स, नागपुर - 440 001
(महारा_ `) के कायालय म या मु य महाबंधक (खोज भाग), केS )ीय खान योजना एवं िडजाइन सं# थान, ग"डवाना पॅलेस,
कांके रोड, रांची - 834 001 के कायालय म या कोयला .नयQक, 1 काउंिसल हाउस # `ीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 के
कायालय म या िजला कलेW टर, चं)पुर (महारा_ `) के कायालय म कया जा सकता है ;
केS )ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक 8ेQ (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम इसके
प; चात् उW त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उपधारा (1) Eारा दJ त शिW तय" का योग करते Gए उ& अनुसूची
म वUणत भूिम से कोयले का पूव8ण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ;
उपयु& अनुसूची म उि लिखत भूिम म िहतबI कोई d यिW त –
(i) भूिम के संपूण या कसी भाग या उ& भूिम म या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अजन पर आ8ेप कर सकेगा ; या
(ii) उससे संबंिधत धारा 4 क उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क गयी कसी कायवाही से Gई या होने वाली संभािवत कसी 8ित
के िलए उ& अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या
(iii) उW त अिधिनयम क धारा (13) क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन पूवh8ण अनुiिV तय" के भावहीन होने या उW त
अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (4) के अधीन खनन पjे भावहीन होने के संबंध म ितकर का दावा कर
सकेगा और उसे उW त अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म िविनLद_ ट मद" क
बाबत् उपगत d यय को उपदUशत करने के िलए पूवkW त भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचQ", चाटl और अS य
द# तावेज" को प/रदJ त कर सकेगा ।
राजपQ म इस अिधसूचना के काशन क तारीख से नm बे दन के भीतर, 8ेQीय महाबंधक, वे# टन कोलफ ^स िलिमटेड,
माजरी 8ेQ, तहसील वरोरा, िजला चS)पुर (महाराn) के कायालय म या महाबंधक, वे# टन कोलफ ^स िलिमटेड, भूिम और
राज# व िवभाग, कोल ई# टेट, िसिवल लाईS स, नागपुर-440 001 (महारा_ `) को भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अम गामेटेड एकोणा - । और ।। िववृJ त खान
माजरी 8ेQ
िजला चं)पुर (महारा_ `)
(रेखांक धारक सं या सी-।(ई)।।।/जेजेएम/947- 2019, तारीख 20 अैल, 2019)
3684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
भाग-I
सभी अिधकार :
oम
सं.
ाम का नाम
पटवारी सLकल
सं या
तहसील
िजला
भूिम का वणन
(हेWटेयर म)
कुल
/टV पणी
िनजी
सरकारी
वन
1
एकोणा
11
वरोरा
चं)पुर
37.08
0.50
-
37.58
भाग
2
माडा
11
वरोरा
चं)पुर
172.63
7.80
-
180.43
भाग
3
वनोजा
11
वरोरा
चं)पुर
320.03
18.75
-
338.78
भाग
4
च9र खटी
10
वरोरा
चं)पुर
56.03
3.02
-
59.05
भाग
5
नायदेव
10
वरोरा
चं)पुर
68.93
1.19
-
70.12
भाग
6
नगाला /रठ
10
वरोरा
चं)पुर
77.19
3.86
0.32
81.37
भाग
कुल :
731.89
35.12
0.32
767.33
भाग
भाग
भाग
भाग-II
सभी अिधकार :
oम
सं.
ाम का नाम
पटवारी सLकल
सं या
तहसील
िजला
भूिम का वणन
(हेWटेयर म)
कुल
/टV पणी
िनजी
सरकारी
वन
1
एकोणा
11
वरोरा
चं)पुर
53.55
3.58
-
57.13
भाग
2
माडा
11
वरोरा
चं)पुर
143.43
7.09
-
150.52
भाग
कुल :-
196.98
10.67
0.00
207.65
कुल 8ेQ (भाग-I और भाग II) : 974.98 हेW टर (लगभग)
या 2409.17 एकड़ (लगभग)
भाग-I
(1) ाम एकोणा के अिधसूिचत 8ेQ के V लाट सं यांक :
82, 85, 86, 93/1अ-93/1ब, 93/2, 94, 95, 96, 117, 118, 119, 120/1अ -120/1ब, 120/2, 121/1-121/2, 122/1,
122/2, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 134, 135/1-135/2-135/3, सड़क ।
(2) ाम वनोजा के अिधसूिचत 8ेQ के V लाट सं यांक :
32/1- 32/2, 34/1अ- 34/1ब- 34/2, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45/1- 45/2, 46/1- 46/2, 47/1- 47/2अ-
47/2ब- 47/2क, 48/1- 48/2, 49/1- 49/2, 50, 51, 52/1- 52/2अ- 52/2ब- 52/2क- 52/2ड, 53, 54, 55/1-
55/2अ/1- 55/2अ/2- 55/2ब- 55/2क- 55/2ड- 55/3 56/1- 56/2, 57, 58, 59, 60/1- 60/2, 61/1- 61/2- 61/3, 62,
63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79/1- 79/2- 79/3, 80/1- 80/2, 81/1- 81/2,
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3685
82/1- 82/2, 83, 84/1अ/1- 84/1अ/2- 84/1ब- 84/1क- 84/2, 85/1, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104/1-
104/2- 104/3, 105/1- 105/2,106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116/1- 116/2- 116/3,
117/1- 117/2, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123/1अ- 123/1ब- 123/2, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128/1- 128/2,
129, 130, 131, 133, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139/1- 139/2, 140/1- 140/2, 141/1/अ- 141/1/ब-
141/1/क- 141/2, 142, 143, 144/1- 144/2, 145, 146/1- 146/2, 147, 148,149/1- 149/2- 149/3, 150, 151,
157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169/1- 169/2- 169/3, 170, 171/1- 171/2,
172/1- 172/2, 173, 174, 175, 176/1-176/2, 177/1- 177/2, 178/1- 178/2- 178/3, 179, 180/1- 180/2,
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189/1- 189/2- 189/3, 190, 191, 192, 193/1- 193/2- 193/3,
194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206/1- 206/3, 207/1- 207/2- 207/3, 208,
209, 210, 211, 212/1- 212/2, 213, 214, 224, 225/1- 225/3, 226, 227/1- 227/3, 228/1- 228/2, 230,
461, 462/1- 462/2, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470, सड़क, नाला ।
(3) ाम च9र खटी के अिधसूिचत 8ेQ के V लाट सं यांक :
412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459/1- 459/2,
460, 461/1- 461/2, 462, 463, 465/1- 465/2/1- 465/2/2- 465/2/3, 493, 494, 516, नाला ।
(4) ाम माडा के अिधसूिचत 8ेQ के V लाट सं यांक :
116, 117, 118/1- 118/2, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126/1- 126/2, 127, 128, 129/अ- 129/ब/1-
129/ब/2, 130/1- 130/2, 131, 133/1- 133/2, 134/1- 134/2, 135, 136, 149/1- 149/2, 150, 151/1- 151/2,
152, 153, 154, 155/1- 155/2, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161/1- 161/2, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169/1-
169/2, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179/1- 179/2, 180, 181/1- 181/2- 181/3- 181/4,
182, 183, 184/1- 184/2, 185/1- 185/2, 186, 187/1- 187/2, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195,
196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205/1- 205/2अ- 205/2ब, 206/1- 206/2, 207, 208, 209,
210, 211, 212, 213/1- 213/2, 214, 215, 216/1- 216/2- 216/3- 216/4, 217, 218, 219, 224, 247, 251,
252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 304, 305, 306/1- 306/2, 307,
308/1- 308/2- 308/3, 309, 310, 313, 314, सड़क ।
(5) ाम नायदेव के अिधसूिचत 8ेQ के V लाट सं यांक :
9, 10, 11/1- 11/2, 12, 13/1- 13/2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18/1अ- 18/1ब- 18/2- 18/3- 18/4, 19, 20/1- 20/2, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31/1- 31/2, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36/1- 36/2- 36/3, 37, 38/1- 38/2, 39,
40/1- 40/2, 41/1- 41/2, 42, 43/1- 43/2, 44/1- 44/2- 44/3, 45/1अ- 45/1ब- 45/1क- 45/2अ- 45/2ब- 45/2क-
45/3अ- 45/3ब- 45/3क, 46/2अ- 46/2ब ।
(6) ाम नगाला /रठ के अिधसूिचत 8ेQ के V लाट सं यांक :
1, 2/1- 2/2, 3/1- 3/2, 4, 5, 6/1- 6/2- 6/3, 7/1- 7/2, 8, 9, 10/अ- 10/ब, 11, 12, 13/1- 13/2- 13/3, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23/1- 23/2, 24/1- 24/2- 24/3, 25, 29, सड़क, नाला ।
भाग-II
(1) ाम एकोणा के अिधसूिचत 8ेQ के V लाट सं यांक :
3686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
164/1/1- 164/1/2- 164/2ब- 164/2अ, 165, 166, 167/1- 167/2, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175,
176, 177/1- 177/2, 178/1- 178/2, 180/1अ- 180/1ब- 180/2- 180/3- 180/4- 180/5- 180/6- 180/7- 180/8,
181/1- 181/2- 181/3- 181/4, 182/1/अ- 182/1/ब- 182/2/अ- 182/2/ब- 183/1अ- 183/1ब- 183/2- 183/3अ-
183/3ब- 183/4- 183/5, 184/1- 184/2, 185/1- 185/2, 190, 191, 192, 193, सरकारी भूिम ।
(2) ाम माडा के अिधसूिचत 8ेQ के V लाट सं यांक :
2, 3, 4, 5, 6/1अ- 6/1ब- 6/2अ- 6/2ब, 7, 8, 9, 10/1अ- 10/1ब- 10/1क- 10/1ड- 10/2- 10/3- 10/4, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23/1- 23/2, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32/1- 32/2, 33, 34, 35,
36, 37, 38, 39/1- 39/2, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45/1- 45/2, 46/1- 46/2, 47, 48, 49/1- 49/2, 50, 51, 52/1अ-
52/1ब- 52/1क- 52/2, 53/1- 53/2- 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68/अ- 68/ब-
68/क, 69/1- 69/2- 69/3- 69/4- 69/5, 70/1- 70/2, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76/1- 76/2, 275, 276, 277, 278/1-
278/2, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 320/1- 320/2, 321/1- 321/2- 321/3, 323, 324, 441,
442, सड़क, नाला ।
सीमा वणन:
भाग-I
क – ख :
रेखा ाम वनोजा म सड़क पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘क’ से आरंभ होकर उJ तर-पि; चम दशा से होती Gई िबS दु
‘ख’ पर िमलती है ।
ख – ग :
रेखा िबS दु ‘ख’ से आरंभ होकर ाम वनोजा से होती Gई सड़क पर ि# थत िबS दु 'ग' पर िमलती है।
ग - घ :
रेखा ाम वनोजा म सड़क पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘ग’ से आरंभ होकर उJ तर-पूव दशा से होती Gई नहर पार
करती Gई ाम वनोजा और ाम नागाडा रीठ क सिq मिलत ाम सीमा पर ि# थत िबS दु 'घ' पर समा%
होती है ।
घ - ड. :
रेखा ाम वनोजा और नागाडा रीठ क सिqमिलत ाम सीमा पर ि#थत िबS दु ‘घ’ से आरंभ होकर उJ तर
दशा से होती Gई नहर पार करती Gई ाम नागाडा रीठ और ाम नायदेव क सिq मिलत ाम सीमा पर
ि# थत िबS दु 'ड.’ पर िमलती है ।
ड.–च-छ :
रेखा ाम नागाडा रीठ और नायदेव क सिqमिलत ाम सीमा पर िबS दु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ होकर उJ तर दशा
म ाम नायदेव से होती Gई िबS दु ‘च’ पर िमलती है फर पि; चम दशा से होती Gई ाम नायदेव और
ाम च9र खटी क सिq मिलत ाम सीमा पर ि# थत िबS दु 'छ’ पर समा% होती है ।
छ-ज–झ :
रेखा ाम नागाडा और च9र खटी क सिqमिलत ाम सीमा पर िबS दु ‘छ’ से आरंभ होकर पि; चम दशा
म ाम च9र खटी से होती Gई िबS दु ‘ज’ से होकर फर दि8ण-पूव दशा म एकोणा-I ओसी प/रयोजना
के िलये पूव म अिधिहत क गई भूिम क सीमा से लगकर होती Gई नहर पार करती है और ाम च9र
खटी और ाम वनोजा क सिq मिलत ाम सीमा पर ि# थित िबS दु ‘´’ पर िमलती है ।
झ – ´ :
रेखा ाम च9र खटी और वनोजा क सिqमिलत ाम सीमा पर ि#थत िबS दु ‘झ’ से आरंभ होकर दि8ण
दशा म ाम च9र खटी और ाम वनोजा क सिq मिलत ाम सीमा से लगकर होती Gई फर ाम
वनोजा म एकोणा - । ओसी के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम क सीमा से लगकर गुजरती Gई ाम
एकोणा एवं ाम माडा क सिq मिलत ाम सीमा पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘´’ पर िमलती है ।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3687
´– ट :
रेखा ाम वनोजा और माडा क सिqमिलत ाम सीमा पर ि#थत िबS दु ‘´’ से आरंभ होकर ाम माडा
म एकोणा-I ओसी खदान के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम से लगकर होती Gई ाम एकोणा एवं ाम
माडा क सिq मिलत ाम सीमा ि# थत िबS दु ‘ट’ पर िमलती है ।
ट – ठ :
रेखा िबS दु ‘ट’ से आरंभ होकर ाम एकोणा-I ओसी के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम क सीमा से लगकर
होती Gई नहर के दि8ण तट पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘अ’ पर िमलती है ।
ठ – ड :
रेखा ाम एकोणा म िबS दु ‘ठ’ से आरंभ होकर नहर के दि8ण तट से लगकर पि; चम दशा से होती Gई
िबS दु ‘ड’ पर िमलती है ।
ड – ढ :
रेखा नहर के दि8णी तट पर ि#थत िबS दु ‘ड’ से आरंभ होकर दि8ण दशा से होती Gई सड़क पार करती
है एकोणा-II ओसी के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम क सीमा से लगकर होती Gई ाम एकोणा एवं ाम
माडा क सिq मिलत ाम सीमा पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘ढ’ पर िमलती है ।
ढ – ण :
रेखा ाम एकोणा और माडा क सिqमिलत ाम सीमा पर ि#थत िबSदु ‘ढ’ से आरंभ होकर ाम माडा म
दि8ण-पूव दशा म एकोणा-II ओसी के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम क सीमा से लगकर होती Gई सड़क
पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘ण’ पर िमलती है ।
ण – त :
रेखा ाम माडा म सड़क पर िबS दु ‘ण’ से आरंभ होकर दि8ण-पूव दशा म एकोणा-I ओसी के िलये पूव
म अिधिहत भूिम क बाs सीमा से लगकर होती Gई और िबS दु ‘त’ पर िमलती है ।
त – थ :
रेखा िबS दु ‘त’ से आरंभ होकर दि8ण-पि; चम दशा से होती Gई एकोणा-II ओसी के िलये पूव म
अिधिहत भूिम क सीमा से लगकर होती Gई और ाम माडा म िबS दु ‘थ’ पर िमलती है ।
थ – क:
रेखा िबS दु ‘थ’ से आरंभ होकर पूव दशा म सड़क से लगकर होती Gई और ाम वनोजा म सड़क पर
ि# थत आरंिभक िबS दु ‘क’ पर समाV त होती है ।
भाग-II
द – ध :
रेखा वधा नदी के उJ तर तट पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘द’ से आरंभ होकर ाम माडा म दि8ण-पूव दशा से होती
Gई और िबS दु ‘ध’ पर िमलती है ।
ध – न :
रेखा ाम माडा म िबS दु ‘ध’ से आरंभ होकर पूव दशा म सड़क से लगकर होती Gई और ाम माडा म
सड़क पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘न’ पर िमलती है ।
न – प :
रेखा िबS दु ‘न’ से आरंभ होकर उJ तर दशा म एकोणा-II ओसी के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम क सीमा
से लगकर होती Gई और िबS दु ‘प’ पर िमलती है ।
प – फ :
रेखा िबS दु ‘प’ से आरंभ होकर उJ तर-पि; चम दशा म एकोणा-II ओसी के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम
क सीमा से लगकर होती Gई सड़क पार करती है फर दूसरी सड़क से लगकर होती Gई सड़क पर ि# थत
िबS दु ‘फ’ पर िमलती है ।
फ – ब :
रेखा िबS दु ‘फ’ से आरंभ होकर ाम एकोणा म एकोणा-II ओसी के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम क सीमा
से लगकर होती Gई और एकोणा म िबS दु ‘ब’ पर िमलती है ।
3688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ब – भ :
रेखा िबS दु ‘ब’ से आरंभ होकर एकोणा-II ओसी के िलये पूव म अिधिहत भूिम क सीमा से लगकर होती
Gई और वधा नदी के पूवt तट पर ि# थत िबS दु ‘भ’ पर िमलती है ।
भ – द :
रेखा िबS दु ‘भ’ से आरंभ होकर नदी के पूवt तट के साथ-साथ दि8ण-पूव दशा म होकर वधा आरंिभक
िबS दु ‘द’ पर समाV त होती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015/7/2019-एलए एuड आईआर]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2019
S. O. 877.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the land in
the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas, the plan bearing number C-I(E)/III/JJM/947- 2019, dated the 20th April, 2019 , of the area
described in the said Schedule can be inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields limited (Revenue Department),
Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur– 440 001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration
Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi – 834 001 or at the office
of the Coal Controller, 1 Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 or at the office of the District Collector, Chandrapur
(Maharashtra);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the lands described in the said Schedule;
Any person interested in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule may, -
(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over the said land; or
(ii) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage likely to be caused by any action taken under
sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof; or
(iii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting licence
ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act, for mining lease ceasing to have
effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land showing the expenditure
incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,
to the Office of the Area General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Majri Area, Post Kuchana, Tahsil Warora, District
Chandrapur (Maharashtra) or General Manager (Land and Revenue), Western Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue
Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publication of
this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
Amalgamated Yekona – I and II Opencast Mine
Majri Area
District Chandrapur (Maharashtra)
[Plan Bearing Number C-I(E)/III/JJM/947- 2019, dated the 20th April, 2019]
Part – I
All Rights :
Sl.
No.
Name of Village
Patwari
Circle
number
Tahsil
District
Description of land
(in hectares)
Total
Remarks
Tenancy
Govt.
Forest
1
Yekona
11
Warora
Chandrapur
37.08
0.50
-
37.58
Part
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3689
Part–II
All Rights :
Sl.
No.
Name of
Village
Patwari
Circle
number
Tahsil
District
Description of land
(in hectares)
Total
Rema-
rks
Tenancy
Govt.
Forest
1
Yekona
11
Warora
Chandrapur
53.55
3.58
-
57.13
Part
2
Marda
11
Warora
Chandrapur
143.43
7.09
-
150.52
Part
Total :
196.98
10.67
0.00
207.65
Total area (Part I and Part II): 974.98 hectares (approximately)
or 2409.17 acres (approximately)
Part – I
(1) Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Yekona :
82, 85, 86, 93/1A-93/1B, 93/2, 94, 95, 96, 117, 118, 119, 120/1A -120/1B, 120/2, 121/1-121/2, 122/1, 122/2, 123, 124,
125, 126, 127, 128, 134, 135/1-135/2-135/3, Road.
(2) Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Wanoja :
32/1- 32/2, 34/1A- 34/1B- 34/2, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45/1- 45/2, 46/1- 46/2, 47/1- 47/2A- 47/2B- 47/2C, 48/1- 48/2,
49/1- 49/2, 50, 51, 52/1- 52/2A- 52/2B- 52/2C- 52/2D, 53, 54, 55/1- 55/2A/1- 55/2A/2- 55/2B- 55/2C- 55/2D- 55/3, 56/1-
56/2, 57, 58, 59, 60/1- 60/2, 61/1- 61/2- 61/3, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79/1- 79/2-
79/3, 80/1- 80/2, 81/1- 81/2, 82/1- 82/2, 83, 84/1A/1- 84/1A/2- 84/1B- 84/1C- 84/2, 85/1, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
104/1- 104/2- 104/3, 105/1- 105/2, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116/1- 116/2- 116/3, 117/1- 117/2,
118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123/1A- 123/1B- 123/2, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128/1- 128/2, 129, 130, 131, 133, 132, 135, 136, 137,
138, 139/1- 139/2, 140/1- 140/2, 141/1/A- 141/1/B- 141/1/C- 141/2, 142, 143, 144/1- 144/2, 145, 146/1- 146/2, 147, 148,
149/1- 149/2- 149/3, 150, 151, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169/1- 169/2- 169/3, 170,
171/1- 171/2, 172/1- 172/2, 173, 174, 175, 176/1-176/2, 177/1- 177/2, 178/1- 178/2- 178/3, 179, 180/1- 180/2, 181, 182,
183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189/1- 189/2- 189/3, 190, 191, 192, 193/1- 193/2- 193/3, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200,
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206/1- 206/3, 207/1- 207/2- 207/3, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212/1- 212/2, 213, 214, 224, 225/1- 225/3,
226, 227/1- 227/3, 228/1- 228/2, 230, 461, 462/1- 462/2, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470, Road, Nallah.
(3) Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Charur Khati :
412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459/1- 459/2, 460, 461/1- 461/2, 462,
463, 465/1- 465/2/1- 465/2/2- 465/2/3, 493, 494, 516, Road, Nallah
(4) Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Marda :
116, 117, 118/1- 118/2, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126/1- 126/2, 127, 128, 129/A- 129/B/1- 129/B/2, 130/1- 130/2, 131,
133/1- 133/2, 134/1- 134/2, 135, 136, 149/1- 149/2, 150, 151/1- 151/2, 152, 153, 154, 155/1- 155/2, 156, 157, 158, 159,
160, 161/1- 161/2, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169/1- 169/2, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179/1- 179/2, 180,
181/1- 181/2- 181/3- 181/4, 182, 183, 184/1- 184/2, 185/1- 185/2, 186, 187/1- 187/2, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194,
195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205/1- 205/2A- 205/2B, 206/1- 206/2, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212,
2
Marda
11
Warora
Chandrapur
172.63
7.80
-
180.43
Part
3
Wanoja
11
Warora
Chandrapur
320.03
18.75
-
338.78
Part
4
Charur Khati
10
Warora
Chandrapur
56.03
3.02
-
59.05
Part
5
Naydeo
10
Warora
Chandrapur
68.93
1.19
-
70.12
Part
6
Nagala Rith
10
Warora
Chandrapur
77.19
3.86
0.32
81.37
Part
Total :
731.89
35.12
0.32
767.33
3690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
213/1- 213/2, 214, 215, 216/1- 216/2- 216/3- 216/4, 217, 218, 219, 224, 247, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259,
260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 304, 305, 306/1- 306/2, 307, 308/1- 308/2- 308/3, 309, 310, 313, 314, Road.
(5) Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Naydeo :
9, 10, 11/1- 11/2, 12, 13/1- 13/2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18/1A- 18/1B- 18/2- 18/3- 18/4, 19, 20/1- 20/2, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31/1- 31/2, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36/1- 36/2- 36/3, 37, 38/1- 38/2, 39, 40/1- 40/2, 41/1- 41/2, 42, 43/1- 43/2, 44/1-
44/2- 44/3, 45/1A- 45/1B- 45/1C- 45/2A- 45/2B- 45/2C- 45/3A- 45/3B- 45/3C, 46/2A- 46/2B.
(6) Plot numbers within acquisition area in village Nagala Rith :
1, 2/1- 2/2, 3/1- 3/2, 4, 5, 6/1- 6/2- 6/3, 7/1- 7/2, 8, 9, 10/A- 10/B, 11, 12, 13/1- 13/2- 13/3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23/1- 23/2, 24/1- 24/2- 24/3, 25, 29, Nallah, Road.
Part - II
(1) Plot number within acquisition area in village Yekona :
164/1/1- 164/1/2- 164/2B- 164/2A, 165, 166, 167/1- 167/2, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177/1- 177/2,
178/1- 178/2, 180/1A- 180/1B- 180/2- 180/3- 180/4- 180/5- 180/6- 180/7- 180/8, 181/1- 181/2- 181/3- 181/4, 182/1/A-
182/1/B- 182/2/A- 182/2/B, 183/1A- 183/1B- 183/2- 183/3A- 183/3B- 183/4- 183/5, 184/1- 184/2, 185/1- 185/2, 190, 191,
192, 193, Government land.
(2) Plot number within acquisition area in village Marda :
2, 3, 4, 5, 6/1A- 6/1B- 6/2A- 6/2B, 7, 8, 9, 10/1A- 10/1B- 10/1C- 10/1D- 10/2- 10/3- 10/4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23/1- 23/2, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32/1- 32/2, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39/1- 39/2, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
45/1- 45/2, 46/1- 46/2, 47, 48, 49/1- 49/2, 50, 51, 52/1A- 52/1B- 52/1C- 52/2, 53/1- 53/2- 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,
63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68/A- 68/B- 68/C, 69/1- 69/2- 69/3- 69/4- 69/5, 70/1- 70/2, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76/1- 76/2, 275, 276, 277,
278/1- 278/2, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 320/1- 320/2, 321/1- 321/2- 321/3, 323, 324, 441, 442, Road, Nallah.
Boundary description:
Part–I
A – B :
Line starts from Point ‘A’ on the Road in village Wanoja passes in North-West direction and meets at
Point ‘B’.
B – C :
Line starts from Point ‘B’ passes through village Wanoja and meets at Point ‘C’ on the Road in village
Wanoja.
C – D :
Line starts from Point ‘C’ on the Road in village Wanoja passes in North-East direction crosses the
Canal and ends at Point ‘D’ on the common village boundary of villages Wanoja and Nagada Rith.
D – E :
Line starts from Point ‘D’ on common village boundary of villages Wanoja and Nagada Rith passes in
North direction crosses the Canal and meets at Point ‘E’ on common village boundary of villages Nagada
Rith and Naydeo.
E-F-G :
Line starts from Point ‘E’ on common village boundary of villages Nagada Rith and Naydeo passes in
North direction in village Naydeo and meets at Point ‘F’ and then passes in West direction and ends at
Point ‘G’ on common village boundary of villages Naydeo and Charur Khati.
G-H-I :
Line starts from Point ‘G’ on common village boundary of villages Naydeo and Charur Khati passes in
West direction in village Charur Khati passes through Point ‘H’ then passes South-East direction along
the boundary of the land already acquired for Yekona – I OC crosses the Canal and meets at Point ‘I’ on
common village boundary of villages Charurkhati and Wanoja.
I – J :
Line starts from Point ‘I’ on common village boundary of villages Charur Khati and Wanoja passes in
South direction along the common village boundary of villages Charur Khati and Wanoja then passes
through village Wanoja along the boundary of land already acquired for Yekona – I OC and meets at
Point ‘J’ on common village boundary of villages Wanoja and Marda.
J – K :
Line starts from Point ‘J’ on common village boundary of villages Wanoja and Marda passes through
Marda village along the boundary of land already acquired for Yekona – I OC crosses the Road and
meets at Point ‘K’ on common village boundary of villages Yekona and Marda.
K – L :
Line starts at Point ‘K’ through village Yekona along the outer boundary of land already acquired for
Yekona – I OC and meets at Point ‘L’ on the South bank of Canal.
L – M :
Line starts from Point ‘L’ in village Yekona passes along the South Bank of Canal in West direction and
meets at Point ‘M’.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3691
M – N :
Line starts from Point ‘M’ on South bank of Canal passes in South direction crosses the Road passes
along the outer boundary of land already acquired for Yekona – II OC and meets at Point ‘N’ on
common village boundary of villages Yekona and Marda.
N – O :
Lien starts from Point ‘N’ on common village boundary of villages Yekona and Marda passes in South-
East direction in village Marda along with outer boundary of land already acquired for Yekona – II OC
and meets at Point ‘O’ on the Road.
O – P :
Line starts from Point ‘O’ on the Road in village Marda passes South-East direction along the outer
boundary of land already acquired for Yekona – I OC and meets at Point ‘P’.
P - Q :
Line starts from Point ‘P’ passes in South-West direction along the outer boundary of land already
acquired for Yekona – II OC and meets at starting Point ‘Q’ in village Marda.
Q – A :
Line starts from Point ‘Q’ passes in East direction along the Road and ends at Point ‘A’ on Road in
village Wanoja.
Part – II
R – S :
Line starts from Point ‘R’ on North Bank of Wardha River passes through village Marda in South-East
direction and meets at Point ‘S’.
S – T :
Line starts from Point ‘S’ in village Marda passes in East direction along the Road and meets at Point ‘T’
on the Road in village Marda.
T – U :
Line starts from Point ‘T’ passes in North direction along the boundary of land already acquired for
Yekona – II OC and meets at Point ‘U’.
U – V :
Line starts from Point ‘U’ passes along the boundary of land already acquired for Yekona – II OC in
North-East direction crosses the Road then passes along another Road in North-West direction and meets
at Point ‘V’ on the Road.
V – W :
Line starts from Point ‘V’ passes through village Yekona along the boundary of land already acquired for
Yekona – II OC and meets at Point ‘W’ in village Yekona.
W – X :
Line starts from Point ‘W’ passes along the boundary of land acquired for Yekona – II and meets at Point
‘X’ on East Bank of Wardha River.
X – R :
Line starts from Point ‘X’ passes in South-East direction along the Eastern Bank of River and ends of
starting Point ‘R’.
[F. No. 43015/7/2019-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.
नई दली, 28 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 878
878
878
878.—केS)ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक 8ेQ (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) क
धारा 3 Eारा दF शि&य" का योग करते Gए, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के #तqभ (2) म िविनLदM अिधका/रय" को, उ&
अिधिनयम के योजन" के िलए और उ& अनुसूची के #तqभ (3) यथा िविनLदM ‘ओिडशा कोल एuड पावर िलिमटेड (ओिडशा
सरकार क कंपनी), जोन-ए, ाउंड xलोर, फोचुन टावस, चS)शेखरपुर, भूबने; वर-751023, ओिडशा’ क अिधका/रता के
भीतर आने वाले #तqभ (5) म िविनLदM 8ेQ" के संबंध म उ& स8म ािधका/रय" के सामने #तqभ (4), म क तJ#थानी
िविM म यथािविनLदM ऐसी धाराz के िलए स8म ािधकारी िनयु& करती है :-
3692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
oम
संया
स8म ािधकारी के 9प म िनयु&
7ि& का पदनाम
शासकय पता
अिधिनयम क
धारा
अिधका/रता का 8ेQ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
मुय कायकारी अिधकारी, खान का
धान, अवरसंरचना के मुय,
महाबंधक (िसिवल), अपर महा
बंधक (खान), अपर महाबंधक
(मेकेिनकल),
उप
महा
बंधक
(सीएसआर और आर एuड आर),
बंधक
(सवh8ण),
उप
बंधक
(सवh8ण), व/र0 सहायक बंधक
(सीएसआर और आर एuड आर),
सलाहकार (भू-िवiान), ओिडशा
कोल
एuड
पावर
िलिमटेड
(ओसीपीएल) के {ये0 सहायक
बंधक (भू-िवiान)
ओिडशा
कोल
एuड
पावर िलिमटेड, जोन-
ए, ाउंड xलोर, फोचुन
टावस,
चS)शेखरपुर,
भूबनेPर-751023,
ओिडशा.
धारा 4 क उप-
धारा (3)
(क)
पूव ण कोयला के
िलए भूिम म वेश
और
सव ण
करना ;
(ख)
उप - मृदा म
खोदना या वेधन
करना;
(ग)
भूिम म कोयला के
पूव ण के िलए
सभी
आव यक
काय! कए जाना;
(घ)
भूिम क# सीमाएं
िच&हांकत करना
िजनम पूव ण के
िलए
)तािवत
कया जाना है;
(ङ)
ऐसी सीमा, और
पंि-
को
िच&हांकत
करने
के िलए िच&ह. को
लगाना;
(च)
जहां सव ण पूरा
नह/
कया
जा
सकता
है
और
सीमाएं तथा पंि-
िच&हांकत
कए
गए है, वहाँ कम
कसी खड़ी फसल,
बाड़ या जंगल के
कसी भाग को
कम
और
साफ
करना ।
2.
मुय कायकारी अिधकारी, खान का
धान, अवरसंरचना के मुय,
महाबंधक (िसिवल), अपर महा
बंधक (खान), अपर महाबंधक
(मेकेिनकल),
उप
महा
बंधक
ओिडशा
कोल
एuड
पावर िलिमटेड, जोन-
ए, ाउंड xलोर, फोचुन
टावस,
चS)शेखरपुर,
भूबनेPर-751023,
धारा 6
का/रत होने वाली संभा7
8ित क रकम पर ितकर
का संदाय और केS)ीय
सरकार को िववाद िनLदM
करना ।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3693
(सीएसआर और आर एuड आर),
िवF के धान, उप बंधक (िवF),
{ये0
सहायक
बंधक
(िवF),
सहायक बंधक (िवF), सलाहकार
(भूिम और सqपदा), सलाहकार
(िविध और सिचवालय), सलाहकार
(कोयला), {ये0 सहायक बंधक
(िविध), ओिडशा कोल एuड पावर
िलिमटेड (ओसीपीएल) के कंपनी
सिचव.
ओिडशा.
3.
कोयला िनयंQक
कोयला िनयंQक का
कायालय, 1, काउंिसल
हाउस #`ीट, कोलकाता
– 700001
धारा 8 क उप-
धारा (2)
अज!न के िव67 आ ेप.
क# सुनवाई और क9ीय
सरकार को :रपोट! )तुत
कया जाना ।
4.
मुय कायकारी अिधकारी, खान का
धान, महा बंधक (अवरसंरचना),
अपर महा बंधक (खान), अपर
महाबंधक (मेकेिनकल), उप महा
बंधक (सीएसआर और आर एuड
आर), िवF के धान, बंधक
(िवF), ओिडशा कोल एuड पावर
िलिमटेड (ओसीपीएल) के उप
बंधक (िवF).
ओिडशा
कोल
एuड
पावर िलिमटेड, जोन-
ए, ाउंड xलोर, फोचुन
टावस,
चS)शेखरपुर,
भूबनेPर-751023,
ओिडशा.
धारा 12
धारा 13 क
उप-धारा (6)
धारा 14 क
उप-धारा (1)
धारा 14 क
उप-धारा (4)
धारा 16
धारा 17
धारा 19
=ि-य. को भूिम का
क>जा अ?य@पत करने
और उसका क>जा लेने के
िलए सूचना ।
नुकसानी के िलए
ितकर का संदाय
िजसका अिधिनयम म
कह/ भी उपबंध नह/
कया गया है।
करार Eारा िनयत ितकर
का संदाय ।
ितकर क उिचत रकम के
संबंध म अिधकरण के
सम8 कथन।
अिधकरण Eारा
अिधिनUणत mयाज का
संदाय।
ितकर का संदाय ।
केS)ीय सरकार Eारा
3694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[फा. सं. 43015/5/2019-एलए एuड आईआर ]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2019
S.O. 878.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers specified in column (2) of the
Schedule below to be competent authorities for the purposes of the said Act and for the provisions of such sections as are
specified against the said competent authorities in the corresponding entry in column (4) thereof, in respect of the areas
specified in column (5) falling within the jurisdiction of ‘Odisha Coal and Power Limited (A Company of Government of
Odisha), Zone-A, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751023, Odisha’, as specified in
column (3) of the said Schedule.
SCHEDULE
धारा 20 क
उप-धारा (3)
धारा 21
Jयायोिजत शि&य" और
कत7" का योग करना।
केS)ीय सरकार Eारा
अपील क सुनवाई के
दौरान /रपोट देना और
अपने आदेश का िन_कष
देना ।
जानकारी ा% करने क
शि& ।
5.
मुय कायकारी अिधकारी, खान का
धान, महा बंधक (अवरसंरचना),
अपर महा बंधक (खान), अपर
महाबंधक (मेकेिनकल), उप महा
बंधक (सीएसआर और आर एuड
आर), िवF के धान, बंधक
(िवF), बंधक (सीएसआर और आर
एuड आर), बंधक (सवh8ण), उप
बंधक (सवh8ण), उप बंधक
(िवF), ओिडशा कोल एuड पावर
िलिमटेड (ओसीपीएल) के {ये0
सहायक बंधक (सीएसआर और
आर एuड आर).
ओिडशा
कोल
एuड
पावर िलिमटेड, जोन-
ए, ाउंड xलोर, फोचुन
टावस,
चS)शेखरपुर,
भूबनेPर-751023,
ओिडशा.
धारा 22
वेश
करने
और
िनरी ण
करने
क#
शि- ।
Serial
number
Designation of person appointed
as competent authority
Official address
Section of the Act
Area of Jurisdiction
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
Chief Executive Officer, Head of
Mine, Chief of Infrastructure,
General
Manager
(Civil),
Additional General Manager
(Mines), Additional General
Manager (Mechanical), Deputy
Odisha Coal and
Power
Limited,
Zone-A,
Ground
Floor,
Fortune
Towers,
Chandrasekharpur,
Sub-section (3) of
section 4.
(a) To enter upon and survey
the land for prospecting
coal;
(b) To dig or bore into the
sub -soil;
(c) To do all acts necessary
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3695
General Manager (CSR and R
and R), Manager (Survey),
Deputy
Manager
(Survey),
Senior Assistant Manager (CSR
and
R
and
R),
Advisor
(Geology),
Senior
Assistant
Manager (Geology) of Odisha
Coal and Power Limited (OCPL).
Bhubaneswar-
751023, Odisha.
to prospect for coal in the
land;
(d) To set out boundaries of
the
land
in
which
prospecting is proposed
to be done;
(e) To mark such boundaries
and
line
by
placing
marks; and
(f) Where survey cannot be
completed
and
the
boundaries
and
line
marked, to cut down and
clear away any part of
standing crop, fence or
jungle.
2.
Chief Executive Officer, Head of
Mine, Chief of Infrastructure ,
General
Manager
(Civil),
Additional
General
Manager
(Mines),
Additional
General
Manager (Mechanical), Deputy
General
Manager
(CSR
and
R and R), Head of Finance,
Deputy
Manager
(Finance),
Senior
Assistant
Manager
(Finance), Assistant Manager
(Finance), Advisor (Land and
Estate),
Advisor
(Legal
and
Secretariat),
Advisor
(Coal),
Senior Assistant Manager (Law),
Company Secretary, of Odisha
Coal and Power Limited (OCPL).
Odisha Coal and
Power
Limited,
Zone-A,
Ground
Floor,
Fortune
Towers,
Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-
751023, Odisha.
Section 6.
Payment of compensation on
amount of damage likely to
be caused and referring
dispute
to
Central
Government.
3.
Coal Controller.
Office of the Coal
Controller,1,
Council
House
Street,
Kolkata-
700001.
Sub-section (2) of
section 8.
Hearing
of
objections
against
acquisition
and
submitting
of
report
to
Central Government.
4.
Chief Executive Officer, Head of
Mine,
General
Manager
(Infrastructure),
Additional
General
Manager
(Mines),
Additional
General
Manager
(Mechanical), Deputy General
Manager (CSR and R and R),
Head
of
Finance,
Manager
(Finance),
Deputy
Manager
(Finance) of Odisha Coal and
Power Limited (OCPL).
Odisha Coal and
Power
Limited,
Zone-A,
Ground
Floor,
Fortune
Towers,
Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-
751023, Odisha.
Section 12.
Sub-section (6) of
section13.
Sub-section (1) of
section14.
Sub-section (4) of
section14.
Section 16.
Section 17.
Section 19.
Notice to persons to
surrender possession of land
and take possession thereof.
Payment of compensation
for damages not provided
elsewhere in the Act.
Payment of compensation
fixed by agreement.
Statement before the
Tribunal regarding fair
amount of compensation.
Payment of interest on
awarded by the Tribunal.
Payment of compensation.
3696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[F. No. 43015/5/2019-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.
उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय
(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)
(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)
(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)
(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)
(भारतीय मानक यूरो)
(भारतीय मानक यूरो)
(भारतीय मानक यूरो)
(भारतीय मानक यूरो)
नई दली, 17 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 879
879
879
879.—भारतीय मानक mयूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक mयूरो एतदEारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइसस" के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म दए गए ह}, वे #वीकृत कर
दए गए ह}:-
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
".
".
".
".
सं.
सं.
सं.
सं.
लाइस%स सं
लाइस%स सं
लाइस%स सं
लाइस%स सं
&वीकृत करने
&वीकृत करने
&वीकृत करने
&वीकृत करने
क( ितिथ वष+
क( ितिथ वष+
क( ितिथ वष+
क( ितिथ वष+/ / / /
माह
माह
माह
माह
लाइस%सधारी का नाम व पता
लाइस%सधारी का नाम व पता
लाइस%सधारी का नाम व पता
लाइस%सधारी का नाम व पता
भारतीय मानक का शीष+
भारतीय मानक का शीष+
भारतीय मानक का शीष+
भारतीय मानक का शीष+
भा
भा
भा
भा.मा
मा
मा
मा. . . . संसंसंसं. . . .
(भाग
(भाग
(भाग
(भाग/ / / / अनुभाग)
अनुभाग)
अनुभाग)
अनुभाग)
: वष+
वष+
वष+
वष+
1
6590011013
20190208
मेसस बरनी वेलरी
89, डी बी रोड, आर. एस. पुरम,
कोयबूर -641002
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु ता एवं
मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
2
6590011619
20190208
मेसस हेमा वेस
310/1, राजा #ीट,
कोयबूर -641001
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु ता एवं
मुहरांकन
IS 2112 :
2014
Sub-section (3) of
section 20.
Section 21.
To exercise the powers and
duties delegated by the
Central Government.
Giving of report during
hearing of appeal by the
Central Government and the
finding of its order.
Power to obtain information.
5.
Chief Executive Officer, Head of
Mine, General Manager
(Infrastructure
), Additional General Manager
(Mines),
Additional
General
Manager (Mechanical), Deputy
General Manager (CSR and R
and
R),
Head
of
Finance,
Manager
(Finance),
Manager
(CSR and R and R), Manager
(Survey), Dy. Manager (Survey),
Dy. Manager (Finance), Senior
Assistant Manager (CSR and R
and R) of Odisha Coal and Power
Limited (OCPL).
Odisha Coal and
Power
Limited,
Zone-A,
Ground
Floor,
Fortune
Towers,
Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar-
751023, Odisha.
Section 22.
Power to enter and inspect.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3697
3
6590010718
20190208
मेसस गुलाब पैराडाइस
142,143, मु,य बज़ार,
ऊटी-643001
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु ता एवं
मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
4
6590011114
20190208
मेसस पिवज़म वेल िसटी
372, .ॉस कट रोड, गाँधीपुरम,
कोयबूर -641012
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु ता एवं
मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
5
6590011215
20190208
मेसस पिवज़म {वेलस
276/277/278, oॉस कट
रोड, गाँधीपुरम,
कोयqबFूर -641012
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
6
6590011417
20190208
मेसस सुबी {वेलस
130 B, oॉस कट रोड,
गाँधीपुरम,
कोयqबFूर -641012
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 2112 :
2014
7
6590010920
20190208
मेसस लता {वेलरी
N-mलॉक सं: 4, कोवैपुदुर,
कोयqबFूर-641042
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
8
6590011518
20190208
मेसस आर के {वेस
51,55, oॉस कट रोड,
गाँधीपुरम,
कोयqबFूर -641012
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 2112 :
2014
9
6590011316
20190208
मेसस तंगामियल {वेलरी
िलिमटड
सं:40, एम के जी कॉqVलेWस,
Sयू #कम रोड, पोलाची-
642001
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
10
6590010819
20190208
मेसस वसSतास रा आभणा
251 oॉस कट रोड,
गाँधीपुरम,
कोयqबFूर -641012
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
11
6590012116
20190212
मेसस वसSतास रा आभणा
251 oॉस कट रोड,
गाँधीपुरम,
कोयqबFूर -641012
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 2112 :
2014
12
6590011813
20190212
मेसस ी वैभव {वेस
6/1, भारती #`ीट,
महा.लगापुरम,
पोलाची -642002
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
13
6590011914
20190212
मेसस पिवज़म {वेल िसटी
372, oॉस कट रोड,
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
IS 2112 :
3698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
गाँधीपुरम,
कोयqबFूर -641012
एवं मुहरांकन
2014
14
6590012015
20190212
मेसस पिवज़म {वेलस
276/277/278, oॉस कट
रोड, गाँधीपुरम, कोयqबFूर-
641012
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 2112 :
2014
15
6590011720
20190212
मेसस महालमी {वेलस
75/2,12 B, चेjीपालयम
रोड,
जी डी फामसी के सामने,
कु/रची, पोदनूर, कोयqबFूर-
641023
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
16
6500037607
20190213
मेसस मेकमो पqVस इंड#`ीस
सं. 2, जानक अqमाल
लेऔट,
अqबाल नगर,
आवरमपालयम, गणपित
पो#ट, कोयqबFूर- 641006
िनqमजनीय पqपसेट
IS 8034:
2002
17
6500037506
20190216
मेसस ी बारीअqमन
िमनरस
1/548, तुलूकनातोjम,
नSजVपानगर, पोयमपालयम,
पूलुवापjी (पो#ट),
ितVपुर-641602
पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद
ाकृितक िमनरल जल के
अलावा)
IS 14543:
2016
18
6590012520
20190218
मेसस ए आर वी तंगा मािलगै
सं. 396, सुmबू कॉqVलेWस,
तडागम रोड, पाल कंपनी बस
#टॉप, कोयqबFूर-641001
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
19
6590012217
20190218
मेसस तqबी अा {वेलस
सं. 21, िशवाशSमुगम #`ीट,
ईरोड -638001
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
20
6590012419
20190218
मेसस ी अिबरामी तंगा
मािलगै
एस एफ सं. 337, ईरोड
रोड, वेलाकोिवल, ितVपुर -
638111
#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
21
6590012318
20190218
मेसस ी वैभव {वेस
6/1, भारती #`ीट,
महा.लगापुरम,
पोलाची -642002
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 2112 :
2014
22
6590012714
20190220
मेसस ी अिबरामी तंगा
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
IS 2112 :
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3699
मािलगै
एस एफ सं. 337, ईरोड
रोड, वेलाकोिवल, ितVपुर -
638111
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
2014
23
6590012613
20190220
मेसस ए वी आर #वणामहल
{वेलरी ायवेट िलिमटड
102, आर के वी रोड, ईरोड-
638001
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 2112 :
2014
24
6590012815
20190227
मेसस तंगामियल ी
पलनीमुगन {वेलरी
180, बज़ार #`ीट, पोलाची
तालुक,पोलाची-642001
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 2112 :
2014
25
6500037405
20190212
मेसस ी मुगन इंजीिनय रग
सं.45, ीिमयर इंडि#`यल
ए#टेट,
बालासुSदरम #`ीट,
के.आर.पुरम,
कोयqबFूर- 641006.
साफ, ठंडे पानी के िलए
अपक)ीय पुनJपादक पqप
IS 8472:
1998
26
6500038011
20190221
मेसस ेSसा इंड#`ीस
यूिनट ऑफ सी आर अई पqVस
ायdट िलिमटड
66/2, अितपालयम रोड,
िचावेदमपjी, कोयqबFूर-
641049
लाइन ऑपरेटेड तीन फे ज
ए.सी. मोटर (आईई कोड) “
द8ता वगtकरण एवं
कायका/रता िविशM”
IS 12615:
2018
27
6500037910
20190221
मेसस डेटाफड इंिडया
ायवेट िलिमटड
119/1B एवं 2B,
मुदिलपालयम रोड, अरसूर
पो#ट, कोयqबFूर-641407
250 वोट तक क रे/टत
वोटता वाले और 16 एqपीयर
तक क रे/टत करंट वाले Vलग
और सॉकेट िनकास क िविशिM
IS 1293:
2005
28
6500037809
20190221
मेसस गोवान #टीस ायवेट
िलिमटड
एस एफ
सं.544/1,2,3,सगालीपालयम
िप/रवु, िचा कूर पो#ट,
कवलूर, अिवनािश, ितVपुर-
641655
कंoट बलन के िलए उ
शि& िव9िपत इ#पात स/रए
एवं तार
IS 1786:
2008
3700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29
6500037708
20190221
मेसस गोवान #टीस ायवेट
िलिमटड
एस एफ सं. 544/ 1, 2 ,3,
सगालीपालयम िप/रवु, िचा
कूर पो#ट, कवलूर,
अिवनािश, ितVपुर-641655
सामाSय संरचना इ#पात हेतु
पुनवhलन के िलए काबन ढलवाँ
इ#पात इंगट, िबलेट, mलूम एवं
#लैब
IS 2830:
2012
[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11]
मीना8ी गणेशन, वैiािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2019
S.O. 879.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which
are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory)
of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part/
Sec. Year
1
6590011013
20190208
M/s. Barani Jewellery
89, D.B.Road, R.S.Puram,
Coimbatore -641002
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
2
6590011619
20190208
M/s. Hema Jewells
310/1,Raja Street,
Coimbatore -641001
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
3
6590010718
20190208
M/s. Gulab Paradise
142,143,Main Bazzar,
Ooty-643001
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
4
6590011114
20190208
M/s. Pavizham Jewel City
372,Crosscut
Road,Gandhipuram,,
Coimbatore -641012
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
5
6590011215
20190208
M/s. Pavizham Jewellers
276/277/278, Crosscut Road,
Gandhipuram,,
Coimbatore -641012
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
6
6590011417
20190208
M/s. Subasree Jewellers
130 B, Cross Cut
Road,Gandhipuram,,
Coimbatore -641012
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
7
6590010920
20190208
M/s. Latha Jewellery
N-Block No:4,Kovaipudur,
Coimbatore-641042
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
8
6590011518
20190208
M/s. R.K.Jewellss
51,55,Cross Cut
Road,Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore -641012
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3701
9
6590011316
20190208
M/s. Thangamayil Jewellery
Limited
No:40,M.K.G Complex, New
Scheme Road, Pollachi-642001
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
10
6590010819
20190208
M/s. Vasantha’s Rathna Abarna
251,Crosscut Road,
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore -641012
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
11
6590012116
20190212
M/s. Vasantha's Rathna Abarna
251, Crosscut Road,
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore -641012
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
12
6590011813
20190212
M/s. Sri Vaibhav Jewels
6/1,Bharathi Street,
Mahalingapuram,
Pollachi-642002
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
13
6590011914
20190212
M/s. Pavizham Jewel City
372, Cross Cut Road,
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore -641012
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
14
6590012015
20190212
M/s. Pavizham Jewellers
276,277,278,Cross Cut Road,
Gandhipuram,,
Coimbatore -641012
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
15
6590011720
20190212
M/s. Mahalakshmi Jewellers
75/2,12 B, Chetipalayam Road,
Opp. GD Pharmacy, Kurichi,
Podanur,
Coimbatore -641023
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
16
6500037607
20190213
M/s. Macmo Pumps Industries
No. 2, Janaki Ammal Layout,
Ambal Nagar, Avaramplayam,
Ganapathy Post, Coimbatore-
641006
Submersibile Pumpsets
IS 8034:
2002
17
6500037506
20190216
M/s. Sri Bannariamman
Minerals
1/548, Thulukkanthottam,
Nanjappanagar,
Poyampalayam, Pooluvapatti
( P.O.), Tiruppur-641602
Packaged Drinking Water(Other
Than Packaged Natural Mineral
Water)
IS 14543:
2016
18
6590012520
20190218
M/s. ARV Thanga Maligai
No.396,Subbu Complex,
Thadagam Road, Pal Company
Bus Stop,Coimbatore -641001
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
19
6590012217
20190218
M/s. Thambi Anna Jewellers
No.21,Sivashanmugam Street,
Erode -638001
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
20
6590012419
20190218
M/s. Sree Abirami Thanga
Maaligai
SF. No.337, Erode
Road,Vellakovil,
Tirupur -638111
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 1417 :
2016
21
6590012318
20190218
M/s. Sri Vaibav Jewels
6/1,Bharathi Street, Mahalinga
Puram, Pollachi-642002
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
3702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22
6590012714
20190220
M/s. Sree Abirami Thanga
Maaligai
SF. No.337, Erode
Road,Vellakovil,
Tirupur -638111
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
23
6590012613
20190220
M/s. AVR Swarnamahal
Jewellery Private Limited
102,R.K.V.Road, Erode
638001Erode
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
24
6590012815
20190227
M/s. Thangamayil Sree
Palanimurugan Jewellery
180, Bazzaar Street, Pollachi
Taluk,
Pollachi-642001
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness
and Marking
IS 2112 :
2014
25
6500037405
20190212
M/s. Sri Murugan Engineering
No.45, Premier Industrial
Estate
Balasundaram Street,
K.R.Puram,
Coimbatore 641006.
Centrifugal Regenerative Pumps
For Clear, Cold Water
IS 8472:
1998
26
6500038011
20190221
M/s. Gransa Industries
Unit of CRI Pumps Private Ltd.
66/2,Athipalayam Road,
Chinnavedampatti,
Coimbatore-641049
Line Operated Three Phase A.C.
Motors (IE Code) “Efficiency
Classes And Performance
IS 12615:
2018
27
6500037910
20190221
M/s. Datafield India Private
Limited
119/1B& 2B, Mudalipalayam
Road,
Arasur Post,
Coimbatore-641407
Plugs and Socket-Outlets of
Rated Voltage up to and
including 250 Volts and Rated
Current upto and including 16
Amperes
IS 1293:
2005
28
6500037809
20190221
M/s. Govaan Steels Private
Limited
SF.No.544/1,2,3,Sengalipalaya
m Pirivu,
Chinna Kanur P.O.,
Karuvalur, Avinashi,
Tirupur-641655
High Strength Deformed Steel
Bars And Wires For Concrete
Reinforcement
IS 1786:
2008
29
6500037708
20190221
M/s. Govaan Steels Private
Limited
SF.No.544/1,2,3,Sengalipalaya
m Pirivu,
Chinna Kanur P.O.,
Karuvalur, Avinashi,
Tirupur-641655
Carbon Steel Cast Billet Ingots,
Billets, Blooms And Slabs For
Re-Rolling Into Steel For General
Structural Purposes
IS 2830:
2012
[No. CMD/13:11]
MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
नई दली, 17 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 880
880
880
880.—भारतीय मानक mयूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक mयूरो एतदEारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइसस" के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म दए गए ह}, वे #वीकृत कर
दए गए ह}:—
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3703
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
.
.
.
.
सं.
सं.
सं.
सं.
लाइसस सं
लाइसस सं
लाइसस सं
लाइसस सं
वीकृत करने क
वीकृत करने क
वीकृत करने क
वीकृत करने क
ितिथ वष
ितिथ वष
ितिथ वष
ितिथ वष/ / / / माह
माह
माह
माह
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
भारतीय मानक का शीष
भारतीय मानक का शीष
भारतीय मानक का शीष
भारतीय मानक का शीष
भा
भा
भा
भा.मा
मा
मा
मा. संसंसंसं.(भाग
(भाग
(भाग
(भाग/
अनुभाग)
अनुभाग)
अनुभाग)
अनुभाग) : : : : वष
वष
वष
वष
1
6590012916
20190305
मेसस कृणा वेलरी
131, पी वी कोइल ीट, उडुमलपेट,
ितपुर -642126
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
2
6500038112
20190304
मेसस आर के टील मेनुफे&च(रग कंपनी *ायवेट
िलिमटड
लॉट सं. NN50, िसपकोट इंडियल /ोथ स1टर,
पे2दुरै, ईरोड-638052.
खोखले इपात के खंड
संरचना5मक *योग के िलए
IS 4923: 2017
3
6500038306
20190305
मेसस आर के टील मेनुफे&च(रग कंपनी *ायवेट
िलिमटेड
लॉट सं. NN50, िसपकोट इंडियल /ोथ स1टर,
पे2दुरै, ईरोड-638052.
या89क:य और सामा2य
इंजीिनय(रग उ=े>य के िलए
इपात निलकाएँ
IS 3601: 2006
4
6500038205
20190305
मेसस आर के टील मेनुफे&च(रग कंपनी *ायवेट
िलिमटड
लॉट सं. NN50, िसपकोट इंडियल /ोथ स1टर,
पे2दुरै, ईरोड-638052.
इपात निलकाएँ संरचना5मक
उपयोग@ के िलए
IS 1161: 2014
5
6500038407
20190321
मेसस बी जे इल&ोिन&स *ायवेट िलिमटड
426/1-A, टे&सपाक रोड, ने9ा नगर,
िसिवल ऐरॉCॉम पोट, कोयDबEर -641014
ए सी मोटर कैपेिसटर
IS 2993: 1998
6
6500038508
20190321
मेसस आर के टील मेनुफे&च(रग कंपनी *ायवेट
िलिमटड
लॉट सं. NN50, िसपकोट इंडियल /ोथ स1टर,
पे2दुरै, ईरोड-638052.
इपात क: निलयाँ,
निलकाकार सामि/याँ तथा
इपात क: अ2य Gफ(टग1- भाग
1- इपात क: निलयाँ
IS 1239 (Part
1): 2004
7
6590013017
20190327
मेसस एमरा!ड वेल इंडी इंिडया िलिमटड
230, ितवे2कटासामी रोड (पूव), आर एस पुरम,
कोयDबEूर-641002
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 :
2016
[सं. सी एम डी/13: 11]
मीना1ी गणेशन, वै2ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं 3मुख
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2019
S.O. 880.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which
are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
Grant
Date
Name and Address (Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/
Sec. Year
1
6590012916
20190305
M/s. Krishna Jewellery
131, P.V. Koil Street, Udumalpet,
Tirupur -642126
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
2
6500038112
20190304
M/s. R.K.Steel Manufacturing Company Private
Limited
Plot No.NN50,SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Perundurai, Erode-638052.
Hollow Steel Sections For
Structural Use
IS 4923: 2017
3
6500038306
20190305
M/s. R.K.Steel Manufacturing Company Private
Limited
Plot No.NN50,SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Perundurai, Erode-638052.
Steel Tubes For
Mechanical And General
Engineering Purposes
IS 3601: 2006
3704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4
6500038205
20190305
M/s. R.K.Steel Manufacturing Company Private
Limited
Plot No.NN50,SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Perundurai, Erode-638052.
Steel Tubes For Structural
Purposes
IS 1161: 2014
5
6500038407
20190321
M/S. B.J.Electronics Private Limited
426/1-A, Texpark Road, Nethra Nagar,
Civil Aerodrome Post, Coimbatore-641014
A.C. Motor Capacitors
IS 2993: 1998
6
6500038508
20190321
M/s. R.K.Steel Manufacturing Company Private
Limited
Plot No.NN50,SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Perundurai, Erode-638052.
Steel Tubes, Tubulars And
Other Wrought Steel
Fittings
IS 1239 (Part
1): 2004
7
6590013017
20190327
M/s. Emerald Jewel Industry India Limited
230,Thiruvenkatasamy Road (East), R.S. Puram,
Coimbatore-641002
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
[No. CMD/13 : 11]
MEENAKSHI GANESAN, (Scientist ‘F’ & Head)
नई दली, 17 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 881
881
881
881.—भारतीय मानक mयूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक mयूरो एतदEारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइसस" के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म दए गए ह}, वे #वीकृत कर
दए गए ह}:-
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
.
.
.
.
सं.
सं.
सं.
सं.
लाइसस सं
लाइसस सं
लाइसस सं
लाइसस सं.
वीकृत करने क
वीकृत करने क
वीकृत करने क
वीकृत करने क
ितिथ वष
ितिथ वष
ितिथ वष
ितिथ वष/ / / / माह
माह
माह
माह
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
भारतीय मानक का शीष
भारतीय मानक का शीष
भारतीय मानक का शीष
भारतीय मानक का शीष
भा मा सं (भाग
भा मा सं (भाग
भा मा सं (भाग
भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /
अनुभाग)
अनुभाग)
अनुभाग)
अनुभाग) : : : : वष
वष
वष
वष
1
6590013118
20190402
मेसस जॉय आलुKास इंिडया *ायवेट िलिमटड
दरवाजा सं. 378-381, जॉय आलुKास वेलरी,
राजे2Lा *साद रोड, 100 फ:ट रोड,
कोयDबEूर– 641 012
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 : 2016
2
6590013219
20190402
मेसस Oरलाय2स रीटेइल िलिमटड
61-71, Pूकफ:!Qस लाज़ा, दुकान सं. G-14,
कृणासामी रोड, कोयDबEूर – 641 011
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 : 2016
3
6590013320
20190402
मेसस Oरलाय2स रीटेइल िलिमटड
61-71, Pूकफ:!Qस लाज़ा, दुकान सं. G-14,
कृणासामी रोड, कोयDबEूर – 641 011
चाँदी एवं चाँदी िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 2112 : 2014
4
6500038609
20190404
मेसस कौमा पैकेजड 8CTकग वाटर
एस एफ सं. 100/1, माचानायकनपालयम,
औतोपो!लाची पोट, पो!लाची तालुक,
कोयDबEूर-642103
पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद
*ाकृितक िमनरल जल के
अलावा)
IS 14543: 2016
5
6590013413
20190404
मेUस ए जी अई प!स ए2ड डायम2Qस *ायवेट
िलिमटड
सं 22, मॉडल नगर, िचVावेदमपWी,
कोयDबEूर – 641 049
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 : 2016
6
6590013615
20190408
मेसस िचVानन वेलरी
157, बाज़ार ीट,
पो!लाची-642001, कोयDबEूर
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 : 2016
7
6590013514
20190408
मेUस पंचतारा वे!स
323, दुकान सं. 3, राजा ीट,
कोयDबEूर – 641 001
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 : 2016
8
6590013716
20190408
मेसस ी ितपित वेलस
तल मंिजल, 373, से2ट मेरीस कॉDले&स,
एस बी अई के सामने, नेताजी ीट,
ईरोड – 638 001
वण एवं वण िमधातुएं,
आभूषण/ िश! पकारी – शु"ता
एवं मुहरांकन
IS 1417 : 2016
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3705
9
6500038811
20190408
मेसस हOर हरन िमनर!स
पुराना सं. 12/48B, नया सं. 474/1, 2A, 2A3,
कािलपालयम, िवजयापुरम पोट, ितपुर -
641606
पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद
*ाकृितक िमनरल जल के
अलावा)
IS 14543: 2016
10
6500038710
20190408
मेसस जीवानीरा इंडीस
198, F 3, िशवाकामी नगर, यू के टे&स के पास,
गाँधी नगर पोट, ितपुर- 641603
पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद
*ाकृितक िमनरल जल के
अलावा)
IS 14543: 2016
11
6500038912
20190410
मेसस िववेक लाट एYड इंजीिनय(रग
द. सं. 12-1, कोवै इंडियल पाक,
कोिवलपालयम पोट, कोयDबEूर-641107.
8सचाई उपकर – 8सचाई
लेटरल के िलए पॉलीएिथलीन
पाइस
12786:1989
12
6500039005
20190410
मेसस िववेक लाट एYड इंजीिनय(रग
द. सं. 12-1, कोवै इंडियल पाक,
कोिवलपालयम पोट,
कोयDबEूर-641107.
8सचाई उपकर – उ5सजक:
पाइप प=ितयाँ
13488:2008
[सं. सी एम डी 13: 11]
मीना8ी गणेशन, वैiािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2019
S.O. 881.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which
are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl. No.
Licence No.
Grant Date
Name and Address (Factory) of the Party
Title of the Standard
IS No. Part/ Sec.Year
1
6590013118
20190402
M/s. Joy Alukkas India Private Limited
Door No 378-381, Joy Alukkas Jewellery,
Rajendra Prasad Road, 100 Feet Road,
Coimbatore – 641 012
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
2
6590013219
20190402
M/s. Reliance Retail Limited
61-71, Brookfields Plaza, Shop No. G-14,
Krishnasamy Road,
Coimbatore – 641 011
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
3
6590013320
20190402
M/s. Reliance Retail Limited
61-71, Brookfields Plaza, Shop No. G-14,
Krishnasamy Road,
Coimbatore – 641 011
Silver and Silver Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 2112 : 2014
4
6500038609
20190404
M/s. Cowma Packaged Drinking Water
SF No. 100/1, Marchanaickenpalayam,
Authupollachi Post, Pollachi Taluk,
Coimbatore-642103
Packaged Drinking
Water(Other than Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543: 2016
5
6590013413
20190404
M/s. AGI Pearls And Diamonds Private
Limited
No 22, Model Nagar, Chinnavedampatty,
Coimbatore – 641 049
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
6
6590013615
20190408
M/s. Chinnaannan Jewellery
157, Bazaar Street,
Pollachi-642001, Coimbatore
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
7
6590013514
20190408
M/s. Panchatharaa Jewels
323, Shop No. 3, Raja Street,
Coimbatore – 641 001
Gold and Gold Alloys,
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
IS 1417 : 2016
8
6590013716
20190408
M/s. Sri Tiruppathi Jewellers
Gold and Gold Alloys,
IS 1417 : 2016
3706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ground Floor, 373, St Mary’s Complex,
Opp To SBI, Nethaji Street,
Erode – 638 001
Jewellery/Artefacts -
Fineness and Marking
9
6500038811
20190408
M/s. Hari Haran Minerals,
Old No. 12/48B, New No.474/1, 2A, 2A3,
Kalipalayam, Vijayapuram Post,
Tirupur- 641606
Packaged Drinking
Water(Other than Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543: 2016
10
6500038710
20190408
M/s. Jeevaneera Industries,
198, F 3, Sivakami Nagar, Near UK Tex,
Gandhi Nagar Post,
Tirupur- 641603
Packaged Drinking
Water(Other than Packaged
Natural Mineral Water)
IS 14543: 2016
11
6500038912
20190410
M/s. Vivek Plast And Engineering
D.No.12-1, Covai Industrial Park,
Kovilpalayam Post,
Coimbatore-641107.
Irrigation Equipment-
Polyethylene Pipes for
Irrigation Laterals
12786:1989
12
6500039005
20190410
M/s. Vivek Plast And Engineering
D.No.12-1, Covai Industrial Park,
Kovilpalayam Post,
Coimbatore-641107.
Irrigation Equipment-
Emitting Pipes System
13488:2008
[No. CMD/13:11]
MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
नई दली, 17 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 882
882
882
882.—भारतीय मानक mयूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक mयूरो एतदEारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िन िववरण वाले लाइसस" को उनके आगे दशाई गई तारीख से रH/
#थिगत कर दया गया है:-
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
o.
सं.
लाइसस सं
सी एम/ एल-
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
#थिगत कए गए/ रH कए गए लाइसस के
अंतगत व#तु/ oम सqबI भारतीय मानक
का शीषक
रH होने क
ितिथ
फरवरी, 2019 - शूSय
[सं. सी एम डी/13: 13]
मीना8ी गणेशन, वैiािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2019
S.O. 882.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which
are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
February, 2019 - NIL
[No. CMD/13: 13]
MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3707
नई दली, 17 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 883
883
883
883.—भारतीय मानक mयूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक mयूरो एतदEारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िन िववरण वाले लाइसस" को उनके आगे दशाई गई तारीख से रH/
#थिगत कर दया गया है:-
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
o.
सं.
लाइसस सं
सी एम/ एल-
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
#थिगत कए गए/ रH कए गए लाइसस के
अंतगत व#तु/ oम सqबI भारतीय मानक
का शीषक
रH होने क
ितिथ
माच, 2019 - शूSय
[सं. सी एम डी/13: 13]
मीना8ी गणेशन, वैiािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2019
S.O. 883.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which
are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
March, 2019 - NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
नई दली, 17 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 884
884
884
884.—-भारतीय मानक mयूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण म
भारतीय मानक mयूरो एतदEारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िन िववरण वाले लाइसस" को उनके आगे दशाई गई तारीख से रH/
#थिगत कर दया गया है:-
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
o.
सं.
लाइसस
सं
सी एम/
एल-
लाइससधारी का नाम व पता
#थिगत कए गए/ रH कए गए लाइसस के
अंतगत व#तु/ oम सqबI भारतीय मानक
का शीषक
रH होने क
ितिथ
अैल, 2019 - शूSय
[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]
मीना8ी गणेशन, वैiािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख
3708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2019
S.O. 884.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which
are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No.
Licence No.
CM/L-
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/ Process with relevant
Indian Standard covered by the
licence cancelled/ suspension
Date of
Cancellation
April, 2019 - NIL
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head
पे ोिलयम
पे ोिलयम
पे ोिलयम
पे ोिलयम और
और
और
और !ाकृितक
!ाकृितक
!ाकृितक
!ाकृितक गैस
गैस
गैस
गैस मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई दली, 20 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 885
885
885
885.—-केS)ीय सरकार के लोकिहत म यह आव;यक तीत होता है क पिम बंगाल रा{य म पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीया (पिम बंगाल) से पे`ोिलयम उJ पाद" के प/रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपkरेशन िलिमटेड के
Eारा पाईप लाइन िबछाई जानी है ।
और केS)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइप लाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आव;यक तीत होता है ऐसी भूिम म जो
इससे उपाबI अनुसूची म वUणत है और िजस म उ& पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का # ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अजन कया
जाए ।
अब, केS)ीय सरकार पे`ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाईS स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अजन अिधिनयम 1962 (1962
का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा 1 Eारा दJ त शि&य" का योग करते Gए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजन करने के अपने
आशय क घोषणा करती है ।
कोई 7ि& जो उ& अनुसुची म वUणत भूिम म िहतबI है उस ता/रख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के
राजपQ क ितया साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती है इस दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के
िलए उसम उपयोग के अिधकार अजन के सq बS ध म ी िसबिया दास गुV ता स8म ािधकारी इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपkरेशन िलिमटेड,
डाकघर – दुईया, आंदुल- मौरी मौरीाम, हावड़ा 711302 पिम बंगाल को िलिखत 9प से आ8ेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनु
अनु
अनु
अनुसूसूसूसूची
ची
ची
ची
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर - हल्
हल्
हल्
हल् दीआ पाइपलाईन पा0रयोजना
दीआ पाइपलाईन पा0रयोजना
दीआ पाइपलाईन पा0रयोजना
दीआ पाइपलाईन पा0रयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला :-
पूव मे5दिनपुर
राय :- पि6म बंगाल
..सं
तहसील का नाम
गॉव का नाम
हाल 7लॉट .मांक
कुल अिध9िहत 1े:फल
है<टेयर
एयर
वगमीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
1
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
पानीप2ल
पानीप2ल
पानीप2ल
पानीप2ल-203
203
203
203
1029
00
01
71
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3709
1027
00
02
23
1028
00
05
48
1007/8948
00
03
81
1006
00
02
65
1005
00
00
20
1009
00
12
93
1008
00
00
20
992
00
01
12
991
00
06
94
994
00
05
13
995
00
05
41
988
00
09
78
988/8908
00
00
20
1246
00
07
91
1247
00
05
41
1266
00
01
36
1265
00
01
65
1261
00
00
20
1264
00
00
20
1261/8824
00
02
11
1262
00
00
32
1263
00
04
29
1270
00
05
24
1271
00
05
00
1273/8923
00
00
23
1273
00
06
84
1274
00
01
69
1275
00
00
66
794/8911
00
03
12
793
00
03
19
792
00
06
62
791
00
10
77
790
00
04
62
784
00
08
61
745
00
04
33
745/8901
00
03
15
746/8902
00
01
57
750
00
06
84
751
00
03
73
3710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
758
00
00
20
758/8903
00
03
86
752
00
00
20
755
00
05
92
756
00
00
47
754
00
00
25
655
00
05
05
657
00
03
77
652
00
00
44
2794
00
03
77
2795
00
04
57
8973
00
00
21
651
00
00
20
650
00
08
01
647
00
01
94
642
00
06
99
640
00
11
84
636
00
01
19
636/8893
00
03
19
624
00
03
04
621
00
00
23
623
00
01
17
609
00
00
49
611
00
02
49
610
00
03
90
612
00
05
06
555/8884
00
03
71
539
00
02
23
538
00
01
38
543
00
07
22
551
00
06
46
550
00
05
28
563
00
03
38
564
00
01
91
565
00
00
76
566
00
00
20
6225/8000
00
07
84
2
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-II
लालपुर
लालपुर
लालपुर
लालपुर-202
202
202
202
184
00
00
96
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3711
184/1027
00
04
92
185
00
03
04
183
00
01
19
129/1110
00
00
20
182
00
05
89
181
00
02
33
180
00
00
24
179
00
02
81
192
00
02
23
176
00
03
17
175
00
03
76
174
00
00
29
193
00
02
16
3
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-II
खु20टया
खु20टया
खु20टया
खु20टया-201
201
201
201
361
00
02
71
362/1471
00
01
80
362
00
00
20
362/1661
00
00
20
363/1472
00
00
20
364
00
02
11
363
00
04
01
360/1469
00
00
20
367
00
00
20
368
00
01
78
374
00
00
20
373
00
01
19
372
00
00
20
369
00
04
19
370
00
01
09
371
00
00
45
397
00
05
24
408
00
00
20
398
00
02
42
406
00
02
46
403
00
01
13
401
00
04
37
427
00
03
52
426
00
01
71
430
00
04
04
3712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
430/1494
00
01
95
858
00
02
21
857
00
01
75
852
00
02
43
853
00
05
18
854
00
06
01
929
00
00
59
937
00
00
35
933
00
01
98
935
00
00
69
939
00
06
34
951
00
02
55
949
00
00
87
950
00
04
19
953
00
02
04
954
00
00
65
965
00
01
94
964
00
02
62
962
00
01
51
963
00
05
28
1299
00
00
82
1294
00
00
72
1298
00
04
43
1300
00
02
43
1301
00
03
33
1303
00
09
46
1304/1650
00
00
36
1246
00
02
07
1245
00
04
88
1244
00
02
18
1244/1647
00
02
22
1242/1646
00
01
63
1231/1639
00
06
86
1230
00
05
13
1228
00
02
04
1229
00
07
65
1232
00
00
32
1223
00
06
27
1157
00
03
85
1156
00
00
46
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3713
1159
00
03
18
1160
00
03
55
1161
00
01
04
1201/1633
00
03
32
1201
00
04
45
1200
00
00
60
1199
00
01
20
1199/1631
00
02
61
1199/1632
00
00
54
1183
00
00
20
1194/1627
00
02
16
1191
00
00
96
1192
00
00
57
1190/1625
00
01
22
1190
00
00
42
1189
00
01
60
1187
00
07
56
4
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-II
टेघरी
टेघरी
टेघरी
टेघरी-200
200
200
200
22
00
01
12
21/454
00
00
20
21
00
07
07
1
00
01
56
3
00
07
11
2
00
00
20
5
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-II
ग0रआ
ग0रआ
ग0रआ
ग0रआ-19
19
19
196
1152
00
07
81
1155
00
03
02
1156
00
00
20
1135
00
05
19
1134
00
01
65
1136
00
05
14
1137
00
00
20
1130
00
00
34
1127
00
04
17
1126
00
03
86
1035
00
00
20
1125
00
03
52
1104
00
03
35
1103
00
01
31
3714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1105
00
01
73
1106
00
04
83
1088
00
00
20
1086
00
00
21
1087
00
07
99
1079
00
03
96
1073
00
04
62
1078
00
02
75
1075
00
05
79
6
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-II
अि&त
अि&त
अि&त
अि&त-195
195
195
195
1028
00
03
53
7
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-II
दुबदा
दुबदा
दुबदा
दुबदा-191
191
191
191
9580/13036
00
00
20
9663
00
01
30
9664
00
01
94
9667
00
10
40
9665
00
01
46
9668
00
00
20
9692
00
05
05
9692/13040
00
04
49
9691
00
01
58
9708
00
01
16
9690
00
02
99
9688
00
02
45
9686
00
06
69
9683
00
02
53
9685
00
01
15
9684
00
03
85
9628
00
03
17
9629
00
01
92
9630
00
02
10
9627
00
01
01
9626
00
01
84
9625
00
08
84
9457
00
01
40
9620
00
04
88
9460
00
02
76
9461
00
04
64
9473
00
04
34
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3715
9472
00
01
73
9471
00
05
26
9469
00
00
20
9470
00
01
00
9481
00
00
20
9488
00
00
77
9489
00
03
12
9487
00
03
74
9512
00
02
64
9511
00
02
93
9514
00
05
99
9299
00
03
01
9522
00
06
51
9523
00
03
25
9524
00
01
62
9525
00
05
30
9529
00
10
00
9284
00
02
20
9283
00
00
55
10711
00
00
69
10714
00
03
41
10715
00
00
20
10712
00
05
36
10716
00
00
20
10702
00
03
61
10703
00
03
40
10135
00
05
00
10699
00
03
63
10695
00
00
95
10694
00
00
89
10693
00
00
60
10692
00
00
20
10696
00
01
34
10691
00
04
01
10688
00
10
89
10164
00
03
36
10658
00
05
94
10657
00
10
62
10655
00
00
77
3716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10649
00
04
36
10650/13044
00
03
83
10274
00
00
29
10273
00
05
32
10269
00
06
76
10268
00
00
20
10292
00
02
50
10293
00
00
35
10291
00
03
13
10290
00
02
02
10288
00
01
29
10287
00
01
54
10285
00
01
62
10284
00
03
00
10282
00
03
01
10491
00
00
38
10492
00
09
11
10489
00
02
08
10488
00
02
99
10469
00
00
52
10481
00
01
32
10480
00
01
97
10479
00
02
16
10473
00
01
27
10474
00
02
26
10478
00
01
13
10477
00
03
63
10475
00
02
83
10476
00
01
41
10456
00
06
26
10457
00
01
17
10454
00
00
20
10451
00
03
04
11226
00
05
17
11227
00
05
41
11228
00
01
51
11229
00
00
95
10411
00
02
73
11236
00
01
11
11408
00
05
76
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3717
11407
00
00
90
11409
00
00
20
11411
00
05
04
11410
00
00
20
11412
00
04
84
11423
00
02
63
11425
00
04
33
11424
00
00
20
11444
00
05
21
11445
00
04
51
11441
00
02
14
11442
00
00
50
11435
00
04
99
11434
00
01
00
11433
00
07
49
11498
00
06
48
11499
00
01
13
11500
00
06
02
11501
00
00
35
11502
00
06
14
11503
00
05
85
11504
00
00
20
11741
00
01
94
11742
00
05
43
11743
00
02
63
11718
00
02
83
11717
00
06
07
11716
00
02
63
11714
00
07
08
11812/13072
00
02
42
11815
00
08
13
11814
00
00
96
11818
00
06
14
11819
00
02
74
11820
00
04
86
11822
00
00
95
11833
00
02
00
11823
00
01
27
11832
00
00
92
3718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11831
00
04
16
11830
00
04
02
11829
00
07
42
11828
00
02
55
12057
00
00
32
11866/12340
00
11
22
12055
00
00
67
12054
00
06
28
12031
00
00
37
12054/12347
00
00
71
12032
00
02
78
12341
00
00
31
12053
00
00
20
12033
00
03
55
12052
00
03
76
12051
00
03
30
12050
00
00
53
12036
00
00
75
12043
00
04
01
12045
00
00
20
12044
00
03
08
12041
00
05
04
8
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-II
िच2िलया
िच2िलया
िच2िलया
िच2िलया-265
265
265
265
481
00
01
70
483
00
02
07
487
00
00
61
486
00
01
02
492
00
01
55
491
00
02
08
495
00
05
11
467
00
02
74
503
00
00
20
505
00
02
48
465
00
00
20
464
00
00
74
505/1118
00
00
54
463
00
00
20
462
00
00
31
506
00
03
55
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3719
507
00
01
94
509
00
03
06
510
00
00
20
511
00
02
92
455
00
00
49
513
00
02
28
515
00
00
20
514
00
05
22
522
00
04
08
523
00
01
58
449
00
02
04
524
00
00
22
525
00
02
30
526
00
02
34
527
00
01
76
529
00
04
82
551
00
00
24
552
00
02
99
549
00
06
25
563
00
04
66
564
00
07
38
566
00
00
92
565
00
02
77
547
00
04
96
567
00
04
08
568
00
04
68
569
00
01
24
570
00
01
50
571
00
00
20
941
00
05
19
940
00
05
65
944
00
00
30
939
00
02
50
938
00
00
97
984
00
01
34
985
00
11
61
987
00
00
20
988
00
02
29
989
00
03
71
3720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
878
00
03
90
879
00
01
58
880
00
00
85
881
00
04
78
873
00
07
77
9
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-II
बासुदेबपुर
बासुदेबपुर
बासुदेबपुर
बासुदेबपुर-259
259
259
259
3299
00
00
60
3047
00
02
62
3051
00
10
03
3048
00
04
69
3052
00
05
64
3054
00
03
86
3053
00
01
66
3059
00
00
36
3060/5865
00
04
77
3060
00
01
79
3066
00
08
75
3067/5866
00
00
53
3065
00
00
20
3064
00
09
17
3019
00
02
30
3018
00
12
12
3004
00
10
20
3006
00
08
75
3011
00
00
81
2892
00
00
20
2894
00
03
61
2893
00
00
34
3057
00
00
46
2896
00
04
35
2897
00
02
50
2898
00
01
15
2899
00
00
20
2907
00
00
20
2906
00
01
94
2904
00
05
11
2927
00
00
61
2830
00
00
63
2829
00
00
72
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3721
2731
00
02
95
2732
00
00
50
2734
00
06
41
2742
00
07
28
2456
00
02
96
2455
00
02
66
2454
00
01
36
2748
00
00
47
2452
00
02
60
2451
00
03
17
2450
00
02
20
2449
00
00
20
2765
00
02
82
2768
00
04
79
2439
00
00
20
2769
00
04
92
2818
00
00
20
2817
00
04
69
2816
00
06
76
3476
00
02
59
3477
00
09
34
3479
00
02
96
3478
00
05
62
3478/5923
00
04
88
3492
00
02
42
3490
00
00
31
3494
00
07
74
3499
00
04
04
3495
00
00
27
3496
00
07
22
3497
00
03
01
3794
00
03
66
3791
00
01
10
3792
00
01
23
3789
00
04
51
3793
00
00
20
3805
00
00
41
3786
00
00
94
3785
00
00
20
3722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3806
00
02
84
3807
00
02
27
3783
00
02
22
3780
00
01
19
3970
00
01
75
3968
00
01
56
3967
00
00
29
3847
00
03
79
3965
00
02
71
3964
00
00
75
3963
00
00
20
3849
00
00
20
3850
00
02
40
3851
00
02
17
3852
00
00
60
2122
00
00
20
2123
00
01
44
3853
00
00
30
2124
00
04
10
2126
00
00
20
2127
00
01
34
2128
00
01
12
2129
00
01
51
2130
00
01
74
2135
00
03
75
2132
00
00
20
2133
00
04
24
2142
00
08
00
2161
00
08
02
2148
00
00
20
2160/5843
00
00
20
2160
00
10
08
2156
00
06
28
2159
00
00
29
2157
00
03
32
2158
00
00
46
10
10
10
10
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
िजन8 द
िजन8 द
िजन8 द
िजन8 दपुर
पुर
पुर
पुर-255
255
255
255
363
00
07
53
362
00
01
45
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3723
364
00
01
87
445/860
00
01
57
446
00
02
19
445/862
00
08
15
447
00
03
69
449
00
02
96
450
00
08
15
452
00
04
12
451
00
01
99
453
00
04
91
463
00
00
91
462
00
01
36
459
00
00
20
470/928
00
04
17
470/929
00
02
65
470/930
00
04
57
579
00
01
43
582
00
02
18
583
00
04
05
584
00
03
03
584/906
00
00
20
592
00
12
88
593
00
03
20
594
00
00
20
595
00
06
74
596
00
00
87
621
00
00
20
620/969
00
06
36
620/968
00
00
99
620
00
07
35
622
00
08
36
630
00
08
57
639/871
00
07
02
632
00
00
20
633
00
01
08
639
00
00
20
639/872
00
12
56
638
00
00
29
643
00
03
48
3724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
644
00
03
90
647/970
00
00
20
647
00
04
72
679
00
00
79
657
00
03
20
677
00
02
32
676
00
07
62
675
00
02
75
674
00
00
46
11
11
11
11
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
उ9 त
उ9 त
उ9 त
उ9 तर दुलालपुर
र दुलालपुर
र दुलालपुर
र दुलालपुर-256
256
256
256
183
00
04
72
9
00
00
32
11
00
05
71
61
00
08
34
64
00
02
19
65
00
00
78
66
00
01
92
76
00
01
69
67
00
05
69
68
00
00
73
68/2380
00
05
13
69
00
01
24
71
00
00
20
70
00
03
48
181
00
01
43
180
00
03
44
182
00
04
90
184
00
04
86
12
12
12
12
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
बथुआरी
बथुआरी
बथुआरी
बथुआरी-244
244
244
244
2713
00
00
65
2932
00
02
54
2723
00
01
85
2712
00
00
59
2709
00
06
76
2708
00
05
58
2707
00
00
37
1824/3057
00
09
90
1825
00
25
16
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3725
1822
00
14
15
1833/3089
00
09
18
1836
00
01
92
1837
00
11
04
1786
00
01
56
1785
00
01
89
1782
00
04
19
1781
00
01
27
1746/3055
00
00
74
1744
00
03
68
1745
00
01
98
1739
00
14
02
1738
00
04
06
1730
00
10
52
13
13
13
13
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
उ9 त
उ9 त
उ9 त
उ9 तर रामचाक
र रामचाक
र रामचाक
र रामचाक-239
239
239
239
185
00
02
08
184
00
00
20
167
00
01
94
168
00
00
87
169
00
00
20
170
00
00
71
171
00
00
94
172
00
00
40
173
00
01
01
163
00
00
34
161
00
00
40
162
00
03
20
162/394
00
00
95
156
00
00
21
159
00
00
61
157
00
03
19
138
00
02
88
139
00
03
18
130
00
03
87
129
00
00
99
129/365
00
05
03
128
00
00
48
12
00
06
68
13
00
08
82
3726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
90
00
04
22
89
00
03
74
88
00
03
09
87
00
00
20
82
00
04
66
80
00
05
74
77/363
00
00
20
79
00
03
97
78
00
03
54
71
00
00
47
14
14
14
14
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
उ9 त
उ9 त
उ9 त
उ9 तरकुरी
रकुरी
रकुरी
रकुरी-238
238
238
238
167
00
01
17
74
00
00
20
73
00
03
96
72
00
13
03
9
00
00
46
68
00
02
26
67/336
00
00
55
67
00
02
78
67/337
00
02
87
67/338
00
00
55
11
00
00
20
13
00
02
19
17
00
01
67
18
00
06
34
60
00
02
23
59
00
02
45
57
00
02
35
56
00
02
34
55
00
05
07
53
00
02
71
51
00
03
55
50
00
02
04
45
00
00
27
44
00
18
97
43
00
00
20
314
00
02
53
00
00
20
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3727
15
15
15
15
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
दिण पदमा
दिण पदमा
दिण पदमा
दिण पदमा-237
237
237
237
23/431
00
02
08
2
00
00
51
1
00
02
51
150/430
00
00
79
16
16
16
16
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
बरभािगया
बरभािगया
बरभािगया
बरभािगया-236
236
236
236
453
00
00
76
455
00
13
46
764
00
11
26
765
00
01
53
638
00
09
75
763
00
01
41
456
00
17
71
425
00
01
07
665
00
00
46
401
00
16
52
402
00
01
73
339
00
18
00
642
00
09
21
431
00
05
03
337
00
00
69
743
00
03
93
746
00
04
87
270
00
00
53
261
00
04
66
262
00
05
38
255
00
04
67
256
00
00
20
175
00
04
92
254
00
00
48
253
00
11
46
181
00
05
50
182
00
05
70
729
00
09
91
728
00
06
45
85
00
02
16
648
00
09
58
717
00
00
42
143
00
04
94
142
00
09
89
3728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
689
00
02
10
606
00
05
97
55
00
01
67
58
00
06
83
56
00
01
13
57
00
00
58
17
17
17
17
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
उ9 त
उ9 त
उ9 त
उ9 तर पदमा
र पदमा
र पदमा
र पदमा-233
233
233
233
84
00
00
74
81
00
00
38
113
00
00
46
114
00
14
18
18
18
18
18
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।।।।।।।।
ढालगोदा
ढालगोदा
ढालगोदा
ढालगोदा-231
231
231
231
953
00
00
68
753
00
03
99
754
00
03
53
755/1203
00
01
55
1205
00
01
20
1206
00
00
76
757
00
01
07
758
00
01
56
776
00
03
20
780
00
03
08
794
00
03
67
791
00
03
22
792
00
03
32
803
00
04
51
804
00
00
20
802
00
03
18
876
00
00
38
875
00
03
60
878
00
03
91
881
00
01
23
880
00
09
83
885
00
02
44
856/1219
00
01
72
856
00
05
54
887
00
03
42
853
00
01
59
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3729
888
00
06
33
889
00
04
60
937
00
08
27
931/1232
00
00
20
931/1231
00
04
35
935
00
03
42
934
00
00
89
933
00
00
42
932/1249
00
00
89
932
00
01
30
604
00
00
87
924
00
01
92
[फा. सं. आर-11025(12)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29474]
शाS तनु धर, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2019
S.O. 885.—Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur (Odisha)-Haldia (West Bengal) a pipeline should be laid
in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to
acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the
Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby
declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on
which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in
writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sibapriya Das Gupta,
Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mourigram, Andul-Mouri, Duliya Howrah-711302, West Bengal.
SCHEDULE
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT :
PURBA MEDINIPUR
STATE : WEST BENGAL
S.
No.
Name of
Tehsil
Name of Village
LR Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
EGRA-II
PANIPARUL-203
1029
00
01
71
1027
00
02
23
1028
00
05
48
1007/8948
00
03
81
3730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1006
00
02
65
1005
00
00
20
1009
00
12
93
1008
00
00
20
992
00
01
12
991
00
06
94
994
00
05
13
995
00
05
41
988
00
09
78
988/8908
00
00
20
1246
00
07
91
1247
00
05
41
1266
00
01
36
1265
00
01
65
1261
00
00
20
1264
00
00
20
1261/8824
00
02
11
1262
00
00
32
1263
00
04
29
1270
00
05
24
1271
00
05
00
1273/8923
00
00
23
1273
00
06
84
1274
00
01
69
1275
00
00
66
794/8911
00
03
12
793
00
03
19
792
00
06
62
791
00
10
77
790
00
04
62
784
00
08
61
745
00
04
33
745/8901
00
03
15
746/8902
00
01
57
750
00
06
84
751
00
03
73
758
00
00
20
758/8903
00
03
86
752
00
00
20
755
00
05
92
756
00
00
47
754
00
00
25
655
00
05
05
657
00
03
77
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3731
652
00
00
44
2794
00
03
77
2795
00
04
57
8973
00
00
21
651
00
00
20
650
00
08
01
647
00
01
94
642
00
06
99
640
00
11
84
636
00
01
19
636/8893
00
03
19
624
00
03
04
621
00
00
23
623
00
01
17
609
00
00
49
611
00
02
49
610
00
03
90
612
00
05
06
555/8884
00
03
71
539
00
02
23
538
00
01
38
543
00
07
22
551
00
06
46
550
00
05
28
563
00
03
38
564
00
01
91
565
00
00
76
566
00
00
20
6225/8000
00
07
84
2
EGRA-II
LALPUR-202
184
00
00
96
184/1027
00
04
92
185
00
03
04
183
00
01
19
129/1110
00
00
20
182
00
05
89
181
00
02
33
180
00
00
24
179
00
02
81
192
00
02
23
176
00
03
17
175
00
03
76
174
00
00
29
193
00
02
16
3732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3
EGRA-II
KHURTIA-201
361
00
02
71
362/1471
00
01
80
362
00
00
20
362/1661
00
00
20
363/1472
00
00
20
364
00
02
11
363
00
04
01
360/1469
00
00
20
367
00
00
20
368
00
01
78
374
00
00
20
373
00
01
19
372
00
00
20
369
00
04
19
370
00
01
09
371
00
00
45
397
00
05
24
408
00
00
20
398
00
02
42
406
00
02
46
403
00
01
13
401
00
04
37
427
00
03
52
426
00
01
71
430
00
04
04
430/1494
00
01
95
858
00
02
21
857
00
01
75
852
00
02
43
853
00
05
18
854
00
06
01
929
00
00
59
937
00
00
35
933
00
01
98
935
00
00
69
939
00
06
34
951
00
02
55
949
00
00
87
950
00
04
19
953
00
02
04
954
00
00
65
965
00
01
94
964
00
02
62
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3733
962
00
01
51
963
00
05
28
1299
00
00
82
1294
00
00
72
1298
00
04
43
1300
00
02
43
1301
00
03
33
1303
00
09
46
1304/1650
00
00
36
1246
00
02
07
1245
00
04
88
1244
00
02
18
1244/1647
00
02
22
1242/1646
00
01
63
1231/1639
00
06
86
1230
00
05
13
1228
00
02
04
1229
00
07
65
1232
00
00
32
1223
00
06
27
1157
00
03
85
1156
00
00
46
1159
00
03
18
1160
00
03
55
1161
00
01
04
1201/1633
00
03
32
1201
00
04
45
1200
00
00
60
1199
00
01
20
1199/1631
00
02
61
1199/1632
00
00
54
1183
00
00
20
1194/1627
00
02
16
1191
00
00
96
1192
00
00
57
1190/1625
00
01
22
1190
00
00
42
1189
00
01
60
1187
00
07
56
4
EGRA-II
TEGHRI-200
22
00
01
12
21/454
00
00
20
21
00
07
07
1
00
01
56
3734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3
00
07
11
2
00
00
20
5
EGRA-II
GARIA-196
1152
00
07
81
1155
00
03
02
1156
00
00
20
1135
00
05
19
1134
00
01
65
1136
00
05
14
1137
00
00
20
1130
00
00
34
1127
00
04
17
1126
00
03
86
1035
00
00
20
1125
00
03
52
1104
00
03
35
1103
00
01
31
1105
00
01
73
1106
00
04
83
1088
00
00
20
1086
00
00
21
1087
00
07
99
1079
00
03
96
1073
00
04
62
1078
00
02
75
1075
00
05
79
6
EGRA-II
ASTI-195
1028
00
03
53
7
EGRA-II
DUBDA-191
9580/13036
00
00
20
9663
00
01
30
9664
00
01
94
9667
00
10
40
9665
00
01
46
9668
00
00
20
9692
00
05
05
9692/13040
00
04
49
9691
00
01
58
9708
00
01
16
9690
00
02
99
9688
00
02
45
9686
00
06
69
9683
00
02
53
9685
00
01
15
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3735
9684
00
03
85
9628
00
03
17
9629
00
01
92
9630
00
02
10
9627
00
01
01
9626
00
01
84
9625
00
08
84
9457
00
01
40
9620
00
04
88
9460
00
02
76
9461
00
04
64
9473
00
04
34
9472
00
01
73
9471
00
05
26
9469
00
00
20
9470
00
01
00
9481
00
00
20
9488
00
00
77
9489
00
03
12
9487
00
03
74
9512
00
02
64
9511
00
02
93
9514
00
05
99
9299
00
03
01
9522
00
06
51
9523
00
03
25
9524
00
01
62
9525
00
05
30
9529
00
10
00
9284
00
02
20
9283
00
00
55
10711
00
00
69
10714
00
03
41
10715
00
00
20
10712
00
05
36
10716
00
00
20
10702
00
03
61
10703
00
03
40
10135
00
05
00
10699
00
03
63
10695
00
00
95
10694
00
00
89
10693
00
00
60
10692
00
00
20
3736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10696
00
01
34
10691
00
04
01
10688
00
10
89
10164
00
03
36
10658
00
05
94
10657
00
10
62
10655
00
00
77
10649
00
04
36
10650/13044
00
03
83
10274
00
00
29
10273
00
05
32
10269
00
06
76
10268
00
00
20
10292
00
02
50
10293
00
00
35
10291
00
03
13
10290
00
02
02
10288
00
01
29
10287
00
01
54
10285
00
01
62
10284
00
03
00
10282
00
03
01
10491
00
00
38
10492
00
09
11
10489
00
02
08
10488
00
02
99
10469
00
00
52
10481
00
01
32
10480
00
01
97
10479
00
02
16
10473
00
01
27
10474
00
02
26
10478
00
01
13
10477
00
03
63
10475
00
02
83
10476
00
01
41
10456
00
06
26
10457
00
01
17
10454
00
00
20
10451
00
03
04
11226
00
05
17
11227
00
05
41
11228
00
01
51
11229
00
00
95
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3737
10411
00
02
73
11236
00
01
11
11408
00
05
76
11407
00
00
90
11409
00
00
20
11411
00
05
04
11410
00
00
20
11412
00
04
84
11423
00
02
63
11425
00
04
33
11424
00
00
20
11444
00
05
21
11445
00
04
51
11441
00
02
14
11442
00
00
50
11435
00
04
99
11434
00
01
00
11433
00
07
49
11498
00
06
48
11499
00
01
13
11500
00
06
02
11501
00
00
35
11502
00
06
14
11503
00
05
85
11504
00
00
20
11741
00
01
94
11742
00
05
43
11743
00
02
63
11718
00
02
83
11717
00
06
07
11716
00
02
63
11714
00
07
08
11812/13072
00
02
42
11815
00
08
13
11814
00
00
96
11818
00
06
14
11819
00
02
74
11820
00
04
86
11822
00
00
95
11833
00
02
00
11823
00
01
27
11832
00
00
92
11831
00
04
16
11830
00
04
02
3738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11829
00
07
42
11828
00
02
55
12057
00
00
32
11866/12340
00
11
22
12055
00
00
67
12054
00
06
28
12031
00
00
37
12054/12347
00
00
71
12032
00
02
78
12341
00
00
31
12053
00
00
20
12033
00
03
55
12052
00
03
76
12051
00
03
30
12050
00
00
53
12036
00
00
75
12043
00
04
01
12045
00
00
20
12044
00
03
08
12041
00
05
04
8
EGRA-II
CHIRULIA-265
481
00
01
70
483
00
02
07
487
00
00
61
486
00
01
02
492
00
01
55
491
00
02
08
495
00
05
11
467
00
02
74
503
00
00
20
505
00
02
48
465
00
00
20
464
00
00
74
505/1118
00
00
54
463
00
00
20
462
00
00
31
506
00
03
55
507
00
01
94
509
00
03
06
510
00
00
20
511
00
02
92
455
00
00
49
513
00
02
28
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3739
515
00
00
20
514
00
05
22
522
00
04
08
523
00
01
58
449
00
02
04
524
00
00
22
525
00
02
30
526
00
02
34
527
00
01
76
529
00
04
82
551
00
00
24
552
00
02
99
549
00
06
25
563
00
04
66
564
00
07
38
566
00
00
92
565
00
02
77
547
00
04
96
567
00
04
08
568
00
04
68
569
00
01
24
570
00
01
50
571
00
00
20
941
00
05
19
940
00
05
65
944
00
00
30
939
00
02
50
938
00
00
97
984
00
01
34
985
00
11
61
987
00
00
20
988
00
02
29
989
00
03
71
878
00
03
90
879
00
01
58
880
00
00
85
881
00
04
78
873
00
07
77
9
EGRA-II
BASUDEBPUR-259
3299
00
00
60
3047
00
02
62
3051
00
10
03
3048
00
04
69
3052
00
05
64
3740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3054
00
03
86
3053
00
01
66
3059
00
00
36
3060/5865
00
04
77
3060
00
01
79
3066
00
08
75
3067/5866
00
00
53
3065
00
00
20
3064
00
09
17
3019
00
02
30
3018
00
12
12
3004
00
10
20
3006
00
08
75
3011
00
00
81
2892
00
00
20
2894
00
03
61
2893
00
00
34
3057
00
00
46
2896
00
04
35
2897
00
02
50
2898
00
01
15
2899
00
00
20
2907
00
00
20
2906
00
01
94
2904
00
05
11
2927
00
00
61
2830
00
00
63
2829
00
00
72
2731
00
02
95
2732
00
00
50
2734
00
06
41
2742
00
07
28
2456
00
02
96
2455
00
02
66
2454
00
01
36
2748
00
00
47
2452
00
02
60
2451
00
03
17
2450
00
02
20
2449
00
00
20
2765
00
02
82
2768
00
04
79
2439
00
00
20
2769
00
04
92
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3741
2818
00
00
20
2817
00
04
69
2816
00
06
76
3476
00
02
59
3477
00
09
34
3479
00
02
96
3478
00
05
62
3478/5923
00
04
88
3492
00
02
42
3490
00
00
31
3494
00
07
74
3499
00
04
04
3495
00
00
27
3496
00
07
22
3497
00
03
01
3794
00
03
66
3791
00
01
10
3792
00
01
23
3789
00
04
51
3793
00
00
20
3805
00
00
41
3786
00
00
94
3785
00
00
20
3806
00
02
84
3807
00
02
27
3783
00
02
22
3780
00
01
19
3970
00
01
75
3968
00
01
56
3967
00
00
29
3847
00
03
79
3965
00
02
71
3964
00
00
75
3963
00
00
20
3849
00
00
20
3850
00
02
40
3851
00
02
17
3852
00
00
60
2122
00
00
20
2123
00
01
44
3853
00
00
30
2124
00
04
10
2126
00
00
20
2127
00
01
34
3742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2128
00
01
12
2129
00
01
51
2130
00
01
74
2135
00
03
75
2132
00
00
20
2133
00
04
24
2142
00
08
00
2161
00
08
02
2148
00
00
20
2160/5843
00
00
20
2160
00
10
08
2156
00
06
28
2159
00
00
29
2157
00
03
32
2158
00
00
46
10
EGRA-II
JINANDAPUR-255
363
00
07
53
362
00
01
45
364
00
01
87
445/860
00
01
57
446
00
02
19
445/862
00
08
15
447
00
03
69
449
00
02
96
450
00
08
15
452
00
04
12
451
00
01
99
453
00
04
91
463
00
00
91
462
00
01
36
459
00
00
20
470/928
00
04
17
470/929
00
02
65
470/930
00
04
57
579
00
01
43
582
00
02
18
583
00
04
05
584
00
03
03
584/906
00
00
20
592
00
12
88
593
00
03
20
594
00
00
20
595
00
06
74
596
00
00
87
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3743
621
00
00
20
620/969
00
06
36
620/968
00
00
99
620
00
07
35
622
00
08
36
630
00
08
57
639/871
00
07
02
632
00
00
20
633
00
01
08
639
00
00
20
639/872
00
12
56
638
00
00
29
643
00
03
48
644
00
03
90
647/970
00
00
20
647
00
04
72
679
00
00
79
657
00
03
20
677
00
02
32
676
00
07
62
675
00
02
75
674
00
00
46
11
EGRA-II
UTTARDULALPUR-256
183
00
04
72
9
00
00
32
11
00
05
71
61
00
08
34
64
00
02
19
65
00
00
78
66
00
01
92
76
00
01
69
67
00
05
69
68
00
00
73
68/2380
00
05
13
69
00
01
24
71
00
00
20
70
00
03
48
181
00
01
43
180
00
03
44
182
00
04
90
184
00
04
86
12
EGRA-II
BATHUARI-244
2713
00
00
65
2932
00
02
54
2723
00
01
85
3744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2712
00
00
59
2709
00
06
76
2708
00
05
58
2707
00
00
37
1824/3057
00
09
90
1825
00
25
16
1822
00
14
15
1833/3089
00
09
18
1836
00
01
92
1837
00
11
04
1786
00
01
56
1785
00
01
89
1782
00
04
19
1781
00
01
27
1746/3055
00
00
74
1744
00
03
68
1745
00
01
98
1739
00
14
02
1738
00
04
06
1730
00
10
52
13
EGRA-II
UTTAR RAM CHAK-239
185
00
02
08
184
00
00
20
167
00
01
94
168
00
00
87
169
00
00
20
170
00
00
71
171
00
00
94
172
00
00
40
173
00
01
01
163
00
00
34
161
00
00
40
162
00
03
20
162/394
00
00
95
156
00
00
21
159
00
00
61
157
00
03
19
158
00
03
43
138
00
02
88
139
00
03
18
130
00
03
87
129
00
00
99
129/365
00
05
03
128
00
00
48
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3745
12
00
06
68
13
00
08
82
90
00
04
22
89
00
03
74
88
00
03
09
87
00
00
20
82
00
04
66
80
00
05
74
77/363
00
00
20
79
00
03
97
78
00
03
54
71
00
00
47
14
EGRA-II
UTTARKURI-238
167
00
01
17
74
00
00
20
73
00
03
96
72
00
13
03
9
00
00
46
68
00
02
26
67/336
00
00
55
67
00
02
78
67/337
00
02
87
67/338
00
00
55
11
00
00
20
13
00
02
19
17
00
01
67
18
00
06
34
60
00
02
23
59
00
02
45
57
00
02
35
56
00
02
34
55
00
05
07
53
00
02
71
51
00
03
55
50
00
02
04
45
00
00
27
44
00
18
97
43
00
00
20
314
00
02
53
00
00
20
15
EGRA-II
DAKSHIN PADMA-237
23/431
00
02
08
2
00
00
51
1
00
02
51
150/430
00
00
79
3746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16
EGRA-II
BARBHAGIA-236
453
00
00
76
455
00
13
46
764
00
11
26
765
00
01
53
638
00
09
75
763
00
01
41
456
00
17
71
425
00
01
07
665
00
00
46
401
00
16
52
402
00
01
73
339
00
18
00
642
00
09
21
431
00
05
03
337
00
00
69
743
00
03
93
746
00
04
87
270
00
00
53
261
00
04
66
262
00
05
38
255
00
04
67
256
00
00
20
175
00
04
92
254
00
00
48
253
00
11
46
181
00
05
50
182
00
05
70
729
00
09
91
728
00
06
45
85
00
02
16
648
00
09
58
717
00
00
42
143
00
04
94
142
00
09
89
689
00
02
10
606
00
05
97
55
00
01
67
58
00
06
83
56
00
01
13
57
00
00
58
17
EGRA-II
UTTARPADMA-233
84
00
00
74
81
00
00
38
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3747
113
00
00
46
114
00
14
18
18
EGRA-II
DHALGODA-231
953
00
00
68
753
00
03
99
754
00
03
53
755/1203
00
01
55
1205
00
01
20
1206
00
00
76
757
00
01
07
758
00
01
56
776
00
03
20
780
00
03
08
794
00
03
67
791
00
03
22
792
00
03
32
803
00
04
51
804
00
00
20
802
00
03
18
876
00
00
38
875
00
03
60
878
00
03
91
881
00
01
23
880
00
09
83
885
00
02
44
856/1219
00
01
72
856
00
05
54
887
00
03
42
853
00
01
59
888
00
06
33
889
00
04
60
937
00
08
27
931/1232
00
00
20
931/1231
00
04
35
935
00
03
42
934
00
00
89
933
00
00
42
932/1249
00
00
89
932
00
01
30
604
00
00
87
924
00
01
92
[F. No. R-11025(12)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29474]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
3748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दली, 20 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ. . . . 886
886
886
886.—केS)ीय सरकार के लोकिहत म यह आव;यक तीत होता है क पिम बंगाल रा{य म पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीया (पिम बंगाल) से पे`ोिलयम उJ पाद" के प/रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपkरेशन
िलिमटेड के Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी है ।
और केS)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आव;यक तीत होता है ऐसी भूिम म जो
इससे उपाबI अनुसूची मे वUणत है और िजस म उ& पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का # ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अजन
कया जाए ।
अत: अब, केS)ीय सरकार पे`ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइS स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अजन अिधिनयम, 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा 1 Eारा दJ त शि&य" का योग करते Gए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजन
करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ।
कोई 7ि& जो उ& अनुसूची म वUणत भूिम म िहतबI है उस तारीख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से भारत के
राजपQ क ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती है इस दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए
जाने के िलए उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार अजन के सq बS ध म ी िसबिया दास गुV ता स8म ािधकारी इंिडयन ऑयल
कॉपkरेशन िलिमटेड, डाकघर – दुईया, आंदुल- मौरी मौरीाम, हावड़ा 711302 पिम बंगाल को िलिखत 9प से आ8ेप
भेज सकेगा ।
अनु
अनु
अनु
अनुसूसूसूसूची
ची
ची
ची
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर - ह$ दी
ह$ दी
ह$ दी
ह$ दीआ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
आ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
आ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
आ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनु
अनु
अनु
अनुसूची
सूची
सूची
सूची
िजला :- पूव मेदिनपुर
रा{य :- पिम बंगाल
o.सं
तहसील का
नाम
गॉव का नाम
हाल Vलॉट oमांक
कुल अिधिहत 8ेQफल
हैWटेयर
एयर
वगमीटर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
1
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।
बोलकुसडा
बोलकुसडा
बोलकुसडा
बोलकुसडा-90
90
90
90
66
00
06
15
65
00
02
65
63
00
03
10
64
00
01
56
57
00
03
42
56
00
03
88
54
00
00
65
41
00
00
54
43
00
03
34
42
00
03
59
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3749
39
00
05
07
38
00
05
30
35
00
00
20
37
00
03
37
35/1374
00
07
69
151/1387
00
00
20
2
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।
चाटला
चाटला
चाटला
चाटला-93
93
93
93
3280
00
00
91
3281
00
07
72
3284
00
02
40
3286
00
00
27
3285
00
03
47
3250
00
02
58
3291
00
02
84
3292
00
01
70
3293
00
00
20
3295
00
04
86
3297
00
02
98
3312/3839
00
06
18
3312
00
00
29
3310
00
03
06
3311
00
04
95
3343
00
02
71
3342
00
07
26
3355
00
00
49
3360
00
06
69
3359
00
01
90
3362
00
03
55
3358
00
01
27
3366
00
06
58
3367
00
13
96
2518
00
01
09
2512
00
01
59
2513
00
04
89
2508
00
13
05
3750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2488
00
02
28
2487
00
04
49
2483
00
06
86
2478
00
01
75
2479
00
01
81
2449
00
04
17
2445
00
04
90
2444
00
01
71
2441
00
03
83
2443
00
00
25
2442
00
00
70
2437
00
05
62
2436
00
01
07
3540
00
01
86
3541
00
02
41
3542
00
04
04
3543
00
00
20
3551
00
07
85
3553
00
00
20
3554
00
07
55
3559
00
00
41
3549
00
00
62
3925
00
06
78
3561
00
04
15
3
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा
एगरा-।
िच,िलआ
िच,िलआ
िच,िलआ
िच,िलआ-102
102
102
102
1304
00
01
58
1326
00
02
90
1327
00
02
89
1329
00
00
69
1328
00
02
94
1321
00
00
20
1320
00
04
27
1319
00
00
20
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3751
1336
00
01
29
1335
00
03
09
1334
00
03
71
1333
00
02
64
1339
00
02
79
1388
00
08
97
1385
00
02
72
1391
00
08
38
1392
00
01
09
1380
00
00
20
1379
00
06
62
[फा. सं. आर-11025(12)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29474]
शाS तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2019
S.O. 886.—Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur (Odisha)-Haldia (West Bengal) a pipeline should be laid
in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary
to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the
Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby
declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on
which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in
writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sibapriya Das
Gupta, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mourigram, Andul-Mouri, Duliya Howrah-711302, West
Bengal.
SCHEDULE
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNAHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT :
PURBA MEDINIPUR
STATE : WEST BENGAL
S. No.
Name of
Tehsil
Name of Village
LR Survey
No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
EGRA-I
BOLKUSHDA-90
66
00
06
15
65
00
02
65
63
00
03
10
64
00
01
56
57
00
03
42
3752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
56
00
03
88
54
00
00
65
41
00
00
54
43
00
03
34
42
00
03
59
39
00
05
07
38
00
05
30
35
00
00
20
37
00
03
37
35/1374
00
07
69
151/1387
00
00
20
2
EGRA-I
CHATLA-93
3280
00
00
91
3281
00
07
72
3284
00
02
40
3286
00
00
27
3285
00
03
47
3250
00
02
58
3291
00
02
84
3292
00
01
70
3293
00
00
20
3295
00
04
86
3297
00
02
98
3312/3839
00
06
18
3312
00
00
29
3310
00
03
06
3311
00
04
95
3343
00
02
71
3342
00
07
26
3355
00
00
49
3360
00
06
69
3359
00
01
90
3362
00
03
55
3358
00
01
27
3366
00
06
58
3367
00
13
96
2518
00
01
09
2512
00
01
59
2513
00
04
89
2508
00
13
05
2488
00
02
28
2487
00
04
49
2483
00
06
86
2478
00
01
75
2479
00
01
81
2449
00
04
17
2445
00
04
90
2444
00
01
71
2441
00
03
83
2443
00
00
25
2442
00
00
70
2437
00
05
62
2436
00
01
07
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3753
3540
00
01
86
3541
00
02
41
3542
00
04
04
3543
00
00
20
3551
00
07
85
3553
00
00
20
3554
00
07
55
3559
00
00
41
3549
00
00
62
3925
00
06
78
3561
00
04
15
3
EGRA-I
CHIRULIA-102
1304
00
01
58
1326
00
02
90
1327
00
02
89
1329
00
00
69
1328
00
02
94
1321
00
00
20
1320
00
04
27
1319
00
00
20
1336
00
01
29
1335
00
03
09
1334
00
03
71
1333
00
02
64
1339
00
02
79
1388
00
08
97
1385
00
02
72
1391
00
08
38
1392
00
01
09
1380
00
00
20
1379
00
06
62
[F. No. R-11025(12)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29474]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 20 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ. . . . 887
887
887
887.—केS)ीय सरकार के लोकिहत म यह आव;यक तीत होता है क पिम बंगाल रा{य म पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीया (पिम बंगाल) से पे`ोिलयम उJ पाद" के प/रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपkरेशन िलिमटेड
के Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी है ।
3754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
और केS)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आव;यक तीत होता है ऐसी भूिम म जो
इससे उपाबI अनुसूची मे वUणत है और िजस म उ& पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का # ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अजन कया
जाए ।
अत: अब, केS)ीय सरकार पे`ोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाईS स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अजन अिधिनयम, 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा 1 Eारा दJ त शि&य" का योग करते Gए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजन
करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है ।
कोई 7ि& जो उ& अनुसूची म वUणत भूिम म िहतबI है उस तारीख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के
राजपQ क ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती है इस दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने
के िलए उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार अजन के सq बS ध म ी िसबिया दास गुV ता स8म ािधकारी इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपkरेशन
िलिमटेड, डाकघर – दुईया, आंदुल- मौरी मौरीाम, हावड़ा 711302 पिम बंगाल को िलिखत 9प से आ8ेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनु
अनु
अनु
अनुसूसूसूसूची
ची
ची
ची
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर - ह$ दी
ह$ दी
ह$ दी
ह$ दीआ पाइपलाई
आ पाइपलाई
आ पाइपलाई
आ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
न पा*रयोजना
न पा*रयोजना
न पा*रयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला :- पूव मे.दिनपुर
पूव मे.दिनपुर
पूव मे.दिनपुर
पूव मे.दिनपुर
रा0य
रा0य
रा0य
रा0य :- पि1म बंगाल
पि1म बंगाल
पि1म बंगाल
पि1म बंगाल
.संसंसंसं
तहसील का नाम
तहसील का नाम
तहसील का नाम
तहसील का नाम
गॉव का नाम
गॉव का नाम
गॉव का नाम
गॉव का नाम
हाल लॉट मांक
हाल लॉट मांक
हाल लॉट मांक
हाल लॉट मांक
कुल अिधिहत ेफल
कुल अिधिहत ेफल
कुल अिधिहत ेफल
कुल अिधिहत ेफल
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगमी
वगमी
वगमी
वगमी
टर
टर
टर
टर
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
1
रामनगर
रामनगर
रामनगर
रामनगर-।
उदमपुर
उदमपुर
उदमपुर
उदमपुर-05
05
05
05
171
00
05
02
170
00
01
66
169
00
01
71
166
00
01
90
155
00
00
20
168
00
01
85
164
00
02
74
159
00
01
42
165/177
00
00
20
162
00
01
03
161
00
00
20
163
00
00
78
2
रामनगर
रामनगर
रामनगर
रामनगर-।
बािधया
बािधया
बािधया
बािधया-06
06
06
06
1250
00
00
32
1249
00
03
95
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3755
1248
00
04
93
1247
00
01
91
1243
00
00
36
1240
00
03
51
1241
00
00
20
1239
00
01
13
1238
00
02
33
964
00
02
83
965
00
00
45
966
00
00
38
1225
00
03
89
1226
00
00
44
1224
00
03
53
971/4405
00
00
20
972
00
04
49
1219
00
01
57
981
00
00
96
976/4377
00
00
20
980
00
05
68
949
00
04
31
946
00
01
05
946/4373
00
04
29
996
00
00
20
944
00
02
29
999
00
00
53
943
00
00
67
1000
00
03
78
1001
00
03
28
1006
00
02
67
1005/4390
00
01
86
1005
00
00
33
1008
00
02
14
932
00
02
46
3756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
932/4371
00
00
67
931
00
01
82
929
00
02
28
928/4369
00
02
67
925
00
00
20
924
00
02
33
923
00
01
41
921
00
02
73
907
00
04
78
1037/4398
00
00
20
906
00
00
56
1038
00
03
99
1039
00
02
77
1043
00
01
46
1045
00
00
59
1042
00
01
74
1046/4400
00
00
20
1046/4399
00
02
81
1046
00
01
71
888
00
00
20
1056
00
02
01
887/4322
00
03
61
887
00
00
70
886/4360
00
01
63
886/4359
00
02
04
886
00
03
72
884
00
01
00
885
00
05
17
96
00
03
27
98
00
04
35
99
00
02
49
104
00
00
20
102
00
05
55
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3757
170/4215
00
01
95
170
00
00
20
167
00
04
19
179/4206
00
03
68
179
00
00
49
180
00
02
59
181
00
04
41
315
00
02
59
182/4218
00
00
30
181/4219
00
03
98
304
00
00
60
301
00
04
42
305
00
00
20
106/4240
00
01
80
307
00
00
23
308
00
00
58
309
00
00
20
297
00
02
35
296
00
02
00
331
00
02
33
333
00
01
98
333/4247
00
01
58
332
00
00
28
337
00
00
33
338
00
05
07
340
00
00
60
292
00
02
39
365
00
00
61
287
00
00
20
366
00
04
39
284
00
00
20
283
00
01
43
3758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
369
00
00
29
279
00
02
74
279/4203
00
02
79
278/4210
00
01
70
275
00
00
20
277
00
04
28
269
00
03
01
269/4201
00
03
00
268
00
03
32
268/4221
00
03
20
396
00
03
68
397
00
01
48
266
00
01
68
398
00
01
89
265
00
00
20
848
00
02
21
847
00
00
63
846
00
01
69
845
00
01
14
472
00
01
41
472/4265
00
00
77
472/4264
00
00
20
472/4038
00
01
64
473
00
03
35
487
00
03
29
483
00
01
67
483/4039
00
04
57
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3759
[फा. सं. आर-11025(12)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29474]
शाS तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2019
S.O. 887.—Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur (Odisha)-Haldia (West Bengal) a pipeline should be laid in
State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to
acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule
annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on
which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing
to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sibapriya Das Gupta,
Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mourigram, Andul-Mouri, Duliya Howrah-711302,
West Bengal.
SCHEDULE
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNAHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT :
PURBA MEDINIPUR
STATE : WEST BENGAL
S. No.
Name of
Tehsil
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
RAMNAGAR-I
UDAMPUR -05
171
00
05
02
170
00
01
66
169
00
01
71
166
00
01
90
155
00
00
20
702
00
05
49
701/4341
00
01
88
701
00
03
54
699
00
05
24
697
00
05
83
696
00
05
16
695
00
03
34
3760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
168
00
01
85
164
00
02
74
159
00
01
42
165/177
00
00
20
162
00
01
03
161
00
00
20
163
00
00
78
2
RAMNAGAR-I
BADHIA-06
1250
00
00
32
1249
00
03
95
1248
00
04
93
1247
00
01
91
1243
00
00
36
1240
00
03
51
1241
00
00
20
1239
00
01
13
1238
00
02
33
964
00
02
83
965
00
00
45
966
00
00
38
1225
00
03
89
1226
00
00
44
1224
00
03
53
971/4405
00
00
20
972
00
04
49
1219
00
01
57
981
00
00
96
976/4377
00
00
20
980
00
05
68
949
00
04
31
946
00
01
05
946/4373
00
04
29
996
00
00
20
944
00
02
29
999
00
00
53
943
00
00
67
1000
00
03
78
1001
00
03
28
1006
00
02
67
1005/4390
00
01
86
1005
00
00
33
1008
00
02
14
932
00
02
46
932/4371
00
00
67
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3761
931
00
01
82
929
00
02
28
928/4369
00
02
67
925
00
00
20
924
00
02
33
923
00
01
41
921
00
02
73
907
00
04
78
1037/4398
00
00
20
906
00
00
56
1038
00
03
99
1039
00
02
77
1043
00
01
46
1045
00
00
59
1042
00
01
74
1046/4400
00
00
20
1046/4399
00
02
81
1046
00
01
71
888
00
00
20
1056
00
02
01
887/4322
00
03
61
887
00
00
70
886/4360
00
01
63
886/4359
00
02
04
886
00
03
72
884
00
01
00
885
00
05
17
96
00
03
27
98
00
04
35
99
00
02
49
104
00
00
20
102
00
05
55
170/4215
00
01
95
170
00
00
20
167
00
04
19
179/4206
00
03
68
179
00
00
49
180
00
02
59
181
00
04
41
315
00
02
59
182/4218
00
00
30
181/4219
00
03
98
304
00
00
60
301
00
04
42
3762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
305
00
00
20
106/4240
00
01
80
307
00
00
23
308
00
00
58
309
00
00
20
297
00
02
35
296
00
02
00
331
00
02
33
333
00
01
98
333/4247
00
01
58
332
00
00
28
337
00
00
33
338
00
05
07
340
00
00
60
292
00
02
39
365
00
00
61
287
00
00
20
366
00
04
39
284
00
00
20
283
00
01
43
369
00
00
29
279
00
02
74
279/4203
00
02
79
278/4210
00
01
70
275
00
00
20
277
00
04
28
269
00
03
01
269/4201
00
03
00
268
00
03
32
268/4221
00
03
20
396
00
03
68
397
00
01
48
266
00
01
68
398
00
01
89
265
00
00
20
848
00
02
21
847
00
00
63
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3763
846
00
01
69
845
00
01
14
472
00
01
41
472/4265
00
00
77
472/4264
00
00
20
472/4038
00
01
64
473
00
03
35
487
00
03
29
483
00
01
67
483/4039
00
04
57
702
00
05
49
701/4341
00
01
88
701
00
03
54
699
00
05
24
697
00
05
83
696
00
05
16
695
00
03
34
[F. No. R-11025(12)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29474]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई दली, 20 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ.
.
.
. 888
888
888
888.—केS)ीय सरकार के लोक िहत म यह आव;यक तीत होता है क पिम बंगाल रा{य म पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीया (पिम बंगाल) से पे`ोिलयम उJ पाद" के प/रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपkरेशन िलिमटेड
के Eारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी है।
और केS)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आव;यक तीत होता है ऐसी भूिम म जो
इससे उपाबI अनुसूची मे वUणत है और िजस म उ& पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का # ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अजन कया
जाए।
अत: अब केS)ीय सरकार पे`ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइS स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अजन अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा 1 Eारा दत् त शि&य" का योग करते Gए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजन
करने के अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है।
कोई 7ि& जो उ& अनुसूची म वUणत भूिम म िहतबI है उस ता/रख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के
राजपQ क ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलmध करा दी जाती है इस दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने
के िलए उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार अजन के सq बS ध म ी िसबियादास गुV ता स8म ािधकारी इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपkरेशन
िलिमटेड, डाकघर–दुईया, आंदुल- मौरीमौरीाम, हावड़ा 711302 पिम बंगाल को िलिखत 9प से आ8ेप भेज सकेगा।
अनु
अनु
अनु
अनुसूसूसूसूची
ची
ची
ची
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर - ह$ दी
ह$ दी
ह$ दी
ह$ दीआ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
आ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
आ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
आ पाइपलाईन पा*रयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला :- पूव मेदिनपुर
रा{य :- पिम बंगाल
o.सं
तहसील का नाम
गॉव का नाम
हाल Vलॉट oमांक
कुल अिधिहत 8ेQफल
हैWटेयर
एयर
वगमीटर
3764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
1
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
पंिचसबितया
पंिचसबितया
पंिचसबितया
पंिचसबितया-79
79
79
79
1126
00
02
34
1125
00
01
44
1123
00
00
53
1124
00
00
20
1122
00
04
53
1121
00
00
81
1118
00
06
19
1117
00
00
61
1116
00
05
04
1140
00
00
33
2
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
ह*टआरी
ह*टआरी
ह*टआरी
ह*टआरी-134
134
134
134
518
00
00
51
500
00
00
20
499
00
02
46
498
00
02
27
501
00
00
20
496
00
04
77
391
00
01
63
392
00
04
74
387
00
00
99
388
00
04
32
24
00
00
20
25
00
03
46
378
00
03
11
373
00
03
26
372
00
04
42
371
00
02
16
365
00
04
71
364
00
03
62
363
00
03
13
45
00
01
11
45/1130
00
05
28
48
00
05
69
59
00
05
43
56
00
00
61
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3765
60
00
00
61
57
00
02
47
55
00
03
25
67
00
01
19
68
00
02
35
69
00
04
47
71/1152
00
00
20
70
00
00
55
71
00
03
47
254
00
03
86
253
00
02
75
260
00
00
51
251
00
00
32
249
00
06
66
248
00
00
45
81
00
00
61
107/1183
00
05
82
245/1170
00
00
41
107/1171
00
00
20
245
00
01
37
109
00
01
31
115/1185
00
00
20
215/1154
00
01
28
116
00
07
06
117
00
04
10
123
00
05
58
122
00
04
99
190
00
02
08
166
00
10
99
167
00
01
10
130
00
00
63
159/1123
00
03
84
160
00
00
20
159
00
07
02
156
00
07
06
155
00
08
11
3766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
153
00
06
47
152
00
00
53
3
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
5ीच6 द
5ीच6 द
5ीच6 द
5ीच6 दनपुर
नपुर
नपुर
नपुर-76
76
76
76
126
00
00
47
14
00
10
68
148
00
00
47
113
00
09
99
112
00
04
76
111
00
08
79
114
00
02
55
78
00
00
20
201
00
01
18
110
00
00
95
109
00
00
20
79
00
00
86
160
00
03
18
147
00
01
46
81
00
04
28
82
00
02
82
83
00
02
81
84
00
02
11
85
00
02
15
87
00
01
48
88
00
01
20
95
00
02
78
162
00
01
78
212
00
08
77
137
00
00
99
4
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
ब7लया
ब7लया
ब7लया
ब7लया-75
75
75
75
112
00
00
67
106
00
01
88
107
00
01
30
109
00
00
63
110
00
04
03
116
00
00
37
117
00
03
16
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3767
118
00
00
20
119
00
07
22
120
00
01
12
127
00
14
89
322
00
00
53
133
00
02
28
134
00
00
20
135
00
01
58
136
00
00
20
142
00
00
21
144
00
04
70
145
00
03
56
146
00
02
38
148
00
02
94
147
00
00
22
154
00
02
01
152
00
00
20
153
00
05
75
155
00
02
46
5
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
बामिनया
बामिनया
बामिनया
बामिनया-74
74
74
74
333
00
00
72
377
00
00
72
379
00
03
58
386
00
02
77
383
00
01
53
385
00
00
20
384
00
04
10
401
00
00
48
413
00
04
16
402
00
03
82
405
00
08
12
406
00
00
20
687
00
02
07
198
00
00
72
197
00
06
02
196
00
04
99
3768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
686
00
00
69
179
00
04
32
180
00
01
13
176
00
04
06
174
00
01
74
679
00
01
78
173
00
03
48
170
00
01
50
169
00
01
39
168
00
01
54
166
00
01
81
165
00
01
80
162
00
00
25
64
00
00
32
65
00
02
81
613
00
01
01
49
00
00
20
63
00
01
49
617
00
02
35
62
00
01
75
615
00
00
34
6
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
िशबुर बेलतािलया
िशबुर बेलतािलया
िशबुर बेलतािलया
िशबुर बेलतािलया-41
41
41
41
539
00
07
95
540
00
06
77
538
00
01
00
243
00
00
55
556
00
08
18
257
00
03
45
560
00
00
39
561
00
03
30
258
00
00
84
562
00
03
61
529
00
00
69
211
00
06
39
530
00
01
99
523
00
02
43
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3769
525
00
00
95
524
00
04
45
517
00
00
77
208
00
00
95
518
00
05
24
513
00
03
29
204
00
00
36
203
00
00
34
121
00
00
64
161
00
00
25
438
00
03
01
169
00
08
29
477
00
02
37
478
00
01
58
476
00
01
53
482
00
02
50
481
00
01
65
485
00
01
81
484
00
02
15
495
00
00
20
494
00
02
96
500
00
03
55
499
00
02
99
503
00
00
62
180
00
03
76
502
00
03
67
501
00
02
14
185
00
00
51
7
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
काटुआ
काटुआ
काटुआ
काटुआ-42
42
42
42
70
00
01
65
71
00
03
23
72
00
03
75
75
00
05
08
76
00
05
97
79
00
01
84
80
00
01
86
3770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
81
00
00
78
8
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
ढंघरा
ढंघरा
ढंघरा
ढंघरा-52
52
52
52
1
00
00
62
6/318
00
04
15
7
00
00
22
6/317
00
02
92
6/316
00
00
23
9/326
00
01
77
9/325
00
01
90
10/327
00
00
90
10
00
01
19
11/328
00
01
12
11
00
02
01
11/329
00
01
06
12
00
03
35
13/330
00
03
37
14/333
00
01
59
14/334
00
00
81
14
00
01
34
14/335
00
01
61
15
00
01
11
17
00
03
29
18/309
00
01
18
18/336
00
01
26
19
00
01
70
20/339
00
01
41
20/340
00
00
99
20
00
01
31
20/341
00
00
20
9
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
कुम*रया खानकु*रआ
कुम*रया खानकु*रआ
कुम*रया खानकु*रआ
कुम*रया खानकु*रआ-51
51
51
51
31/182
00
01
37
31/183
00
01
57
31/184
00
01
91
31
00
01
68
31/185
00
01
85
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3771
31/186
00
01
36
31/187
00
00
20
19/166
00
02
45
19/164
00
02
91
19/163
00
02
22
19/161
00
00
20
19/160
00
01
91
19/159
00
01
66
19/158
00
01
63
19/154
00
02
23
19/153
00
02
15
19/152
00
02
74
41/124
00
00
63
62/123
00
00
56
62/122
00
03
36
61
00
02
03
60
00
01
80
59
00
02
42
55
00
02
11
57
00
03
66
83
00
00
54
84
00
03
86
93/247
00
02
30
93/246
00
01
99
93/245
00
02
45
82/216
00
01
79
94
00
02
18
95
00
01
55
96/253
00
00
42
96
00
00
65
96/254
00
03
66
96/255
00
01
01
99/260
00
02
92
97/257
00
01
19
97
00
02
66
3772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10
10
10
10
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
ह*रना पाशदालबार
ह*रना पाशदालबार
ह*रना पाशदालबार
ह*रना पाशदालबार-53
53
53
53
357
00
06
30
356
00
00
20
355/827
00
01
72
355/828
00
01
30
355/830
00
03
29
352/816
00
03
76
352/817
00
01
56
352
00
01
58
352/819
00
01
53
352/820
00
02
07
352/821
00
01
96
349
00
09
17
347
00
05
81
345
00
01
09
346/811
00
05
54
342
00
00
70
342/807
00
02
42
342/808
00
03
24
340
00
07
93
338
00
00
54
336
00
03
13
335
00
03
75
335/597
00
00
61
58/702
00
04
97
58/694
00
00
20
58
00
05
74
58/703
00
00
20
58/699
00
04
80
58/698
00
06
81
57
00
00
89
53/635
00
01
51
53/637
00
00
45
56/674
00
02
10
56/673
00
02
86
56/675
00
00
20
56/672
00
01
54
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3773
56/669
00
04
11
56/670
00
00
22
56/671
00
00
57
56
00
04
94
56/666
00
04
06
56/665
00
03
19
56/664
00
02
08
62/716
00
00
20
56/656
00
00
25
56/655
00
00
20
62/711
00
01
75
62/712
00
01
57
62/713
00
00
29
56/605
00
00
71
11
11
11
11
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
दुमुरबेरे
दुमुरबेरे
दुमुरबेरे
दुमुरबेरे-47
47
47
47
18/282
00
06
04
18/280
00
00
20
18/281
00
03
43
18
00
05
12
22/204
00
00
20
18/274
00
05
22
18/275
00
00
77
18/276
00
07
12
18/277
00
02
73
13/270
00
04
33
13/271
00
01
54
3
00
04
14
2
00
02
88
1
00
03
66
12
12
12
12
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई
कंटई-।।।
।।।
।।।
।।।
पि1म सरपाई
पि1म सरपाई
पि1म सरपाई
पि1म सरपाई-46
46
46
46
319/662
00
09
64
319
00
00
20
319/659
00
04
38
319/658
00
00
58
321
00
00
73
333
00
12
88
3774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
332
00
01
34
331
00
04
55
330
00
00
62
350/697
00
03
16
350/699
00
02
62
350/700
00
02
09
350
00
00
20
350/698
00
03
66
350/701
00
02
76
350/702
00
00
20
351
00
00
51
152/623
00
00
20
151/622
00
00
53
151/621
00
01
33
150
00
02
77
148/620
00
01
94
148/618
00
01
80
148
00
01
83
148/617
00
01
81
148/616
00
01
93
146
00
04
91
141
00
00
68
145/614
00
03
84
145/615
00
01
55
144
00
04
62
357
00
00
96
358
00
01
15
460
00
05
56
460/728
00
11
70
459
00
07
01
461
00
00
80
473
00
04
09
472
00
08
89
468
00
05
06
470
00
01
11
469
00
06
27
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3775
469/736
00
01
18
467/735
00
01
08
465/547
00
00
20
478/562
00
00
36
418/561
00
00
20
418
00
00
31
418/558
00
09
93
360
00
02
88
410/716
00
00
98
405/710
00
00
23
409/715
00
03
65
409
00
00
64
406
00
01
32
406/711
00
01
69
406/712
00
01
18
407/746
00
00
20
407
00
00
81
408
00
02
69
415
00
00
39
[फा. सं. आर-11025(12)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29474]
शाS तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2019
S.O. 888.—Whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of Petroleum Product from Paradip-Somnathpur (Odisha)-Haldia (West Bengal) a pipeline should be laid in
State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Indian Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to
acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule
annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on
which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing
to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sibapriya Das Gupta,
Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mourigram, Andul-Mouri, Duliya Howrah-711302, West Bengal.
SCHEDULE
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNAHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT :
PURBA MEDINIPUR
STATE : WEST BENGAL
Sl.
No.
Name of
Tehsil
Name of Village
LR Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
3776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
CONTAI-III
PACHISBATYA-79
1126
00
02
34
1125
00
01
44
1123
00
00
53
1124
00
00
20
1122
00
04
53
1121
00
00
81
1118
00
06
19
1117
00
00
61
1116
00
05
04
1140
00
00
33
2
CONTAI-III
HATIARI-134
518
00
00
51
500
00
00
20
499
00
02
46
498
00
02
27
501
00
00
20
496
00
04
77
391
00
01
63
392
00
04
74
387
00
00
99
388
00
04
32
24
00
00
20
25
00
03
46
378
00
03
11
373
00
03
26
372
00
04
42
371
00
02
16
365
00
04
71
364
00
03
62
363
00
03
13
45
00
01
11
45/1130
00
05
28
48
00
05
69
59
00
05
43
56
00
00
61
60
00
00
61
57
00
02
47
55
00
03
25
67
00
01
19
68
00
02
35
69
00
04
47
71/1152
00
00
20
70
00
00
55
71
00
03
47
254
00
03
86
253
00
02
75
260
00
00
51
251
00
00
32
249
00
06
66
248
00
00
45
81
00
00
61
107/1183
00
05
82
245/1170
00
00
41
107/1171
00
00
20
245
00
01
37
109
00
01
31
115/1185
00
00
20
215/1154
00
01
28
116
00
07
06
117
00
04
10
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3777
123
00
05
58
122
00
04
99
190
00
02
08
166
00
10
99
167
00
01
10
130
00
00
63
159/1123
00
03
84
160
00
00
20
159
00
07
02
156
00
07
06
155
00
08
11
153
00
06
47
152
00
00
53
3
CONTAI-III
SRICHANDANPUR-76
126
00
00
47
14
00
10
68
148
00
00
47
113
00
09
99
112
00
04
76
111
00
08
79
114
00
02
55
78
00
00
20
201
00
01
18
110
00
00
95
109
00
00
20
79
00
00
86
160
00
03
18
147
00
01
46
81
00
04
28
82
00
02
82
83
00
02
81
84
00
02
11
85
00
02
15
87
00
01
48
88
00
01
20
95
00
02
78
162
00
01
78
212
00
08
77
137
00
00
99
4
CONTAI-III
BAHULYA-75
112
00
00
67
106
00
01
88
107
00
01
30
109
00
00
63
110
00
04
03
116
00
00
37
117
00
03
16
118
00
00
20
119
00
07
22
120
00
01
12
127
00
14
89
322
00
00
53
133
00
02
28
134
00
00
20
135
00
01
58
136
00
00
20
142
00
00
21
144
00
04
70
145
00
03
56
3778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
146
00
02
38
148
00
02
94
147
00
00
22
154
00
02
01
152
00
00
20
153
00
05
75
155
00
02
46
5
CONTAI-III
BAMANIA-74
333
00
00
72
377
00
00
72
379
00
03
58
386
00
02
77
383
00
01
53
385
00
00
20
384
00
04
10
401
00
00
48
413
00
04
16
402
00
03
82
405
00
08
12
406
00
00
20
687
00
02
07
198
00
00
72
197
00
06
02
196
00
04
99
686
00
00
69
179
00
04
32
180
00
01
13
176
00
04
06
174
00
01
74
679
00
01
78
173
00
03
48
170
00
01
50
169
00
01
39
168
00
01
54
166
00
01
81
165
00
01
80
162
00
00
25
64
00
00
32
65
00
02
81
613
00
01
01
49
00
00
20
63
00
01
49
617
00
02
35
62
00
01
75
615
00
00
34
6
CONTAI-III
SHIBPUR BELTALYA-41
539
00
07
95
540
00
06
77
538
00
01
00
243
00
00
55
556
00
08
18
257
00
03
45
560
00
00
39
561
00
03
30
258
00
00
84
562
00
03
61
529
00
00
69
211
00
06
39
530
00
01
99
523
00
02
43
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3779
525
00
00
95
524
00
04
45
517
00
00
77
208
00
00
95
518
00
05
24
513
00
03
29
204
00
00
36
203
00
00
34
121
00
00
64
161
00
00
25
438
00
03
01
169
00
08
29
477
00
02
37
478
00
01
58
476
00
01
53
482
00
02
50
481
00
01
65
485
00
01
81
484
00
02
15
495
00
00
20
494
00
02
96
500
00
03
55
499
00
02
99
503
00
00
62
180
00
03
76
502
00
03
67
501
00
02
14
185
00
00
51
7
CONTAI-III
KADUA-42
70
00
01
65
71
00
03
23
72
00
03
75
75
00
05
08
76
00
05
97
79
00
01
84
80
00
01
86
81
00
00
78
8
CONTAI-III
DHANGHARA-52
1
00
00
62
6/318
00
04
15
7
00
00
22
6/317
00
02
92
6/316
00
00
23
9/326
00
01
77
9/325
00
01
90
10/327
00
00
90
10
00
01
19
11/328
00
01
12
11
00
02
01
11/329
00
01
06
12
00
03
35
13/330
00
03
37
14/333
00
01
59
14/334
00
00
81
14
00
01
34
14/335
00
01
61
15
00
01
11
17
00
03
29
18/309
00
01
18
3780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18/336
00
01
26
19
00
01
70
20/339
00
01
41
20/340
00
00
99
20
00
01
31
20/341
00
00
20
9
CONTAI-III
KUMARIYA KHANKURIA-51
31/182
00
01
37
31/183
00
01
57
31/184
00
01
91
31
00
01
68
31/185
00
01
85
31/186
00
01
36
31/187
00
00
20
19/166
00
02
45
19/164
00
02
91
19/163
00
02
22
19/161
00
00
20
19/160
00
01
91
19/159
00
01
66
19/158
00
01
63
19/154
00
02
23
19/153
00
02
15
19/152
00
02
74
41/124
00
00
63
62/123
00
00
56
62/122
00
03
36
61
00
02
03
60
00
01
80
59
00
02
42
55
00
02
11
57
00
03
66
83
00
00
54
84
00
03
86
93/247
00
02
30
93/246
00
01
99
93/245
00
02
45
82/216
00
01
79
94
00
02
18
95
00
01
55
96/253
00
00
42
96
00
00
65
96/254
00
03
66
96/255
00
01
01
99/260
00
02
92
97/257
00
01
19
97
00
02
66
10
CONTAI-III
HARINA PASHDALBAR-53
357
00
06
30
356
00
00
20
355/827
00
01
72
355/828
00
01
30
355/830
00
03
29
352/816
00
03
76
352/817
00
01
56
352
00
01
58
352/819
00
01
53
352/820
00
02
07
352/821
00
01
96
349
00
09
17
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3781
347
00
05
81
345
00
01
09
346/811
00
05
54
342
00
00
70
342/807
00
02
42
342/808
00
03
24
340
00
07
93
338
00
00
54
336
00
03
13
335
00
03
75
335/597
00
00
61
58/702
00
04
97
58/694
00
00
20
58
00
05
74
58/703
00
00
20
58/699
00
04
80
58/698
00
06
81
57
00
00
89
53/635
00
01
51
53/637
00
00
45
56/674
00
02
10
56/673
00
02
86
56/675
00
00
20
56/672
00
01
54
56/669
00
04
11
56/670
00
00
22
56/671
00
00
57
56
00
04
94
56/666
00
04
06
56/665
00
03
19
56/664
00
02
08
62/716
00
00
20
56/656
00
00
25
56/655
00
00
20
62/711
00
01
75
62/712
00
01
57
62/713
00
00
29
56/605
00
00
71
11
CONTAI-III
DUMURBERE-47
18/282
00
06
04
18/280
00
00
20
18/281
00
03
43
18
00
05
12
22/204
00
00
20
18/274
00
05
22
18/275
00
00
77
18/276
00
07
12
18/277
00
02
73
13/270
00
04
33
13/271
00
01
54
3
00
04
14
2
00
02
88
1
00
03
66
12
CONTAI-III
PASCHIM SARPAI-46
319/662
00
09
64
319
00
00
20
319/659
00
04
38
319/658
00
00
58
321
00
00
73
333
00
12
88
3782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
332
00
01
34
331
00
04
55
330
00
00
62
350/697
00
03
16
350/699
00
02
62
350/700
00
02
09
350
00
00
20
350/698
00
03
66
350/701
00
02
76
350/702
00
00
20
351
00
00
51
152/623
00
00
20
151/622
00
00
53
151/621
00
01
33
150
00
02
77
148/620
00
01
94
148/618
00
01
80
148
00
01
83
148/617
00
01
81
148/616
00
01
93
146
00
04
91
141
00
00
68
145/614
00
03
84
145/615
00
01
55
144
00
04
62
357
00
00
96
358
00
01
15
460
00
05
56
460/728
00
11
70
459
00
07
01
461
00
00
80
473
00
04
09
472
00
08
89
468
00
05
06
470
00
01
11
469
00
06
27
469/736
00
01
18
467/735
00
01
08
465/547
00
00
20
478/562
00
00
36
418/561
00
00
20
418
00
00
31
418/558
00
09
93
360
00
02
88
410/716
00
00
98
405/710
00
00
23
409/715
00
03
65
409
00
00
64
406
00
01
32
406/711
00
01
69
406/712
00
01
18
407/746
00
00
20
407
00
00
81
408
00
02
69
415
00
00
39
[F. No. R-11025(12)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29474]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3783
नई द ली, 22 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ.
.आ.
.आ.
.आ. 889
889
889
889.—इंिडयन इंि#टूट आफ पे`ोिलयम एंड एनजt (आईआईपीई) अिधिनयम, 2017 के िनयम 5 (1) के
तहत दJ त शिW तय" का योग करते Gए, केS ) सरकार एतारा िनq निलिखत d यि&य" को इंिडयन इंि#टूट ऑफ पे`ोिलयम
एंड एनजt, िवशाखापJ तनम के नव ग/ठत शासी मंडल के सद# य" के 9प म दनांक 10.05.2019 से तीन वष क अविध के
िलए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, िनयुW त करती है:-
(i)
ी पु_ प कुमार जोशी, िनदेशक (मानव संसाधन) , .हदु# तान पे`ोिलयम कापkरेशन िल.(एचपीसीएल)
(ii)
डॉ. पी. चं)शेकरन, िनदेशक (ई एंड डी), ऑयल इंिडया िल. (ओआईएल)
[फा. सं. सीए-31037/8/2019-पीएनजी]
जे. सी. बाबू, उप सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2019
S.O. 889.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5(1) of the Indian Institute of Petroleum and Energy
(IIPE) Act, 2017, the Central Government hereby appoints the following persons as Members of the newly constituted
Board of Governors of Indian Institute of Petroleum and Energy, Visakhapatnam with effect from 10.05.2019 for a period
of three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier:-
(i) Shri Pushp Kumar Joshi, Director (HR), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)
(ii) Dr. P. Chandrasekaran, Director (E&D), Oil India Limited (OIL).
[F. No. CA-31037/8/2019-PNG]
J. C. BABU, Dy. Secy.
नई द ली, 23 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ.
.आ.
.आ.
.आ. 890
890
890
890.—केS )ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन" के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10
के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म पे`ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंQालय के शासिनक िनयंQणाधीन सावजिनक 8ेQ के उपoम"
के िनq निलिखत कायालय" को, िजनके 80 या अिधक ितशत कमचारी वृS द ने िहS दी का कायसाधक iान ाV त कर िलया है,
अिधसूिचत करती है :-
खंटी टUमनल,
इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपkरेशन, िलिमटेड
एन एच 20, अिनगारा,
झारखंड-835210
[सं. 11011/1/2017 (िहS दी)]
ऊषा िबSजोला, संयुW त िनदेशक (राजभाषा)
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2019
S.O. 890.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the
Unoin) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector Undertakings under
the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more per cent of the staff have
acquired working Knowledge of Hindi :-
Khunti Terminal,
Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd.
NH-20, Anigara,
Jharkhand-835210
[No. 11011/1/2017 (Hindi)]
USHA BINJOLA, Jt. Director (OL)
3784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
म एवं रोजगार
म एवं रोजगार
म एवं रोजगार
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
मंालय
नई द ली, 22 अ ैल, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 891
891
891
891.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस , िनदेशक, फेडरेशन ऑफ इंिडयन ए(सपोट ऑग+नाइजेशन, मुंबई एवं उनके कम चारी और अय के बंधतं1 के संब2
िनयोजक3 और उनके कम कार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म
यायालय,
न. 2 मुंबई के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या CGIT-2/1 of 2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 03.04.2019 को ा:
;आ था।
[सं. एल-42012/98/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2019
S.O. 891.—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
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, the 18th February, 2019
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3785
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 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 in spite of warnings. She did not improve her conduct and attitude. Her irresponsible
3786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
mandatory provisions of Section 25 F (a) (b) (c) of the I.D. Act, 1947?
Yes
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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3787
(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.
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
3788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3789
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.
Date: 18.02.2019
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 23 अ ैल, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 892
892
892
892.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस महा बंधक, अशोक होटल, नई दली और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक3 और उनके
कम कार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, 1, नई
दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 54/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 8/04/2019 को ा: ;ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2019
S.O. 892.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.54/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the The
General Manager, Ashok Hotel, New Delhi & Others,and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 8/04/2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR-(DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
ID No. 54/2014
Akhlinder S/o Shri Man Phool Singh,
Through Shri S.S. Upadhayay, President,
Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union,
Ashok Hotel Staff Quarter No.C-48/49,
Chankyapuri, New Delhi
…
Workman/Claimant
Versus
The General Manager,
Ashok Hotel,
50-B, Chankyapuri,
New Delhi 110021.
… Management
AWARD
This Award shall dispose of a claim petition directly filed by the workman/claimant Akhlinder under Section 2-
A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) with the averments that the workman was working with the
Management of Ashok Hotel w.e.f. 10/12/2002 continuously and against permanent post of cashier/clerk lying vacant
3790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
since long period. The claimant was Member of the Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union who took up his case for
regularization of his services in the regular pay scale of cashier/clerk and had filed the claim on 29-12-2011 with the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi who referred the matter to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt.
of India vide letter dated 1/5/2013. The Management came to know about the reference/letter dated 1/5/2013 and
planned to terminate the services of the claimant/workman, who was working for a job of perennial nature. The workman
was also paid Rs.1000/- extra for performing broken/shift duty. It is pleaded that contract between the management of
Ashok Hotel and the contractors M/s Recruitment Bureau as well as M/s Suraksha Security Services w.e.f. October, 2012
are sham, camouflage and not genuine and was made to deprive the regular pay scale of the post of cashier./clerk to the
workmen. It is also pleaded that the Management illegally terminated the services of the workman and did not allow
him to perform duty on 14/9/2013 and since then the workman is without job. The workman wrote a letter to the
Management on 16/9./2013 and the Union also sent a demand letter to the Management on 21/9/2013. It is further
pleaded that termination of the services of the claimant by the Management is unlawful and in violation of the provisions
of Section 33-A of the Act. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman with continuity of services and full
back wages.
2. The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement and took preliminary
objections inter-alia that the claim petition is not maintainable as the claimant was employee of M/s Suraksha Security
Services with whom the Management had entered into an agreement and all the personnel deployed for the services
rendered under the agreement including the claimant was the employee of M/s Suraksha Security Services. The liability
towards all the reliefs claimed by the claimant was solely of M/s Suraksha Security Services. It is alleged that although
there is no employer-employee relationship between the Management and claimant, the appropriate authority did not
consider the said fact and mechanically referred the matter for adjudication. Each and every allegations of the claimant
have been denied. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
3. The claimant filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations as made out in the written statement.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 4/2/2016 :—
1)
Whether the claimant has espoused as mandated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
?
2)
Whether there was any employer—employee relationship (sic. of the claimant) with M/s Suraksha
Security Services ?
3)
In terms of reference ?
5. In support of his case, the claimant examined Shri S.S. Upadhayay, President of Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Union as
WW1 besides examining himself as WW2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW2/A and relied on the
documents Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/18. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Management opted not to
participate in the proceedings after conducting cross examination of WW1 and as such, matter was proceeded ex parte
against the Management vide order dated 12/7/2017. The Management neither cross examined WW2 Akhlinder Singh –
claimant, nor had adduced any evidence in rebuttal.
6. I have heard Shri S.S.Upadhyay, A/R for the claimant and Shri Amit Wadhera, Manager (HR) of the Management and
have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.
Issue No. 1
7. As per the testimony of WW1 and WW2, the claimant Akhlinder was the member of Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta
Union and the said Union had undertaken the case of the claimant for regularization of his services in the regular pay-
scale applicable to the post of Cashier/clerk. WW1 was cross examined at length but nothing material came out to shake
his testimony. WW1 SS Upadhyay, President of Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union clarified that the Union was formed
in 1977 and he was having proof to show that workman/claimant had given subscription to the Union and proper receipt
was issued to him. Perusal of the record shows that the claimant has filed this case directly under Section 2-A of the Act,
without there being any espousal from any Union and has sought relief for reinstatement into service on the ground that
his services have been illegally terminated by the Management. It is fairly settled that provisions of Section 2-A enables
individual worker/s to raise industrial dispute notwithstanding that neither any other workman nor any Union of the
workman is a party to the dispute or difference connected with or arising out of an employer discharging, dismissing,
retrenching or otherwise terminating the services of an individual workman. Once the provisions of Section 2-A of the
Act confers a right on the workman to approach directly the Labour Court/Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute, to my
mind the instant application is maintainable, without there being any espousal by the Union. This issue is accordingly
decided.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3791
Issue No. 2
8. Testimony of the claimant that he was working on the post of Cashier in the Ashok Hotel against a vacant post, for the
last 10 years and that he was working in shifts (morning, evening or night) as per requirement of the Management which
duty used to be changed periodically, has gone unchallenged and unassailed. The claimant has filed on record copy of
the Duty Chart (Ex.WW2/9 colly) showing that he was deployed as Restaurant Cashier/s in Ashok Hotel, New Delhi
during the period 1-6-2005 to 15/2/2008. An objection has been taken by the Management that there is no relationship of
employer-employee between the parties since the claimant was the permanent employee of M/s Suraksha Security
Services. However, the Management has neither adduced any evidence nor has filed any document to substantiate its
contention that the claimant was employee of M/s Suraksha Security Services or that there was no relationship of
employer-employee between the Management and claimant herein. Accordingly, it is held that there existed relationship
of employer-employee between the claimant herein and Management. This issue is, therefore, decided against the
Management and in favour of the claimant.
Issue No. 3
9. At the outset I may mention that Section 33 of the Act clearly provides that during pendency of the proceedings either
before the Conciliation Officer or Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, no employer shall alter or change the conditions
of service of the workman without written permission/approval from the authority before which such proceedings are
pending. In case of contravention of the provisions of Section 33 by any employer, aggrieved employee has been given a
right to make a complaint in writing under Section 33-A of the Act before the Authority before whom such proceedings
were pending at the time of retrenchment/discharge etc. of the workman.
10. Section 33-A of the Act enjoins upon the Industrial Adjudicator a twin duty—the first is to find out as to whether the
employer has contravened the provisions of Section 33 and to answer the question as to whether the dismissal or such
other punishment as may have been imposed upon the workman is justified in law.
11. While deciding issue No.2 above, it has already been held that there existed relationship of employer-employee
between the claimant herein and Management. The claimant WW2 has categorically deposed that while terminating his
services on 14/9/2013, the Management of Ashok Hotel has not taken any permission from the Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-II, New Delhi where a case for regularization of his services is pending. He has filed on record a copy of the
statement of claim dated 28/12/2011 (Ex.WW2/1) which was made before the Labour Commissioner/Conciliation
Officer with the prayer that Management of Ashok Hotel may be directed to regularize the services of the workmen in
the scale of Rs.4660-6910/-. He has also filed on record a copy of letter dated 26/8/2014 (as Ex.WW2/2) showing that a
reference was made to CGIT-II, New Delhi by the appropriate Government under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute
relating to the regularization of the contractual workman Akhilendra Kumar and 14 others. It is evident from the
documents Ex.WW2/1 and Ex.WW2/2 that dispute regarding regularization of services of the workmen including the
claimant herein was pending as on 14/9/2013 when his services were allegedly terminated by the Management. The
management has not filed on record any document to show that it had sought any permission from the Competent
authority viz. either from Conciliation Officer or from the Labour Court. This impliedly means that conciliation
proceedings were still pending when the services of the claimant herein were disengaged/terminated on 14/9/2013
without any express permission from the Competent Authority. Needless to mention that discharge/.dismissal of the
workman from employment, without complying with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, by an employer
amounts to altering the terms & conditions of his employment. All these facts clearly indicate that the Management
establishment has contravened the provisions of Section 33,
12. It is fairly settled that conditions contained in the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act are mandatory in nature and
non-compliance of the same would render the order of discharge or dismissal etc. void or inoperative. To this view, I am
fortified by the decision as reported in 2003 LLR 68 Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.Vs. Prabhakar H.Manyare. The
plea of the workman/claimant that he was not allowed to perform duty w.e.f.14/9/2013 has gone unrebutted. He has also
filed on record copy of the letter dated 16/9/2013 (Ex.WW2/11) to the General Manager of Ashok Hotel, intimating that
he was not allowed to join duty on 14/9/2013 and had requested for taking him back on duty. He has also proved on
record copy of the demand notice (dated 25/9/2013 as Ex.WW2/12, duly receipted by the Management. It is evident that
the Management has terminated the services of the workman, without any approval from the Competent Authority and
without payment of wages for one month, as provided under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, this Tribunal has
no hesitation to hold that action of the Management in dismissing/terminating the services of the claimant him w.e.f.
14/9/2013 is illegal and void.
13. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages
and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. Testimony of the claimant that he worked with the Management of
Ashok Hotel continuously w.e.f. 10/12/2002 to 13/9/2013, has gone unassailed. There is no show cause notice or charge-
sheet issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the workman/claimant is of perennial
3792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and regular nature as he was serving as Clerk/cashier. The claimant has pleaded and testified that he is totally
unemployed since the day of his termination from service. Provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act are almost akin to
the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as both these provisions lay down certain conditions precedent to the
retrenchment/discharge of workmen and also requires the employer to give one month’s wages in lieu of notice.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” reported as
(2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
(i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is
the normal rule.
(ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back
wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court
of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer
wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that
the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads
drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of
the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It
is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows
that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was
gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination
of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of
Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity
and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of
an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu
thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and
nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs.
Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
16. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken
away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that
eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the
removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
17. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as
2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination
of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy
or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with
the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully
terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the
qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the
total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period
i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large,
would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or
intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”
18. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018
(decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and
reinstatement held as under :—
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3793
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018) MANU/de/
1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s salary in
lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be illegal and
in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing as under
:—
“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,
dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the
respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the
Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and
that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that
going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,
be
only
50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not on
account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties as
such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction, of
the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of service.
The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.
Inasmuch as the respondent has not been rendering any service to the petitioner since the date of his termination,
however, the back wages payable to the respondent would be limited to 50 per cent of the wages which he
would have drawn he had continued to serve the petitioner…..”
19. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a post of
regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into
service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se
illegal and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management
no.2. Award is passed accordingly against Management No.2.
Date : 4.4.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 14 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 893
893
893
893.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, सरदार वलभभाई रा>ीय ौ ोिगक सं@थान, इचानाथ, सूरत
)
गुजरात
(
और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के
बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक3 और उनके कम कार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय-1 अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 128/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
22/04/19 को ा: ;ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42011/53/2013-आईआर(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
3794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th May, 2019
S.O. 893.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 128/2013) 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, SardarVallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichhanath, Surat (Gujarat) & Others, and their workmen
which were received by the Central Government on 22/04/19.
[No. L-42011/53/2013-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 11th April, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 128/2013
The Director,
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology,
Ichhanath, Surat (Gujarat)
… First Party
V/s
The Secretary,
Surat Jilla Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,
B/206, Capital Complex, Beside Pratik Row House,
Hany Park Road, Adajan,
Surat (Gujarat)
… Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: Shri Hitesh D. Katharotiya
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/53/2013–IR(DU)
dated 11.07.2013 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 union for not violating the Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by transferring
the sweepers from one department to another by the management of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of
Technology, Surat is legal, proper and just? To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 11.07.2013 and received on 19.07.2013 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 union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on
10.01.2018 alleging that the second party workmen were the employees of the first party The Director, Sardar
Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Ichhanath, Surat, hereinafter referred to as ‘first party’. They were
affiliated to the Gujarat Shramik Seva Sangh, a trade union registered under the Bombay Trade Union Act. The
union raised the demand for regularisation of the workmen which was not accepted by the first party, therefore,
they raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara for reconciliation and settlement of
the dispute but the first party with a mala-fide intention change their service conditions and later on, terminated
their services on 13.08.2012 without following the due procedure under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes
Act. Therefore, they have prayed for declaration of termination of their service as illegal and order for wages.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3795
3.
The first party despite issuing notice did not prefer to appear and submit written statement, therefore, on
14.02.2019, the reference was ordered to be heard ex-parte against the first party.
4.
Today on 11.04.2019, the workmen named Niteshbhai Vasanjibhai Gamit, Yogeshbhai Ranchhodhbhai Gamit,
Pragneshbhai Vantabhai Gamit, Maneshbhai Raylubhai Kokni, Rameshbhai Maganbhai Gamit, Dineshbhai
Vasanjibhai Gamit, Mukeshbhai Limjibhai Gamit, Vinodbhai Arjunbhai Gamit, Hitendrabhai Hasmukhbhai Gamit,
Sureshbhai Hanjibhai Gamit, Arunbhai Amrutlal Rana, Ravibhai Kanubhai Solanki, Vishakha Laxmikant Raut and
Laxmikant Namdev Raut submitted their affidavits vide Ex. 9 to 22 respectively reiterating the averments made in
the statement of claim. Thus the reference is disposed of as ex-parte with the observation as under: “the demand of
the union for not violating the Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by transferring the sweepers from
one department to another by the management of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat is
legal, proper and just.”
5.
The Director, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat is directed to reinstate all the aforesaid
workmen within 30 days from the publication of the award with a lump-sum back wages of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) to each workman.
6.
The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 894
894
894
894.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस सहायक महा बंधक, कैनफन होAस ा. िलिमटेड, बसावनगुडी, बBगलोर, और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के बंधतं1 के
संब2 िनयोजक3 और उनके कम कार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण
एवं 6म यायालय, बBगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 34/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 22.04.2019 को
ा: ;ए थे ।
[सं. एल -42025/03/2019-आईआर(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the Central Government hereby
publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Assistant General Manager,
Canfin Homes Pvt. Ltd. Basavangudi, BANGALORE, & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 15.04.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V .K .THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
I D No.34/2013
I Party
II Party
Maya Kamath,
W/o K Ganesh, D – 4,
Central Exercise Qtrs.,
C Block, Devraj Urs Layout,
DAVANGERE – 577 006.
The Assistant General Manager,
Canfin Homes Pvt. Ltd.,
Head Office,
Basavangudi,
BANGALORE.
3796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCES :
I Party :
Self
II Party :
Shri T P Muthanna, Advocate
1. This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1stparty workman is that she was
appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party w.e.f. 28.08.1996; while working at Jayanagar Branch of Bangalore, she was
issued with charge sheet with certain allegations; enquiry was held; the Disciplinary Authority removed her from service
w.e.f. 06.07.2012; her appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority; she raised an industrial dispute since no settlement
was arrived she preferred to file the present petition. The enquiry conducted against her was in violation of principles of
natural justice; she is not guilty of the alleged misconduct; enquiry report was not disclosed to her; she is facing financial
hardship due to the illegal and arbitrary action of the 2nd Party.
2. The 2nd Party in their counter statement rebutted the allegation on the following lines :
“She committed serious acts of misconduct and investigation was conducted; the Enquiry Officer pointed out
prima facie, the misconduct committed by her; her explanation to the investigation report was called for and she
has submitted her reply; since her submission was not satisfactory charge sheet was issued; she was charge
sheeted for violation of Regulation of 26(1) Can FinHomes Staff Service Regulations(1988). She did not submit
her explanation to the charge sheet and participated in the enquiry and was provided with full opportunity to
defend herself in the enquiry. The enquiry authority based on the documentary and oral evidence submitted his
report by holding that she is guilty of all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet. She submitted her
submission to the enquiry report. Taking into consideration gravity of the misconduct she is removed from
service which shall not be disqualification for future employment; the Appellate Authority gave personal
hearing to her considered her submission and as the grounds of appeal: the appeal came to be rejected and the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is confirmed. Her past service record is not satisfactory.
During 2009 and 2010 she was charge sheeted for commission of misconduct; in both cases she had admitted
the charges and apologized; the 2nd Party closed the matter by advising her to be careful, she was counselled
both orally and through letters to improve her performance, behaviour with the customer and superiors etc., but
she persisted with her acts of misconduct; the punishment imposed on her is justified.”
3. On the rival pleadings following issues were framed :
“01. Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted by Respondent against the applicant is fair and proper?
02. If yes whether applicant demonstrates the enquiry finding is perverse necessitating the interference of this
tribunal?
03. Whether the punishment imposed against the applicant is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against
him?
04. What order or award?”
4. The first issue was treated as Preliminary Issue. To discharge their burden regarding first issue the II Party examined
the Enquiry Officer and produced the enquiry records Ex M-1 to Ex M-10. There was no rebuttal evidence, thereafter,
consciously the I Party workman has opted to stay out of the proceedings.
5. She has withdrawn her vakalat given to Sh. B M Mahadeva and thereafter neither did engage any counsel nor
prosecute the case on her own. Notice sent to her through RPAD has returned unserved as “No such person in the address
Left”.
6. I have heard Sh. HCS for TPM learned counsel for the II party. My answer to the Issue No. 1 is in the affirmative and
negative to the 2nd and 3rd Issue.
7. Through the evidence of MW 1 / Enquiry Officer, it is brought out that the I Party participated throughout the enquiry
without engaging the service of Defence Representative. During the preliminary enquiry she denied the charges. She
inspected the management documents but did not produce any documents on her behalf. Two witnesses were examined
on 04.05.2012. Though opportunity was given, she did not cross-examine them.
8. The witnesses produced inter office letter correspondences pertaining to the lapses in the performance of the I Party
workman, the memos issued to her, her response to the memo’s, the report submitted by MW 1 and MW 2 to the AGM
and the investigation report carried out by AGM on the complaint of MW 2. The Charge sheet and the reply submitted by
her. Though opportunity was provided she had not submit her written brief before the Enquiry Officer.
9. The Enquiry Officer for holding the workman guilty of the offence has recorded his finding, charge by charge. MW 2
was the Manager of the Branch and MW 1 was the Senior Officer of the Branch. Both of them had consistently stated
about the nature of work assigned to her, her poor performance, lethargic attitude due to which customer had to move
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3797
from her table to some other table seeking clarification; there were many complaints against her by the customers since
deposits were not renewed timely there were written complaints also. Cheque return letters were sent to the borrowers
without assigning the reasons. Some letters were sent to the borrowers though there were no cheque returns from their
side. She used to send cheques to wrong addresses. LIC policy assignment were not done on time. There were complaints
from the borrowers for the delay. A complaint was given to the Assistant General Manager; once she misplaced a LIC
policy which has to be encashed; the customer had to get the duplicate policy to get the proceeds, later they found out
that the Original Policy was with her only. The matter was brought to the AGM of the branch pursuant to which
investigation was conducted. That non cross-examination of these management witnesses coupled with the documents
produced prompted the Enquiry Officer to hold all the seven charges as proved. The Charges are :
“Charge No. 1 : Charge Sheeted Employee did not render proper service to depositors because of which they choose to
seek refund of the deposit.
Charge No. 2 : She did not deliver the renewed deposit receipt in time to the customer Deposits Nos 8994 & 8995 which
were submitted for renewal were renewed only after 1 month. The depositor Mrs. Anju Bansal has made a written
complaint against her about deficiency in service rendered by her.
Charge No. 3 : She has been continuously committing mistakes causing a lot of customer complaints almost everyday.
She has sent letters to customers informing that their cheques have bounced whose loan amount was closed 8 years back.
Charge No. 4 : She has filed the returned cheques in the respective files and not informed to the concerned borrowers.
Charge No. 5 : She has not attended to the LIC policy given for assignment in favour of the company.
Charge No. 6 : She has been committing consistent mistakes which is causing unwarranted friction with customers and
hampering smooth functioning of the branch.
Charge No. 7 : She has not shown any improvement in her performance inspite of repeated reminders from the Branch
Manager.”
10. In her remarks to the enquiry report she did not comment upon the enquiry report or the procedure adopted during the
enquiry instead she pleaded for transfer to Davangere for personal reasons. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with
the enquiry findings and ordered for dismissal which shall not be disqualification for future employment. In her appeal
memo for the first time she questioned the procedure adopted during the enquiry and lack of opportunity to cross-
examine management witnesses and to lead defence evidence etc., however, she apologized her minor transgritions and
sought for another opportunity to serve the establishment. During the personal hearing she had stated that she had no
more oral submission, however, sought for another opportunity to serve the institution, the Appellate Authority
confirmed the punishment order, in the light of her past records.
11. Before this tribunal she had a fair opportunity to challenge the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry which she did not
utilize . Though there is no direct financial implication on the 2nd Party consequent upon the misconduct proved against
the workman definitely the deficiency in her service will indirectly tell upon the business of the branch office. It is not
for the first time she was tackled for her misconduct and irregularities, the Appellate Authority has noticed the previous
incidents of her misconduct like Unauthorized absence, scant respect to the Higher authority, instructions of higher
authorities etc. Since the punishment order is not affecting her future career, in my considered opinion the punishment
order is justified not calling for exercise of jurisdiction vested with this tribunal by Section 11 A of the ID Act. Hence,
AWARD
Petition is Dismissed.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 1st April 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 895
895
895
895.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस
िनदेशक और एम.एस., पीजी इंटी!ूट ऑफ मेिडकल एजुकेशन एंड अनुसंधान, डॉ. आरएमएल अपताल, नई ,द-ली और अय एवं उनके
कमचारी के /बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक3 और उनके कमकार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन5द6 औोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 7म यायालय-1, नई ,द-ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं9या 62/2017) /कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11/04/2019
को /ा< =ए थे ।
[सं. एल -42011/77/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
3798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.62/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, New Delhi - 1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director and M.S., PG Institute of Medical Education & Research, Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi, New Delhi & Others,
and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 11/04/2019.
[No. L-42011/77/2016-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT No. 1 NEW DELHI
ID No. 62/2017
Ms. Lipika Sharma and 6 others,
(working as Technical Supervisor/Technician in PGIMER of RML Hospital),
Represented by
Hospital Employees Union,
Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi 54.
… Workman
Versus
1. The Management of PG Institute of Medical Education &
Research, Dr.RML Hospital,
Baba Khadak Singh Marg,
New Delhi 1100001 through its
Director and M.S.
2. Directorate General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
… Management
AWARD
This award shall decide a reference which was made to this to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide
letter No.L-42011/77/2016/IR(DU) dated 03.03.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as
under:
‘Whether the action of the management of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital and Directorate General of Health Services in terminating the services of the workmen
during the pendency of dispute of regularization of services is fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the workmen
is (sic. are) entitled to and from which date? ’
2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimants/workmen Lipika Sharma and 6 others filed their joint statement of
claim with the averments that they were working with the Management on the post of Technical Supervisor/Technician,
giving their service particulars as under :—
Sl.No.
Name Shri/Smt.
Designation
Date of joining
Date of
termination
Last Place of posting
1
Ms.Lipika
Sharma
w/o.Aakash Yadav
Technical Supervisor
20.4.2011
31.12.15
I.T.
2
Smt.Pushpa
w/o.Gulshan Kumar
Bhola
Technician
20.10.11
31.12.15
Graphic Lab
3
Arun Kant
s/o. Shrikant Tiwari
Technician
25.4.2011
31.12.15
Graphic Lab
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3799
4
Mandeep Kaur
w/o.Amit Mehrotra
Technician
22.11.10
31.12.15
I.T.
5
Vagish Bhardwaj
s/o.Uma Shankar
Sharma
Technician
20.10.10
31.12.15
Molecular Lab
6
Aman Yadav
s/o.A.K. Yadav
Technician
12.10.10
31.12.15
Molecular Lab
7
Manveer Singh s/o.
Shri Bhadrapal
Technician
27.1.2011
31.12.15
Biostatistics
As per averments made in the claim petition, the Management had advertised the post of Technical Supervisor and
Technician in various newspapers including Hindustan Times and in pursuance thereof, the workmen herein alongwith
other persons had applied for their respective jobs. The Management formed a Selection Board consisting of number of
Doctors/Professors of various fields to select employees for the post of Technical Supervisor and Technician. The
Selection Board selected the workmen herein only after interview and verification of their documents and thereafter
police verification and medical examination of the workmen was got done by the Management. Then appointment letters
were issued to the claimants against vacant posts of Technical Supervisor (carrying the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- plus
Grade Pay of Rs.4600) and Technician (in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs.2000) but the
management paid them consolidated amount of Rs,.17000/- and Rs.10000/- respectively for the post of Technical
Supervisor and Technician. The workmen/claimants herein are continuously and uninterruptedly discharging their
duties, without any break from their initial date of joining till the date of their illegal termination. The workmen were
continuously discharging their services from the dates of their respective joining against vacant & sanctioned posts and
as such, they raised an industrial dispute claiming regularization of their services and the matter was taken up by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner/ Conciliation Officer on 29-12-2015 wherein Smt. Lalita Maini, Senior Administrative
Officer of PGIMER appeared on behalf of the Management No.1 and after hearing, she became annoyed & issued
termination order/s dated 31.12.2015 without obtaining any permission of the Conciliation Officer. As such, the action
of the Mnagement in terminating the services of the workmen during pendency of the industrial dispute concerning their
regularization is totally illegal, bad, unjust and malafide inasmuch as the Management has not given any prior notice to
the workmen regarding change of their service conditions; Management passed the termination order in undue haste and
in violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act; the impugned order has been issued in violations of the provisions
of Section 25-F,G and H of the Act. It is pleaded that the workmen are unemployed since the date of their termination
w.e.f. 31/12/2015. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of workmen into service with continuity of service, full back
wages & all consequential benefits – monetary and non monetary as well as for costs of litigation.
3. The statement of claim has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary
objections that PGIMER which was established by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India in 2008, is a
separate entity and as per explanation to Section 2(7)(j) of the Act, educational institutions are not included under the
definition of “Industry” and as such, the PGIMER is not an industry and the claim petition is not maintainable. While
denying the averments of the claimant, it has been stated that the recruitment of the claimants was made following due
process and the Technical Supervisor/s were engaged on consolidated remuneration of Rs.17000/- per month, whereas
Technicians were engaged on remuneration and they were accorded increments at 5 per cent in 20111, 2012 and 2013 as
per instructions issued by the Ministry. And their tenure was extended on year to year basis, with the stipulation that their
tenure is upto a specified period of time or till regular incumbent joins, whichever is earlier. It is also stated that a
proposal was sent to DGHS in October, 2014 for enhancement of salary of Technicians and Technical Supervisor
working in PGIMER but DGHS vide letter dated 17/9/2015 directed to terminate the services of contractual technicians/
technical Supervisor and as such, the services of the workmen/claimants were terminated vide order dated 31/12/2015. It
is alleged that Section 33 of the Act does not attract in the matter as PGIMER does not fall under the jurisdiction of ID
Act. Prayer has been made for dismissal of claim petition.
4. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the claimants whereby they reaffirmed the averments as made in the claim petition
and denied the allegations made in the written statement.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 19/2/2018 :—
(i) Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections ?
(ii) In terms of reference ?
5. The workmen /claimants examined themselves as WW1 to WW7 and tendered their evidence by way of affidavits
Ex. WW1/A to Ex.WW7/A respectively & relied on number of documents.
6. On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Arvind Kumar, Registrar of PGIMER who filed his affidavit
Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/6.
3800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. I have heard Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, A/R for the claimants and Shri Atul Bhardwaj, A/R for the Management. I have
also gone through the records carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.
Issue No. 1:
8. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Management strongly contended that the Management No.1 PGIMER wherein the
claimants were working on contract basis, is not an industry under Section 2(j) of the Act because the said institution is
doing research work with no profit motive and as such the claim petition is not maintainable before this Tribunal.
9. Per contra, learned A/R for the claimants submitted that since the work done by the Management Hospital is
systematic, it fall within the definition of term “industry”.
10. It the worthwhile to mention here that the definition of ‘industry’ as provided under Section 2(J) of the Act, is in two
parts. In its first part it means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers. This part of
definition determines an industry by reference to occupation of employers in respect of certain activities. These activities
are specified by five words and they determine when an industry is and what the cognate expression ‘industrial’ is
intended to convey. The second part views the matter from the angle of employees and is designed to include something
more in what the term primarily denotes. This part gives extended connotation. If the activity can be described as an
industry with reference to the occupation of the employers, the ambit of the industry, under the force of the second part,
takes in the different kinds of activity of the employees mentioned in the second part. But, the second part alone cannot
define ‘industry’. An industry is not to be found in every case of employment or service. By the inclusive part of the
definition the labour force employed in an industry is made an integral part of the industry for purposes of industrial
disputes although industry is ordinarily something which employers create or undertake. Before the work engaged in by
an employer can be described against industry, it must bear the definite character of ‘trade’ or ‘business’ or
‘manufacture’ or ‘calling’ or must be capable of being described as an undertaking resulting in material goods or material
services. Where an activity is to be considered as an industry, it must not be casual but must be distinctly systematic and
the work for which workmen are employed must be productive and the workmen must be following an employment,
calling or industrial avocation. The word ‘industry’ must take its colour from the definition and that it discloses that a
workman is to be regarded as one employed in an industry if he is following one of the vocations mentioned in
conjunction with his employers engaged in the vocation mentioned in relation to the employers.”
11. In State of Bombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, 1960(1) LLJ 251, Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that under
Section 2(j) of ID Act, an activity can and must be regarded as an industry even though in carrying it out, profit motive
may be absent.
12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36) FLR 266
dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression “industry” as defined in Section 2(J) of the Act and held as under
—
“(a) Where a complex of activities some of which qualify for exemption, others not involves employees on the
total undertaking some of whom are not “workman” as in the University of Delhi case (supra) or some
departments are not productive of goods and services, if isolated, even then the predominant nature of the
services and integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur (supra) will
be the true test. The whole undertaking will be “industry” although those who are not ‘workmen’ by
definition may not benefit by the status.
(b)
Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions strictly understood (alone) qualify for
exemption not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or Statutory
bodies.
(c ) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are
substantially severable, they can be considered to come within section 2(j).
(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act
categories which otherwise may be covered thereby.
(e)
We overrule Safdarjung (supra), Solicitors’ case (supra), Gymkhana (supra), Delhi University (supra),
Dhanrajgiri Hospital (supra) and other ruling whose ratio runs counter to the principles enunciated above
and Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (supra) is hereby rehabilitated.”
13. In Christian Medical College and Brown Hospital Vs. Labour Court, 1996(2) LLN 697, it has been held by Hon’ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court that Hospital & Medical College is an industry. Similarly, in Simla Devi Vs. Presiding
Officer, 1997(2) LLN 305, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Hospital is an industry and a part time
workman in hospital is a workman. Our own High Court in the case of AIIMS Vs.Raj Singh, 2009(2)SCT 9(Delhi)
observed that the AIIMS does not cease to be a hospital merely because research is also carried on therein and applying
the law as explained in Bangalore Water Supply (supra), AIIMS was held to be an “industry” within the meaning of
Section 2(j) of the Act.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3801
14. Perusal of the record shows that MW1- Arvind Kumar – sole witness of the Management has clarified in his cross
examination that the work done in the Management is systematic by way of cooperation and coordination between the
Officers and subordinate employees and the aim/objective of the Management is to produce the doctors to serve the
people at large.
15. Having regard to the ratio of aforesaid decisions, it is fairly settled that hospital, research institutes and training
centre render valuable material services to the community for qualifying for coming within Section 2(j) of the Act. To
my mind, PGIMER attached to RML Hospital would not cease to be an “industry” inspite of the fact that the hospital is
not embarking upon any economic or profit making activity and it is accordingly held that the Management falls within
the definition of “industry” qua the claimants who were working on the post of Technical Supervisor or Technician and
that the claim petition is maintainable. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimants & against the
Management.
Issue No.2 :
16. It is manifest from the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record that the claimants/workmen herein
were engaged by the Management sometimes during the period from October, 2010 to April, 2011 (to be more precise as
detailed in para 2 above) on the post of Technical Supervisor / Technician, after due process viz. issuance of
advertisement in leading newspapers; conducting of interview by the Selection Board consisting of Medical
experts/professionals; selection of claimants/workmen herein as per recommendations of the Board and thereafter the
workmen were put to police verification and medical examination/s. Thereafter, the claimant Lipika Sharma (WW1) was
appointed to the post of Technical Supervisor on contract basis at a consolidated remumeration of Rs.17,000/- per month
vide appointment letter Ex.WW1/2 followed by office order dated 9/5/2011 (Ex.WW1/3), whereas other claimants Smt.
Pushpa, Arun Kant, Mandeep Kaur, Vagish, Aman Yadav and Manveer Singh were appointed to the post of Technician/s
on a consolidated monthly remuneration/salary of Rs.10,000/- which is also evident from the documents Ex.WW2/1,
Ex.WW2/2, Ex.WW3/1, Ex.WW3/2; Ex.WW4/1 & Ex.WW4/2; Ex.WW5/1 & ExWW 5/2; Ex.WW6/1 & Ex.WW6/2;
and Ex.WW7/1 & Ex.WW 7/2. The workmen herein were appoint against sanctioned vacant posts, initially for a period
of one year and their term was extended from time to time prior to their termination vide letter dated 31/12/2015
(Ex.WW1/7 and copy also filed as Ex.MW1/4). Remuneration/consolidated salary of the claimants was enhanced from
time to time and last draw wages of the workman Lipika Sharma working as Technical Supervisor were Rs.19500/-,
whereas the other workmen working as Technician were drawing wages @ Rs.11500/- per month, prior to their
termination. MW1 Arvind Kumar – sole witness of the Management has admitted that the claimants were working
against vacant posts of Technical Supervisor/s carrying pay scale of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4600/- and
Technicians carrying pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-.
17. In the year 2015 the claimants/workmen herein had approached the Conciliation Officer for regularization of their
services and before the Conciliation Officer, Management through Ms.Lalita Maini, Senior Administrative Officer had
put in appearance on 29/12/2015 which fact is also admitted to by MW1 Shri Arvind Kumar. It is undisputed fact that
services of the claimants have been terminated vide letter dated 31/12/2015 (Ex.MW1/4) with immediate effect. MW1
Arvind Kumar –witness of the Management has admitted that the Management had not taken any permission from the
appropriate Govt./Conciliation Officer or the competent court of law, prior to terminating the services of the claimants.
However, this witness clarified that pursuant to the receipt of letter Ex.MW1/3 from the Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, the Management had decided to terminate the services of the claimants/workmen. Recital of the contents of
letter Ex.MW1/3 would show that request letters dated 18/12/2014 and 13/8/2015 of the Medical Supdt. Of RML
Hospital regarding enhancement of salary of Technician (contract basis) and Technical Supervisor (on contract basis)
was examined and it was decided to terminate the services of the applicants who have been appointed on contract basis
keeping in view the fact that in case these contractual Technician/Technical Supervisor approached CAT, they may also
get a favourable order. Thus, it clearly emerges that the Management terminated the services of the claimants under the
apprehension that the claimants who were working on contract basis for quite long, may get a favourable order from the
Central Administrative Tribunal or any other Court of law. It seems that this action of the Management in terminating
the services of the workmen vide letter Ex.MW1/4 was not in good faith rather as a colourable exercise of their right
and it amounted to unfair labour practice as provided under item 5 of the Fifth Schedule of Section 2 (ra) of the Act,
inasmuch as vide office order dated 2/12/2015 (Ex.WW2/8) the Management had extended the services for four
workmen/claimants herein for a period of three months and the period of three months had not expired when termination
order dated 31/12/2015 (Ex.MW1/4) was issued by the Management.
18. Furthermore, termination of services of the workmen/claimants herein is in violation of Section 33-A of the Act,
because undisputedly industrial dispute regarding regularization of services of the claimants was pending before the
Conciliation Officer and admittedly the Management had not taken any permission from the appropriate Govt./
Conciliation Officer or the competent court of law, prior to terminating the services of the claimants. It will be
worthwhile to mention here that Section 33 of the Act clearly provides that during pendency of the proceedings either
before the Conciliation Officer or Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, no employer shall alter or change the conditions
of service of the workman without written permission/approval from the authority before which such proceedings are
pending. In case of contravention of the provisions of Section 33 by any employer, aggrieved employee has been given a
3802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
right to make a complaint in writing under Section 33-A of the Act before the Authority before whom such proceedings
were pending at the time of retrenchment/discharge etc. of the workman.
10. Section 33-A of the Act enjoins upon the Industrial Adjudicator a twin duty – the first is to find out as to whether the
employer has contravened the provisions of Section 33 and to answer the question as to whether the dismissal or such
other punishment as may have been imposed upon the workman is justified in law. As mentioned above, dispute
regarding regularization of services of the workmen /claimants herein was pending as on 31/12/2015 when their services
were terminated by the Management. The management has not filed on record any document to show that it had sought
any permission from the Competent authority viz. either from Conciliation Officer or from the Labour Court. This
impliedly means that conciliation proceedings were still pending when the services of the claimant herein were
disengaged/ terminated on 31/12/2015 without any express permission from the Competent Authority. Needless to
mention that discharge/.dismissal of the workman from employment, without complying with the provisions of Section
33(2)(b) of the Act, by an employer amounts to altering the terms & conditions of his employment. All these facts
clearly indicate that the Management establishment has contravened the provisions of Section 33.
12. It is fairly settled that conditions contained in the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act are mandatory in nature and
non-compliance of the same would render the order of discharge or dismissal etc. void or inoperative. To this view, I am
fortified by the decision as reported in 2003 LLR 68 Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.Vs. Prabhakar H.Manyare. MW1
Arvind Kumar has admitted that no notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or service compensation was offered or paid to
any of the workmen prior to their termination. It is, thus, apparent that the Management has terminated the services of the
workman, without any approval from the Competent Authority and without payment of wages for one month, as
provided under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that action of the
Management in dismissing/terminating the services of the claimants w.e.f.31/12/2015 is illegal and void.
13. Now the residual question is whether the claimants/workmen are entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. As mentioned above, recruitment of the claimants to the
post of Technical Supervisor/Technician was as per due process and the claimants/workmen do possess requisite
qualifications to the post/s to which they were selected and engaged in the year 2010 and they all worked from 2010-11
to
31st December, 2015. There is no show cause notice or charge-sheet issued to the claimant/workman by the Management.
Moreover, the job of the workmen/claimants is of perennial and regular nature inasmuch MW1 Shri Arvind Kumar has
fairly stated that the posts to which the workmen were employed are lying vacant as on date. The claimants have pleaded
and testified that they are totally unemployed since the day of their termination from service. Management has not led
any evidence to show that the claimants are gainfully employed. Provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act are almost akin
to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as both these provisions lay down certain conditions precedent to the
retrenchment/discharge of workmen and also requires the employer to give one month’s wages in lieu of notice.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” reported as
(2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of
getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or
was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads
gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to
the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the
existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,
once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically
plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.”
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination
of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of
Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity
and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of
an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu
thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and
nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs.
Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3803
16. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of
service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken
away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously
deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that
eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the
removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the
workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
17. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as
2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :—
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination
of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy
or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with
the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully
terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the
qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the
total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period
i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large,
would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or
intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”
18. Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018
(decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and
reinstatement held as under :—
“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such
cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different
opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay
the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,
the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a
premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.”
19. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty against
post/s of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimants herein are entitled for
reinstatement into service on the same post, with full back wages, inasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is
per-se illegal and the claimant/workman are not gainfully employed anywhere since after their termination by the
Management. Award is passed accordingly against Management No.2.
Date : 9/4/2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 896
896
896
896.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस
यूिनट चीफ, तुंगभा @टील ोड(ट िल., तुंगभा डैम बBगलोर, और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक3
और उनके कम कार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय,
बBगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 09/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 16.05.2019 को ा: ;ए थे ।
[स. एल -42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
3804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 896.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the Central Government hereby
publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Unit Chief, Tungabhadra Steel
Product Ltd., Tungabhadra Dam & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
16.05.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
9th May, 2019
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
I. D. No. 09/2015
I Party
II Party
Sh. G. Kodandan,
S/o N. Govinda Swamy,
R/at Vancapcamp,
Ambedkar, 30th Ward
Tngabhadra Dam – 583225,
Hosper Taluk, Bellary District
1.
Sh. P. Manjunath, Unit Chief
M/s. Tungabhadra Steel Product Ltd.,
Tungabhadra Dam
2.
Deputy Manager (HR & IR),
M/s Tungabhadra Steel Product Ltd.,
Tungabhadra Dam – 583 225.
3.
Retd. Senior Officer (HR & IR),
M/s. Tungabhadra Steel Product Ltd.,
T.S.P Colony,
Tungabhadra Dam – 583 225.
4.
The Secretary,
The T.S.P SC/ST Employees Welfare
Association,
Tungabhadra Dam,
Hospet Taluk,
Bellary District – 583 225
Appearances :
Advocate for I Party
: Mr. P. Suresh
Advocate for II Party No. 1 to 3
: Mr. Basavaraj V Sabarad
AWARD
1. The case of the Petitioner / 1st Party workman is, he was working as Pump Operator in the Respondent No. 1, 2, and
3’s company at Tungabhadra dam. The 2nd Party requested Tungabhadra Steel Products Limited (TSPL) SC/ST
Employees Welfare Association for providing man power, 10 members were provided by the Association. The
Association used to receive the salary amount from the 2nd Party and disburse the same to its workman. The 1st Party
workman was appointed as Pump Operator by the Association on 20.05.2005. He has worked upto 31.12.2012. They
have also paid bonus to the Association upto 20.05.2005. He has worked throughout continuously without a break. All
of a sudden the Association terminated him on the instruction of the 2nd Party No. 1, 2, and 3 without notice or without
any compensation. The 2nd Party No. 1, 2, and 3 as the Principal Employer and the Association/ 2nd party No. 4 had not
obtained any registration under CL(R & A) Act. Hence, the prayer for reinstatement with full back wages.
2. The 2nd Party No. 4 though filed its counter statement, soft peddling with claim allegation has not contested the claim
thereafter. The case of the 2nd Party No. 1 to 3 is, he is not their employee, no contract employee was appointed by the
company at any point of time. The 2nd Party M/s TSPL being a public sector undertaking controlled by Union
Government of India and Joint undertakings of Government of Karnataka and the then Andhra Pradesh are controlled by
the Provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. It has no Independent Authority to engage /
appoint contract labour. The 2nd party No. 4 was looking after the house keeping work as per the work order issued in
their favour with the prior approval and as per the guidelines of Ministry of Heavy Industry. As per the orders of the
Cabinet Committee of Economics affair (CCEA) meeting was held on 22.12.2015 chaired by Prime Minister of India.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3805
Union of India has taken the decision to close the company by offering attractive VRS. Accordingly VRS was opened in
the company on 11.01.2016 and all 72 employees have availed VRS and Company has been closed w.e.f 09.03.2016.
3. The 4th Respondent in its objection statement has fully endorsed the facts stated by the 1st Party workman in the claim
statement. However, has further stated that, it is only a man power supplier and the claim of the 1st Party workman
against the 2nd Party No. 4 is not proper.
4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed:—
i)
Whether the termination of the 1st Party workman by the 2nd Party Management w.e.f 01.01.2013 is not
justified?
ii)
Whether the 2nd Party Management has to be directed to restore the 1st Party to his original post with full
back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits?
iii) To what relief the 1st Party workman is entitled to get?
5. 1st Party examined himself as WW-1 and documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-8 are marked. For the Management the
Chairman and Managing Director M/s. Tungabhadra Steel Products Limited is examined as MW-1, documents Ex M-1
to Ex M-7 are marked. Written arguments are submitted by both. For sake of convenience all the issues are taken
together for discussion.
6. The 1st Party filed is affidavit evidence reiterating his claim statement averments. Among other things he has produced
a certificate (Ex W-4) issued by the 2nd Party No. 4 stating that 1st Party is working as Pump Operator from May 2005 till
date under the association. Ex W-5 is the ESI card endorsed by the Accounts Officer of TSPL. During his cross
examination it emerged that termination order is not issued by TSPL and there is no documentary proof about the
existence of the Post of Pump Operator so also about the 2nd Party No. 4 providing Man Power to TSPL. He admits
except requesting the Association in the year 1994 to clean the NA Colony for a term of 11 months no other letter was
given by TSPL to the 2nd Party Association.
7. MW-1 is the Chairman and Managing Director of TSPL. She has reiterated the averments made by 2nd Party 1 to 3 in
her counter statement, she has further stated that Joint Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of
India passed order on 09.02.2017 for closure of M/s TSP Limited in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (2) of
Section 25-O of the Act. All 72 employees of TSPL settled dues with the company and are relieved under Voluntary
Retirement Scheme (VRS). The 1st Party was never employed or worked with TSPL; there was no post of Pump
Operator. They had not engaged any contract employee for the purpose of house keeping. TSPL being a Central Public
Sector Undertaking controlled by Union of India with share holding of Government of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh is
bound by the provision of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and not involved in engaging contract
labours. The TSPL SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, T.B Dam Hospet through its Secretary was looking after the
cleaning work of NA type colony as per the work order issued in their favour on their request. The Association did not
form co-operative society as required. They were employing only 6 to 8 persons for cleaning of the colony. The funds
for meeting the liabilities of TSPL and payment to the employees while relieving them under VRS is provided by
Government of India. The Company was in loss since 2002 and had no funds to meet its liability. The Claimant/1st Party
and the 2nd Party No. 4 in collusion have filed this petition. The 1st Party since not employed by TSPL in any capacity
there is no question of terminating him by the Company. The above affidavit averments are supported by the photo
copies of the closure orders of the Government of India, statement of VRS settlement of the employees. They have also
produced Ex M-7 the copy of the Office order dated 26.09.1994 issued to 2nd Party No. 4. Except putting the case of the
1st Party by way of suggestion nothing beneficial came during the cross examination of MW-1, for the case of the
1st Party, all the suggestions were out rightly denied by MW-1.
8. The underlining question of the present case is regarding the identity of the 1st Party as the employee of the
contractor/Respondent No. 4 under the principal employer TSPL. Not even a filament of documentary proof is produced
on behalf of the 1st Party to show that he has received wages for working with the TSPL; his case is also to the effect that
he worked for the 2nd Party No.4 in the premises of the TSPL, he has produced the photo copy of the Muster Roll
maintained by the 2nd Party No.4, a cheque issued in his favour by the Association and his ESI Card, he has produced
Ex W-5 by imposing his ESI card on the seal of Accounts Officer of TSPL. Such tailor made Photostat copy have no
credential value. The 2nd Party No.4 Association which TSPL alleges to be hand in glove with the 1st Party has stated
that TSPL alone is responsible to pay the compensation claimed by the 1st Party. Ex M-7 is the agreement entered into
by the TSPL and 2nd Party No.4 Association dated 26.09.1994 it is clearly stated in this document that “The Public Sector
Enterprises should be directed to dispense with the practice of assigning Safai Work on contract. This work could be
organised on co-operative lines with the promise that members of workers co-operatives are extended the full benefits of
these entitlements which are due to other employees”. That establishes the link between the 1st Party workman to the
2nd Party No. 4 Association and in turn 2nd Party Association to TSPL. It is also stated that the term of contract was only
for 11 months. W.e.f 01.10.1994, the Association should have formed a Co-operative Society and the work should have
been executed through the Society. It is stated by MW-1 the Association did not form the Co-operative Society as
agreed. The Company is now closed and all its employees are relieved under VRS.
9. There is not even a scintilla of evidence to presume that the 1st Party was appointed by the TSPL and rendered
continuous service with them as contemplated by section 25-B of the Act. When there is no appointment there is no
3806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
question of termination also. The application lacks merits. Accordingly all the issues are answered negatively against the
1st Party.
AWARD
The petition is dismissed.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 09th May, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 897
897
897
897.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस
अधीCण पुरातDविवद, भारतीय पुरातDव सव+Cण,बBगलोर, और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक3 और
उनके कम कार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय,
बBगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 71/1990) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 16.05.2019 को ा: ;ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/52/1990-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 .the Central Government hereby
publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/1990) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum LabourCourt, Bangalore as
shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Superintending Archeologist,
Archaeological Surveyof India, Bengaluru, Bangalore, & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 16.05.2019.
[No. L-42012/52/1990-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
6th May, 2019
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 71/1990
I Party
II Party
Sh. U. Nagendrappa,
C/o A. Venkatesha,
Behind Church, 7th Ward,
Hampi National Project,
KAMALPURA.
1.
The Superintending Archeologist,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Bengaluru.
2.
Deputy Superintending Archaeologist,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Hampi, Mini Circle, HAMPI.
Appearances :
I Party :
Shri D R VishwanathBhat
Advocate
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3807
II Party :
Sh. Sathish B
Advocate
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labourvide order No. L-42012/52/90-IR(DU)dated 21/30.11.1990 in exercise of
the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Archaeological Survey of India, Bangalore Circle, Bangalore in terminating the
services of Shri U. Nagendrappa, Ex-Site Supervisor is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2. The claim of the 1st Party workman is that he was appointed as Site Supervisor w.e.f. 10.01.1986; his name was found
in the Muster Roll; he was illegally terminated on 31.03.1989 without any valid reason; his termination without
following the mandatory procedure under law amounts to illegal retrenchment.
3. The Counter case of the 2nd party is that the applicant was working as Casual labourer on daily wages. As per the
eligibility criteria for confirmation of temporary status as per DOPT OM dated 10.09.1993; he has not worked
continuously for 240 days. He was part of the casual labourers engaged to assist in Hampi National Project from
1984-1989 when the project was in existence. He was not appointed on regular basis against any sanctioned post, but as
a daily wager for seasonal work. Consequent upon winding up of the Hampi National Project, he has raised this dispute.
4. It is the further statement of the 2nd Party that this Tribunal had disposed off the reference by awarding reinstatement
of casual labourers with continuity of service but without backwages in the present case and connected cases. The
department filed Writ Petitions challenging the Awards passed in the present case and connected cases by this Tribunal.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 29.11.2007 allowed the said Writ Petition No. 41447/2001 along
with connected cases 41445/2001 & 41446/2001 filed by the 2nd Party, thereby setting aside the awards dated
13.06.2001 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It was also ordered that until termination of the proceedings
before the Tribunal, the services of the engaged labourers shall not be disturbed. Accordingly, the casual labourers were
re-engaged from 2004 onwards and were continuously working till final decision of this tribunal. In the meanwhile, the
2nd Party sent proposals to the DG, ASI, New Delhi for conferment of Temporary Status to the eligible casual labourers.
The
1st Party Union had filed interrogatory before the tribunal regarding the status of the follow up action on the proposal of
grant of temporary status. Consequent, upon the interrogatory filed by the 1st Union the 2nd Party appraised the Director
General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi of the development and accordingly the Competent Authority had
communicated approval for grant of temporary status to the Casual labourers vide letter No. F.18-25/2011 – ADM.II
dated 08.09.2011, the approval was communicated to the casual labourers who are eligible for the same, as per DOPT
guidelines with prospective effect.
5. It is further stated for the 2nd Party that it was decided to grant temporary status to 100 Casual Labourers as per the list
prepared and was sent to DG. Subsequently, the union filed a memo to withdraw the dispute (CR 70/1990) raised in the
reference. In accordance with the memo, the Award was passed on 21.11.2011. The applicant herein raised objection
that he was not given the benefits of Temporary status. But Temporary status was given to those casual labourers who
were eligible as per DOPT guidelines. The monuments of Hampi is included under world Heritage list and comes under
the jurisdiction of ASI. Excavation was taken up to excavate the remains of the historic Monuments that existed during
the Vijayanagar Empire. To assist in the excavation and other allied works, labourers were engaged on casual basis. It
was time bound project of ASI and work was seasonal in nature. Hence, the casual labourers were not continuously
engaged. Thereafter, other labour unions also made submission in respect of other casual labourers. A committee was
formed to cross check the muster roll pertaining to Kamalapur and to verify the eligibility of casual labourers. After
verifying the muster rolls by the committee 35 labourers were found eligible. Accordingly, action is taken in respect of
those additional casual labourers. The applicant herein did not fulfill the qualification as mentioned in DOPT
10.09.1993, there is no violation of 25 (F) of the ID Act. ASI is not an industry and the casual labour engaged by ASI is
not a workman as defined under the provisions of ID Act. The claim made by the workmen is not maintainable.
6. After remand from the Hon’ble High Court, though 1st Party workman participated in the trial by filing rejoinder
statement to the additional counter statement and cross-examined the management witnesses, he did not adduce further
evidence. At the stage of arguments he did not respond to the notice of hearing served on him.
7. Initially the 2nd party had lead evidence through its Administrative Officer who had reiterated the stand of the 2nd
Party. He had categorically stated that the 1st party is not a workman under the 2nd party from the past 20 years as
alleged. Even during the period of his engagement he had not at all worked for 240 days. The witness was fully cross-
examined. It was brought out during his cross-examination, that Hampi has visitors throughout the year and they charge
for admission tickets to the visitors. They also get funds from UNESCO to maintain the monuments. From 1989 they
have maintained seniority list of the casual labourers who have completed 240 days. Among other things he has produced
settlements arrived between the 2nd Party and ASI Daily Wagers Employees union. Under the Settlement (Ex M-5) the
parties agreed to provide work to the members of the ASI Daily Wagers Employees Union subject to availability of
3808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
funds, approved estimates, quality of work and without prejudice to the pending dispute in the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, Bangalore. Ex M-6 is the notification pertaining to recruitment of group D employees.
8. The 1st Party on the previous occasion among other things had adduced evidence and produced a service certificate
issued in his favour allegedly issued by Deputy Superintendent of Archeologist stating that he has worked since 1986 to
September 1988. Now the parties are not at all quarrel about nature of excavation project at Hampi as Industry to identity
of labourers who worked there as ‘workmen under the provision of the Act’. The union which espoused his cause has
found him not eligible for temporary status. The Service Certificate produced by him is not proof of his ‘continuous
service as contemplated by Section 25B of the Act.
9. Basically the work rendered by him was in respect of a time bound program that was executed between 1986 to 1989.
That being so denial of work on winding up of the program does not amount to illegal retrenchment. It was for the 1st
Party to establish before this tribunal that he is discriminated from similarly placed employees who were accorded
temporary status. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary to the evidence adduced by 2nd Party after remand from
Hon’ble High Court it is inevitable to answer the referred issue in the negative. Hence,
AWARD
The reference is Rejected. The 1st Party workman Sh. Nagendrappa is not entitled for any relief.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 6th May 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 898
898
898
898.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस जनरल सिचव, कना टक कॉफ (योर एंड जनरल, वक स यूिनयन,िचGमगलुर बBगलोर और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के
बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक3 और उनके कम कार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक
अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, बBगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 06/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को
22.04.2019 को ा: ;ए थे ।
[स. एल-42011/95/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LabourCourt,
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General
Secretary, Karnataka Coffee Curing & General Works Union, CHICKMAGALUR Bangalore, & Others,and their
workmen which were received by the Central Government on 15.04.2019.
[No. L-42011/95/2013-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated the 3rd April, 2019
PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 06/2014
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
Karnataka Coffee Curing & General
Works Union
Tamil Colony,
CHICKMANGALUR - 577101
The General Manager (P),
KIOCL Ltd.
Kudremukh
CHICKMANGALUR - 577142
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3809
Advocate for I Party
:
Mr. Muralidhar
Advocate for II Party
:
Mr. K. Subha Ananthi
AWARD
The Central Government vide Order No. L- 42011/95/2013- (IR(DU)) dated 18.03.2014 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 KIOCL Ltd. Kudremukh over the matter of termination of
Shri Hiriyanna from services is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1. The claim set forth by the 1st Party union is, that the concerned workman Hiriyanna along with others was employed in
the canteen established for the benefit of the workmen of the 2nd Party in Crusher and Concentrator department. He is the
member of the 1st Party union. The canteen workers are employed by the 2nd Party and supervised directly by the
Officers of the 2nd Party. Hiriyanna and his colleagues claimed regularisation in view of the fact that, they were working
in the statutory canteen for a long time. 2nd Party did not heed; 1st Party raised dispute before the Central Labour
Authority regarding their regularization. The dispute since could not be settled, the matter came to this Tribunal for
adjudication. The case was registered as CR 45/2009. While the matter is still pending, the workers involved in the
reference were terminated w.e.f 31.10.2010. Aggrieved by the termination of services present dispute is raised. In the
previous case Hiriyanna was arraigned by the 2nd Party as a labour contractor and other workmen therein were alleged to
be his workers. But Hiriyanna and others were working under the direct supervision of the 2nd Party Officials. Their
wages were paid by the 2nd Party, even if there is labour contract it is sham and bogus. The workmen have worked
continuously in statutory canteen for number of years. There work was perennial in nature. They are terminated without
complying with the mandatory provision of section 25-F of ‘the Act’. Thus, the termination is illegal, therefore prayer to
restore the workmen in the 2nd Party canteen with continuity of service and full back wages.
2. The 2nd Party countered the claim in its statement in the following lines :—
The dispute is raised on behalf of the contract labour employed in the canteen; at the relevant time only 17 contract
labourers were engaged by H.S. Hiriyanna he was only supervising their work; he was given contract order. As on
the date of reference i.e., on 18.3.2003 the strength of the regular employees was 156. In respect of contract
labourers, the 2nd Party has registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The contractors
also hold licences under section 7 and 12 of the said Act. Hence, there is no prohibition to engage contract labour
and no Industrial Dispute could be raised by the 1st Party. The contract is genuine; the contractor supervises the
work of contract labourers engaged by him and is responsible to pay their wages. The 1st Party union is not
recognised union of the 2nd Party they cannot espouse the cause of any labour working at Kudremukh, off late H.S.
Hiriyanna is not running the canteen business in the 2nd Party establishment. At present canteen facility is not
provided to the employees working at Kudremukh at the relevant point of time he had engaged only 17 workers.
3. It is further stated that mining activities is discontinued w.e.f 01.01.2016 as per the orders of the Apex Court. Closure
is in process, no worker is appointed by the 2nd Party to run the canteen. The contract was awarded based on the Tender
process; the contract was extended as and when services were required. The company was extending certain facilities to
run the canteen as per the terms of the contract for the welfare of employees. The contract ended on 31.07.2010 and the
contract workers have left. The 2nd Party directed Hiriyanna to hand over the properties belonging to the company and
close the canteen. The 2nd Party has not committed any illegality. The canteen was run and maintained by the contractor,
2nd Party ensures payment of minimum wages as notified by the Authority time to time, and recoveries under workman
compensation Act etc., by the contractor. As per the relevant acts and rules the question of termination of Hiriyanna does
not arise since the contract expired on 31.07.2010, the workers have left the contractor w.e.f 31.07.2010 there is no
master-servant relationship between the contract workers and the Management Company. The workers have not
performed any works that are performed by regular employees of the company. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
directed the company to discontinue the mining activities w.e.f from 01.01.2006. As per the above direction Ministry of
Mines has designated the officer who has already taken position of mines, very few employees are maintaining the assets
of the company. Hence, the claim cannot be sustained.
4. Both parties opted not to lead evidence, however have made oral submission. From the rival statements it emerges
that the canteen where the 1st Party workmen was allegedly working is closed, Company workers have migrated, the
mining operations have come to a standstill, on the direction of the Apex Court. Consequently there is no need for a
canteen any more. The burden of proving employer- employee relationship and also to demonstrate that he is a workman
under section (5) of the Act is on the 1st Party who asserts the fact. That is the basic principle of Evidence Act. When the
3810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2nd Party asserted that, the 1st Party under license contract was running the contract, it was for the 1st Party to demonstrate
before this Tribunal. The circumstances giving rise to the Dispute. But voluntarily he has backed off. He cannot seek
absorption/regularization in the principal employer’s establishment, if as per the terms of contract his tenure in canteen
came to an end, and same cannot be termed as termination. The schedule to the order of reference, is moulded with a
presupposition that Shri. Hiriyanna is terminated from service. Actually he is not terminated from service. The claim
statement lacks precision, the language employed impresses a reader that claim is made on behalf of number of
workmen. But reference order is in respect of H.S. Hiriyanna only. He is not entitled for any relief at the hands of the
Tribunal in the given circumstance.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 03rd April, 2019)
JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 899
899
899
899.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस बंधक, HIग िडटेि(टव ाइवेट िलिमटेड, िशमला (िहमाचल देश) और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के बंधतं1 के संब2
िनयोजक3 और उनके कम कार3 के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म
यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं8या 105/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 16/05/2019 को ा:
;ए थे ।
[स. एल -42012/204/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 105/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the The
Manager, Trig Detective Private Limited, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) & Others, and their workmen which were received
by the Central Government on 16/05/2019.
[No. L-42012/204/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.105/2014
Registered on:-02.03.2015
Sh. Ramesh Chand
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh,
R/o Village Outmber,
P.O. Bagwara, Tehsil Tauni Devi,
Shimla (H.P.).
… Workman
Versus
1.
The Office Manager, Trig Detective Private Limited, Zonal Office, The Retreat Phagli, Shimla (Himachal
Pradesh)-171004.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3811
2.
The Vice President, Trig Detective Private Ltd., Corporate Ofice at 97, J.P. Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-
400058.
3.
The Secretary-cum-Principal, Institute of Hotel Management, Catering & Nutrition, Kufri, Shimla(H.P.)-171012.
… Respondents
AWARD
Passed on: 23.04.2019
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/204/2014-IR(DU) Dated 29.01.2015, 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 Trig Detective Pvt. Ltd., Kufri in terminating the services w.e.f.
09.12.2013 of Sh. Ramesh Chand S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh engaged through Institute of Hotel Management,
Catering & Nutrition, Kufri, Shimla is valid just and legal? If not to what relief the concerned workman 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 Warden for Boys Hostel at Kufri Shimla(H.P.) w.e.f. 21.07.2011. His services were terminated on
09.12.2013 without giving any charge-sheet or show cause notice as well as without giving any compensation. It is also
alleged that he has completed more than 240 days in each calendar year. It is also alleged that juniors to the workman
were retained in service which is in violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act 1947 and his services were terminated in
violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act 1947. It is also alleged that he was drawing Rs.9500/- at the time of
his termination. As per claim, his services were terminated without any reason by the oral order of the management of
Trig Detectives Private Limited, Kufri, SHimla(H.P.) on 09.12.2013. The termination from services is illegal, void and
bad in law and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
2. Respondent no.1 and 2 i.e. Trig Detective Private Limited, have filed his written statement, alleging therein that
workman has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts as his service was
never terminated by the respondents. The claimant/petitioner himself has resigned from the service on 09.12.2013 along
with other workmen while posted with respondent no.3 at Kufri. The contract between respondent i.e. Institute of Hotel
Management, Kufri, has expired and the answering respondent no longer requires the services of Warden at IHM, Kufri.
The copy of his resignation is tendered by the workman is attached as Annexure R-1/1. Hence, workman has tendered his
resignation voluntarily on 09.12.2013 so there is no requirement of serving one month notice to him. There is no
violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Due to resignation of the workman, answering
respondents have to make immediate arrangement of another warden for smooth functioning of the other respondent-
management. It is admitted that workman was drawing salary of Rs.9500/- at the time of his resignation. It is alleged that
in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and especially resignation of the workman, the claim petition
filed by the workman is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3. Respondent no.3 i.e. Institute of Hotel Management, Catering & Nutrition, Kufri, Shimla(H.P.), has filed its separate
written statement, making averments that claim petition is not maintainable against it as there was no relationship of
employer and employee with the workman. It is also alleged that in case the Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that
petitioner is entitled to any benefit in that eventuality, the claim of the petitioner pertains to respondent no.1 and 2. It is
further alleged that respondent is a educational institution and is not fall within the definition of ‘Industry’. In fact,
claimant/petitioner was engaged by respondent no.1 and 2 and not by the answering respondent. The services of
claimant/workman was never terminated by the replying respondent as there was no such contract with the workman
therefore, the statement of claim may kindly be rejected against the answering respondent.
4. In support of his claim workman Ramesh Chand has examined himself and filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, whereas
respondent no.1 and 2 i.e. Trig Detective Private Ltd. did not appear in proceeding after filing written statement hence
order for ex parte proceeding was passed against them vide order dated 05.03.2019 and respondent no.3 i.e. Institute of
Hotel Management has examined Sh. Sant Ram Verma who filed his affidavit in evidence Ex.MW1.
5. I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar, AR of workman and Sh. Pushpinder Verma, AR of respondent no.3 and have gone
through the records carefully.
6. There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of respondent
no.3 i.e. Institute of Hotel Management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence
to prove factum of his employment with the management. Such evidence may be in the form of receipt of salary or wages
for 240 days or record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has worked with the employer
for 240 days or more in a calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.
Sowaran Singh(2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai
Meghajibhai Gavda(2012) SCC 47.
3812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid case. However, the factual
scenario in the present case is bit different inasmuch as the respondent no.1 and 2 in its written statement has clearly
admitted the factum of employment of the claimant inasmuch as it has been stated that the workman himself resigned
from service on 09.12.2013 along with other employees while posted with respondent no.3, Institute of Hotel
Management, Kufri. The respondent no.1 and 2 has attached with his written statement Annexure R-1/1 which is a letter,
addressed to the Principal, Institute of Hotel Management with the averments in form of grievances regarding non-
payment of PF, less salary and overtime etc. copy of which has been addressed to the Chief Secretary, Chief Minister,
P.F. Commissioner, Labour Commissioner. To my mind, contents mentioned in the application could not be treated as
resignation letter sent by the workman and his other colleagues. Respondent no.3 Institute of Hotel Management has
examined Sant Ram Verma, Administrative Officer, who has accepted during the cross-examination that management
has an agreement with Trig Detective Private Limited and workman had performed since 21.07.2011 to 06.12.2013 in his
institute through Trig Detective Private Limited. This witness has also accepted that there was no complaint in writing
against the workman throughout his tenure. This witness has also accepted that payment was made to the Trig Detective
Private Limited by Institute of Hotel Management for the workmen who were posted in his establishment as per
requirement.
8. Workman Ramesh Chand has also accepted in his cross-examination that he was appointed by Trig Detective Private
Limited and his attendance was telephonically marked by Trig Detective Private Limited. Though, this witness has
alleged that his salary was paid by Institute of Hotel Management and accordingly leave was also sanctioned by the
Principal of management. But there is nothing on record to prove that he was paid by the Institute of Hotel Management
directly instead of through Trig Detective Private Limited, the respondents no.1 and 2 have not specifically denied that
workman was employed by it and worked with Institute of Hotel Management on his behalf. Nothing is brought on
record on behalf of Trig Detective Private Limited in the form of evidence as case proceeded ex parte against them due to
its non-participating in proceedings. Thus, this fact is proved beyond doubt that workman was appointed as a
Principal/Warden in Institute of Hotel Management through Trig Detective Private Limited vide its letter dated
21.07.2011 Ex.WW1/2. It is accepted by the Trig Detective Private Limited that workman was neither given any notice
nor any compensation it its written statement.
9. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur,
AIR 2011, Supreme Court 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the
Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as under:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/contract of
service, the quantum of wages/pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There
is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(S) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on
regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on
temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed
hours is not a workman.”
It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract
basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duty paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person
would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. In these circumstances, it stands
proved that there existed relationship of employer-employee between the claimant/petitioner and respondent no.1 and 2.
10. Equally settled is the position of law that when relationship of employer-employee stands proved between the parties,
then onus will shift upon the employer/management to show that the claimant has not 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
specific case of the workman/claimant that he rendered his services as Warden for Boys Hostel at Kufri Shimla(H.P.)
w.e.f. 21.07.2011 to 09.12.2013 when he was terminated from service without any reason, only by the oral order of Trig
Detective Private Limited, Kufri. When his services were illegally terminated. In fact, he had completed more than 240
days of service in each calendar year but despite that no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to him
prior to termination of his services by the management of Trig Detective Private Limited. The affidavit filed by the
workman/claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. Due to non-participation of the management
of respondent no.1 and 2 i.e. Trig Detective Private Limited, workman was not cross-examined on this point and his
evidence stands unrebutted. I may mention that management of Trig Detective Private Limited has not adduced any
evidence whatsoever to rebut the case of the workman or to substantiate its stand that the workman/claimant was not
engaged by him or he had not worked for 240 days in each calendar year prior to termination of his services on
09.12.2013. The Institute of Hotel Management has proved the appointment of workman by Trig Detective Private
Limited vide letter dated 21.07.2011 Ex.WW2/2 and agreement entered between respondent no.1, 2 and 3 along with
voucher of payment to the Trig Detective Private Limited regarding the services rendered by the different workmen
provided by M/s Trig Detective Private Limited. Thus, evidence on record produced by the workman as well as Institute
of Hotel Management, it is proved that workman was not only appointed by the Trig Detective Private Limited but his
salary was also paid by the Trig Detective Private Limited and it has actually control over the workman.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3813
11. Now the vital question arises for consideration is whether termination of the claimant from his services by the
management w.e.f. 09.12.2013 in accordance with law or in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
According to the testimony of the workman/claimant the work of Warden on which he was working was of permanent
nature and that his services were terminated by the management in violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
After termination he had also approached the management for reinstatement number of times as work was available with
the management but all in vain. It is neither the case of the management that any notice or compensation in lieu of notice
period was given to the claimant prior to termination of his services w.e.r. 09.12.2013 nor any such evidence has been
adduced on record by the management. It is reiterated that the management did not examine any witness to rebut the case
of the claimant/workman. In these circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the services of the claimant
were terminated by the management w.e.f. 09.12.2013 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
12. There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section
25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the management to be illegal and void under the law. Since there is no
evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the management to the workman at the time of termination or in
lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the management in terminating the services of
the workman is held to be illegal and void.
13. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back
wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that workman was continuously in the
employment of the management from 21.07.2011 to 09.12.2013 in the job of Warden, which was of regular and
perennial nature. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the workman by respondent no.1 and 2. The
workman/claimant has pleaded that he was unemployed from the date of his termination which is also proved by his
Ex.WW1/A. But he has mentioned his age in his affidavit as 60 years meaning thereby has reached at the age of
superannuation in any way. Furthermore, the service of workman was of contractual nature which has come to an end as
per averments made in written statement by the respondent no.1 and 2. There is nothing on record to prove that contract
between respondent no.1, 2 and 3 are still in existence, so question of re-employment to my mind is beyond plausible
conclusion.
14. Now the question is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement of service with back wages. Admittedly, the
workman was not holding any regular post nor any procedure was followed by the management at the time of his
engagement as a Warden. The workman has stated that juniors were retained in service in his place as is evident from the
letter dated 06.12.2013 which is attached with the affidavit of workman itself. But it is also a fact that management has
been engaged him as Warden in this manner, and workman has put more than two and half years of service.
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya” reported as
(2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under:—
‘‘(i) In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the
normal rule.
(ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back
wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court
of first instance that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer
wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that
the workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he wads drawing prior
to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of
a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier
to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not
employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully
employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC
(L & S) 716 observed as under:—
“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination
of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy
or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like
should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with
the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully
terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the
qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total
length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e.
3814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be
wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily
wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.”
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the violation of Section 25-F of the Act in Incharge Officer & Anr. V.
Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126: 2010 LLR 1137 and after referred to the various decisions, this Court held that the
relief by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends
of justice and it reads as under:—
“2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager has
been brought to end in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short “the ID Act”)?
The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question.
3. In Jagbir Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327, delivering the judgment of
this Court, one of the us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State
Brassware Corpn. Ltd. V. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. V.
M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; M.P. Admn. V.
Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008)5 SCC 75; Jaipur
Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684; GDA v. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 4 SCC 261 and
Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575 and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case
(2009) 11 SCC 327, SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14)
“7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if
the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back-wages would
ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases,
this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back-wages is not automatic
and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in
contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the
ends of justice.
14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an
order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of
reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed.”
18. Yet, in another latest judgment i.e. District Development Officer Vs. Kanti Lal 2018 LLR 225 while considering the
question of reinstatement along with back wages of a daily wager, who have put two and a half years of service, the
Hon’ble Apex Court granted a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2.50 lac in lieu of reinstatement. The workman herein was
not holding a regular post of Warden and he was simply engaged as Warden without any advertisement and due process
of selection. Moreover, management no.1 and 2 i.e. Trig Detective Private Ltd. has already employed some other
workmen in his place as is evidence from the letter dated 06.12.2013 which is attached with the affidavit of workman
itself. The workman has put more than two and a half years of service, it would be in the interest of justice and fair play
if compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty thousand) be awarded as lump sum compensation to the workman.
Accordingly, the reference is answered by holding that action of respondent no.1 and 2 in terminating the service of
workman Ramesh Chand is invalid, unjust and illegal and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty thousand) is
ordered to be paid as lump sum compensation to the said workman by the respondent no.1 and 2 and in case, this amount
is not paid within one month from the date of publication of the award, the workman shall be entitled to the said amount
with 6% interest from the date of making of the reference till realisation. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for publication of the Award as required under Section 17(2) of the Act.
A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ.
का. आ. 900
900
900
900.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस सीिनयर अधीCक (डाकघर), रायपुर और अय एवं उनके कम चारी के बंधतं1 के संब2 िनयोजक3 और उनके कम कार3
के बीच अनुबंध म िन4द5 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट
(संदभ सं8या 81/2007) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 14/05/19 को ा: ;ए थे ।
[सं. एल -40012/36/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3815
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 81/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur,as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Sr.
Superintendent (Post Office), Raipur & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
14/05/19.
[No. L-40012/36/2007-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/81/2007
Shri Jai Karan Yadav,
Near Janki Kunj Vidya Mandir,
Gopiya Para, Danteshwari Chowk,
Purani Basti, Raipur (CG)
… Workman
Versus
1. Sr. Superintendent (Post Office), Raipur
2. Sr. Post Master, Raipur
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of April 2019
1.
As per letter dated 10-8-2007 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-40012/36/2007-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:—
“Whether the action of the management of Sr. Superintendent (Post Office) and Senior Post Master,
Raipur in terminating the services of their workman Shri Jai Karan Yadav w.e.f. 14-7-04 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties in all the cases. Both parties filed their statement of
claim and written statement of defense. According to statement of claim of the workmen, he was engaged in
8-5-98 as substitute labor by the employer. He was permitted to work continuously on temporary basis, was
initially paid wages @ Rs.158/- per day which was the pay of regular Group “D” staff buthis pay was reduced
by the employers from May 2004. He agitated against this. Annoyed with the protest, the employers terminated
his services without giving any showcause notice or opportunity from 14-7-04. The workman had been
continuously serving the department since 1994 till their date of disengagement which is 17-7-04. Thus,
acquired status of permanent employment as mentioned under Section 25-B of ID Act. His disengagement is in
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act because he had completed 240 days in engagement of employers in the year
preceding the date of his disengagement. It was also alleged that his disengagement is further violative of
Section 25-G of ID Act. Accordingly,his disengagement is against law, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable which
is liable to be set-aside.
3.
Employers filed written statement of defense. It has been pleaded by employers that the workman was engaged
on daily basis subject to emergency and availability of work and need of service. When there was work, he was
allowed to work for that day and was paid wages at the end of that day’s work. Also, it was pleaded that the
workman never rendered continuous service of 240 days in any given year hence provisions of Section 25-F of
ID Act are not attracted in their cases therefore they are not entitled to any compensation. The employers further
submitted that the disengagement of the workman on 14-7-04 was factually and legally correct because the
workman was never issued any appointment order w.r.t. any regular post and/ or regular basis nor terminated
from any post of management hence the question of illegal termination did not arise. The employers specifically
denied that the workman was earlier being paid @ Rs.158/- per day which was reduced to Rs.79/- per day and
pleaded that if at all the workman had rendered in service for the management, they were engaged on daily basis
subject to availability of work and need of service and were paid the wages at the end of the day or next day. If
at all the work was available on the next day, it was provided to the workman otherwise they were told about
non-availability of work. The workman couldnot have been said to have acquired status of permanent employee
as per Section 25 B of ID Act and since heisnot entitled to benefit of Section 25-F because he was engaged and
3816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was paid on daily basis subject to availability of work. There was no question of violation of Section 25-F or
25-G of ID Act. Also it was pleaded that the workman did not render continuous service of 240 days in the year
preceding the date of disengagement. Accordingly, it was prayed that the reference be decided against the
workman.
4.
No rejoinder was filed by the workman. Photocopy regarding election duty and copy of attendance register filed
by workman and are proved and Marked Exhibit W-1 & W-2 respectively. Workmen examined himself. One
other witness Shri D.N.Verma an employee of the department was also examined by workman as witness of
workman.
5.
Employers examined on oath witness Shri P.N. Lahare and Shri Y.R. Sinha. Witness Shri P.K. Lahare was not
produced for cross examination.
6.
I have heard argument of Advocate Vijay Tripathi for the workman and Shri S.K. Mishra for the employers
and have perused the record.
7.
Perusal of record in the light of rival argument reveals that following points for determination arise in the case in
hand:—
(1) Whether the action of the management of Sr. Superintendent( Post Office) and Senior Post Master, Raipur
in terminating the services of their workman Shri Jai Karan Yadav w.e.f. 14-7-04 is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief, the workmen are entitled to?”
8.
Point for Determination No. 1—
Before entering into evidence, it is necessary to refer Section 2(oo), 2(s), 25(b), 25(f) and 25(g) of I.D.Act,
1947 which is as under:-
“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 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
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (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 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 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.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3817
Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked
under an employer shall include the days on which—(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted
by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under
this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment; (ii) he has been on leave with full
wages, earned in the previous year; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment; and in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave;
so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
Section 25 (G)—
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.
9. It is the case of the workman that he was disengaged on 14-7-04 whereas the documents regarding his
engagement filed and proved by the workman himself which is Exhibit W-1 (12 pages) shows that he was
engaged on 14-7-04 and regularly working till 30-11-2004. Though the workman has stated on oath that he was
disengaged on 14-7-04 but the documents filed and proved by him falsifies his this statement. Hence, firstly it is
held that the case of workman that he was disengaged by the employers on 14-7-04 is not proved at the first
phase rather from the evidence on record as mentioned above in form of proved certificates regarding payment
and work, maintained by employers/ department goes to show that he was in engagement atleast till November
2004, may be beyond this date also.
10. Since the fact that workman was disengaged on the date as mentioned in the reference was not proved, any
finding regarding his continuous engagement of 240 days of his engagement will be of no help to the workman.
Point for Determination No.1 is answered accordingly.
11. Point for determination No. 2—
On the basis of findings on Point No.1, workman is held not entitled to any relief.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) From the evidence, it is not proved that workman Shri Jai Karan Yadav was terminated w.e.f.
14-7-04 by the Sr. Superintendent (Post Office) and Senior Post Master, Raipur.
(2) Workman Shri Jai Karan Yadav is not entitled to any relief.
13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
3818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 901
901
901
901.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस मु य महाबंधक, दूरसंचार, भोपाल और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार)
के बीच अनुबंध म िन+द, औोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं .म यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट
(संदभ संया 108/2001) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 14/05/19 को ा2 3ए थे ।
[सं.एल-40012/57/ 2001-आईआर-(डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief
General Manager, Telecommunication, Bhopal & others, and their workmen which were received by the Central
Government on 14/05/19.
[No. L-40012/57/2001-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/108/2001
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Suresh Chandra Jatav,
S/o Shri Mangla Ram Jatav,
Village and Post Tantra,
Tehsil Sabalgarh,
Distt. Morena (MP)
…Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telcommunication,
Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle,
Bhopal (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 25th day of April 2019
1. As per letter dated 29-5-2001by 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-40012/57/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom Divisional Engineer,
Telegraphs, Gwalior in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Chandra Jatav S/o Shri Mangla Ram
Jatav w.e.f. 1-5-88 is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim. The case
of Ist party workman is that he was appointed as labor on estt. Of IInd party at Morena from
18-11-86. Said division was transferred to Bhind on 30-4-88. The workman was continuously working till that
time. His name was called from Employment Exchange. The office of IInd party is in possession of the relevant
record. Identity Card was issued to him. He had completed service for more than 240 days. His services were
terminated without notice, without payment of retrenchment compensation or one months pay in lieu of notice in
violation of provisions of I.D.Act. workman further submits that his services were transferred to contractor from
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3819
1-5-88. He claims that he was illegally retrenched. He had filed writ petition in Hon’ble High Court, Gwalior
Bench. The dispute was referred as per the order passed by Hon’ble Court. Workman prays for his reinstatement
with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement. Case of IInd party is that Ist party workman was engaged as casual labor as
per the need. He was not appointed against any post. That the workman had not completed 240 days service.
Notice for termination of service was not necessary. There was no question of paying retrenchment
compensation. Workman is not entitled to protection of I.D.Act. On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection
of the relief prayed by workman.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the case was first decided exparte and an exparte award was passed on 25-7-
13 by my learned predecessor holding the termination of services of the workman w.e.f. 1-5-88 legally and
workman not entitled to any relief but this award was set aside on an application of workman passed in concerned
miscellaneous case No. M/5/13. Workman was cross examined by learned counsel for management. documents
Exhibit W-1 & W-2 proved by workman. Management examined its witness Amod Singh Yadav on oath who
was cross examined by workman. At stage of argument, written argument was filed by learned counsel for
workman after giving its copy to learned counsel for employers. This written argument is part of record. Learned
counsel for employers did not file any written argument. He did not even submitted oral argument inspite of the
knowledge that written argument have been filed from the workman side after giving him a copy.
5. After having perused the record in the light of rival argument, following points come up for determination in the
case-
(1) Whether the termination of services of workman Shri SureshchandraJatav S/o Shri Mangla Ram
Jatav w.e.f. 1-5-88 by employers is justified in law?
(2) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
6. Point for Determination No.1-
According to the pleadings of parties on this point, case of workman is that he was first appointed as labor on
18-11-86 in Sub Division Morena of the employer department and worked till May 987. Thereafter he was
transferred to Bhind Sub Division. He worked till 30-4-88 hence he has worked as labor with the employer
department continuously for the period between 18-11-86 to 30-4-88. He was illegally terminated from service
on 1-5-88 without giving him any notice of compensation. Case of employers is that workman was not
appointed against any vacancy, his appointment was not under rules. he was engaged as daily basis as a casual
labor/ daily wager. The employers also denied the allegation of workman that he was in regular and continuous
engagement/ service for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination/ disengagement. Also, it was
pleaded that the workman is not workman as defined under Section 2(s) of ID Act and is not entitled to any
relief. Exhibit W-1 which is copy of receipt regarding payment of Rs.7279, admitted by employers is of 25-1-93
which is not relevant to the present case. Workman has filed and proved another document, copy of I card
Exhibit W-2 which shows the months and the number of days he worked in the month. This document is Exhibit
W-2. It is also relevant to mention here that the workman had filed an application for summoning documents
regarding his muster roll and payments as well as attendance for which the employers took the stand that they
are not available with the department as they have been weeded as per rules.
7. In his statement on oath, the workman has reiterated his claim as alleged and mentioned earlier and has stated
that he was in continuous service of the employers since 18-11-86 till 30-4-88 hence had completed 240 days of
continuous service in the year preceding the date of his termination. He has proved his identity card which as
mentioned of the months and days he worked in those months. He has further given the details of working days
in which he was present on duty since November 1986 to April 1988, according to whichin the year preceding the
date of his termination i.e. from 1-5-87 to 30-4-88 he worked as follows-
Period
No. of days
May 1987
23
August 1987
31
September 1987
30
October 1987
31
November 1987
30
December 1987
31
January 1988
31
February 1988
28
March 1988
25
April 1988
30
Regarding I card Exhibit W-2, which he has proved as secondary evidence, he has stated that this was issued to
him by the department. He was given appointment in a job camp. He was engaged in trench digging, erecting
3820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
poles and laying cable and was paid his wages on monthly basis. He was paid by SDO himself. He further stated
that no notice or compensation was given to him before his disengagement. He admitted that he worked as daily
wager with the department.
8. On the other side, Shri Amod Singh Yadav, SDO(Adm) appearing on behalf of employers has rejected the
claim of workman and stated that the job of laying cables, digging trenches and pits or erection of poles was taken
through contractors and contractors were paid for this. the contractors used to engage labor for this. workman was
not engaged by a department at any point of time. In his cross-examination, the witness admits that during the
period in question, he was not posted in the Division where the workman was working. He also admitted that
there is no record of the contractor who was engaged for the job and also that he doesnot know whether Suresh
Chandra Rajak and Ashok Vasi who were engaged after the present workman were regularized or not but he
admits that no notice or compensation was given to the workman.
9. Now the picture arises from the comparative study of evidence in form of documents and statement that it is
admitted that no notice or compensation was given to the workman before his disengagement except the serf
serving statement of management witness that the jobs were taken by contractor, there is no other evidence to
corroborate this fact. Atleast, the management could examine the contractor on oath to corroborate their stand on
this point. On the other hand, the details of month and working days mentioned in Exhibit W-2 I Card proved by
the workman establish that the workman was in continuous engagement of the employers admittedly as casual
labor/ daily wager for a period between 18-11-86 to 30-4-88. This fact is corroborated by oral statement of the
workman. Hence, the facts that firstly the workman was in continuous engagement/ service of employers for
a period of 240 days in the year preceding his date of termination and secondly that no notice or
compensation was given by the employers to the workman before his disengagement are held proved.
10. Now in the light of proved facts mentioned under Section 25-F & G of ID Act is also relevant which are being
reproduced as under:-
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.]
25G. 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 2(S) of the Act defines workman and Section 2(j) which defined industry also required to be mentioned
here 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.]
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3821
Section 2(j)
7(J) “INDUSTRY” MEANS ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, UNDERTAKING, MANUFACTURE OR CALLING
OF EMPLOYERS AND INCLUDES ANY CALLING, SERVICE, EMPLOYMENT, HANDICRAFT, OR
INDUSTRIAL OCCUPATION OR AVOCATION OF WORKMEN;
Further more Section 2(oo) also reads as under:-
“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
(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;
11. From the perusal of above statutory provisions, it is established that workman in present case is a workman as
defined under Section 2(s) of the Act hence is entitled to protection of Section 25-F & G , since it has been held
proved that statutory compliances regarding retrenchment notice and compensation were not complied with in
the case at hand, the termination of services of workman in the present case from 1-5-88 is held against
provisions of Section 25-F of ID Act.
12. As regards the contention of workman that his disengagement was in violation of Section 25-G & H of the ID
Act because junior employees Suresh Rajak and Ashok Vasi were regularized and he was left. The workman has
state this fact in his pleadings in his statement of claim in para-4 of the claim. This allegation has not been
specifically denied by the employers in their statement of defence. In his statement on oath also he has stated that
Shri Suresh Chandra Rajak and Ashok Vasi who were engaged on the same post in 1987were regularized and
working in District Shivpuri. Management’s witness has not rebutted this statement of workman in his statement
rather he has pleaded his ignorance on this facts. For the sake of convenience Section 25-G & H are being
reproduced as under:-
25G. 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.
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.
It will be safe to conclude that in the present case, provisions of Section 25-G & H of the ID have also not been
followed. Hence in the light of above discussion, the disengagement of the workman from 1-5-88 is held illegal.
13. Point for Determination No.2- In the light of findings recorded on Point No.1 as above, the question arises
whether workman is entitled to any relief. It is the case of management that the claim of workman suffer with
delay and latches. It will be proper to mention herethat the Act doesnot provide any period of limitation for
raising any dispute under ID Act. The settled position of law on this point is that the claim should not be raised on
the unreasonable delay and if there is delay, there must be sufficient ground behind it.
14. In the case in hand, the case of workman is that after he was terminated, he first approached
Hon’ble High Court Gwalior bench on 26-10-88 which was transferred to CAT and was registered as OA 325/93,
final order was passed by the Tribunal on 29-9-99 in which his petition was held not maintainable before the
Tribunal as the dispute could have been raised before CGIT hence thereafter he raised the dispute with
appropriate Government from where reference was sent to this Court. This facts are unrebutted hence it will be
lawful to hold that the workman has successfully explained the delay on his part in raising the present dispute.
15. Another question which comes for consideration as to whom the disengagement/ termination of the workman
has been held unjustified, which relief he is entitled to the dispute is of 1988. More than 30 years have passed.
Accordingly the workman would have reached age of superannuation hence reinstatement will not be a proper
relief in the case in hand and purpose of law will be served in awarding adequate compensation. I am supported in
my view by principle of law laid down in cases Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior Adhyapad
Mahavidyalaya 2013(10)SCC-324 &Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL 2014(4)SCR 875 & decision of another
case Writ Petition 20564/2015 by single bench of Hon’ble MP High Court on 19-8-2016 photocopy filed with
written argument by learned counsel for workman is also referred in support.
3822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16. Learned counsel for workman has further referred to Case BSNL Versus Bhurumal- SLP No. 14572/2012
wherein lumpsum compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs was awarded to the workman who had worked merely for 240
days but the workman in the referred case had worked for longer period, compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs was
awarded. The Apex Court has referred to its decision BSNL versus Mansingh 2012(2)SCC-558 on this point in
para-26 of the judgment.
17. Workman in the present case is proved to be in continuous engagement for a period about 2 years hence keeping
the facts peculiar to the case in hand, I am of the view that payment of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs
will meet the ends of justice in the present case. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
18. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs,
Gwalior in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Chandra Jatav S/o Shri Mangla Ram Jatav w.e.f.
1-5-88 is not legal and justified.
(2) Management is directed to pay compensation Rs. 2 Lakh to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of
award. In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its
realization.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली , 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 902
902
902
902.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस बंध िनदेशक, भारतीय औषिध िनगम िलिमटेड, अ मोडा उ5 तराख7 ड और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं& के
संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन+द, औोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं
.म यायालय 2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ संया 77/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 18/04/2019
को ा2 3आ था ।
[सं. एल-42011/118/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 902.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court-2 New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Indian Medicine Phrmaceutical Corporation Ltd., Almora, Uttarakhand & others, and their workmen
which were received by the Central Government on 18/04/2019.
[No. L-42011/118/2011-IR DU]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10,
DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075
ID No.77/2017
Shri Imran-e-Mazhar Khan, S/o Shri Mazharuddin Khan,
Nai Basti, Gular Ghutti,
Adjacent to Dr.Haseen Clinic, Ram Nagar,
Distt. Nainital,
Uttarkhand 244 175
…Workman
Versus
The Managing Director,
Indian Medicine Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd.,
Mohan Distt. Almora,
Uttarakhand – 244715
…Management
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3823
AWARD
Reference under Clause (d) of Sub Section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-42011/118/2011-IR(DU) dated 20.01.2012 for
adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which is as under:
“Whether the action of Managing Director, Indian Medicine Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd.. . Mohan (via
Ramnagar, Distt. Almolra, Uttrakhand vide letter No.IMPCL/ESTT/2009-10/7329-31 dated 26.03.2011 in
terminating the service of the workman Shri Imran-e-Mazar Khan is legal, fair & justified? If not, then what
relief is the workman entitled to ?”
2.
Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Imran-E-Mazhar Khan (in short the workman ) averring therein that
he is under the temporary employment with Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd. (in short the management
) on on adhoc basis for a fixed period of one year from 04.09.2006 to 03.09.2007 on consolidated salary. The claimant
was interviewed and his educational qualification certificate was duly verified by the management. The claimant was
under the direct control and supervision of the management. After completion of one year, his tenure of employed was
further extended for a further period of one year, i.e. from 04.09.2007 to 03.09.2008, then from 05.09.2008 to
04.03.2009. The claimant was terminated on 03.03.2009. Thereafter, he was offered temporary appointment under the
same terms and conditions, each time for a period three months and the last appointment was till 12.06.2011. The
claimant applied for the post of Packing Supervisor on 15.03.2011, which infuriated the management and terminated the
services of the claimant on 26.03.2011, though the tenure of his employment was upto 12.06.2011. A new supervisor has
been appointed in h is place. No show cause notice was issued nor any enquiry conducted before his termination is
illegal, which is in total violation of the provisions of the Act. then for six months Finally, it has been prayed that the
management may be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity of service.
3.
Claim was demurred by management taking various preliminary objections inter alia of the claim being devoid
of merits, misuse of due process of law, claim being false & frivolous, commission of serious misconduct, claim being
time-barred, suppression of facts, misappropriation of funds etc.. On merits, the management has specifically denied all
the material averments contained in the statement of claim. It is also averred that no enquiry was conducted against the
claimant as he was a temporary employee and it was also the claimant had admitted to misappropriation of funds. Finally
it has been prayed that the claim petition may be rejected.
4.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 19.07.2018, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
(i)
Whether reference is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections?
(ii)
In terms of reference
5.
Thereafter, case was listed for evidence of the claimant. But despite affording of various opportunities, neither
the claimant nor any authorized representative put in appearance. Thus, it is apparent that the claimant is no more
interested in pursuing his case on merits. Under such circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no other alternative but to
pass a ‘No claim’ award. However, it is made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits, as such, the
claimant is still at liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award
be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली , 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 903
903
903
903.— औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस महािनदेशक (िनमाण), सीपीड; यूडी, िनमाण भवन, नई द ली और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं& के संब'
िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन+द, औोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण एवं .म
यायालय 1, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ संया 55/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 18/04/2019 को
ा2 3आ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/138/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
3824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Director General (Works), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi & others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 18/04/2019.
[No. L-42012/138/2014-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS
COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.
ID No. 55/2015
Shri Anand Kumar Gautam
s/o. late Shri Ram Kishan and
Shri Mani Lal Shah s/. late Shri Kishan Lal Shah
As represented by
CPWD Mazdoor Union,
Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10,
Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi.
…Workmen
Versus
Director General (Works),
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi 110001.
…Management
AWARD
This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide
its letter No. L-42012/138/ 2014-IR(DU) dated 19.01.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which
are as under:
‘Whether Shri Anand Kumar Gautam s/o. late Ram Kisen and Shri Mani Lal Shah s/.o. late Kishen Lal are
entitled to receive salary/wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work with effect from 8th December,
1995 and 14th April, 1996. Direction was given by the Hon’ble Court, Delhi to CPWD to retain the workers,
even if contractor changed how far was the new contractor justified in removing both the workers from service
and how far is CPWD responsible. Are the workers entitled to regularization ? If so, with effect from which date
?
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant/workman filed statement of claim. As per the averments made
therein, the claimants Anand Kumar and Mani Lal Shah were deployed through M/s Kiran Elevator Service w.e.f. 8th
December, 1995 and 14th April, 1996 respectively, Both of them were working as Lift Operators under the Management
of CPWD and were posted at Lady Harding Medical College and Smt.SSK Hospital, New Delhi. It is pleaded that the
claimants filed C.W. No.2637/98 titled CPWD Karamchari Union and others Vs. UOI and others for abolition of contract
system which was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court with the direction that the workmen should be allowed to continue
even if the contractor changes till the decision under Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, is
received. It is also pleaded that Hon’ble High Court had also issued directions dated 20/5/2000 as under :-
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3825
“Such contract labours who are still working shall be paid their wages regularly as per the provisions of
Section 21 of the Act and in these cases where the contractor fails to make payment of wages, it shall be the
responsibility of the CPWD as principal employer to make the payment of the wages.”
It has also been pleaded that the workmen/claimants had raised a dispute vide ID No.63/2003 for regularization of their
services which was decided by Shri R.N.Rai, Presiding Officer, CGIT-II, New Delhi vide Award dated 21/2/007 in
favour of the workmen/claimants. However, the Management filed writ petition No.6799/2007 and obtained stay order
dated 13/11/2008 against operation of the aforesaid Award. Though the writ petition is pending disposal before
Hon’ble High Court, but the Management terminated the services of the claimants w.e.f. 1/10/2008, without serving one
month notice or notice pay and compensation as required under Section 25 of the Act. It has further been pleaded that
the workmen were paid even less than minimum wages fixed for skilled workmen. Even the contract labourers, on the
principle of equal pay for equal work, are entitled to the same salary and wages which are being paid to regular and
daily wage employee of the principal employer directly recruited under the establishment of CPWD. As such, the
claimants are entitled to receive salary/wages w.e.f. 8th December, 1995 and 14th April, 1996 till the date of their
termination. Claimants/workmen have prayed for issuing direction to the Management for payment of Equal pay for
equal work to the claimants w.ef. 8/12/1995 and 14/4/1996 respectively and for reinstatement of their services w.e.f.
1/10/2008 as the matter regarding regularization of the services of the workman is pending before the Hon’ble High
Court.
3-
The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary
objections that the claim petition is bad for non joinder of parties as M/s Kiran Elevator and M/s Amit Elevator are
necessary party for proper and fair adjudication of the case; that there is no relationship of employer-employee between
the parties. While denying the averments of the claimants, it is stated that the claimants are not the employees of
CPWD. The workmen were initially working with M/s Kiran Elevator but later the work was awarded to M/s Amit
Elevator and as per directions of Hon’ble High Court, M/s Amit Elevator was instructed to deploy the claimants. As
per terms and conditions of contract, M/s Amit Elevator asked both the claimants/workmen to fill up the form of EPF
and ESIC but they refused to do so and as such, they were removed by M/s Amit Elevator on 4/12/2008. Prayer has
been made for dismissal of the claim petition .
4-
The claimants/workmen filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations made by the Management and reiterated
their own case as set up in the claim petition.
5-
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 11/1/2016 :-
1)
Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections?
2)
As in terms of reference.
6-
The Claimants in support of their case examined themselves as W.W.1 and WW2 and tendered their
respective affidavits Ex.WW1/A & Ex.WW2/A respectively and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/4. On
the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimants, examined Shri A.K. Chadha, Executive
Engineer (E) who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to
Ex.MW1/7.
7-
I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimants and Shri Atul Bhardwaj, A/R for the Management and
have gone through the records carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.
Issue No. 1 and 2 :-
8)
Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be conveniently
disposed of.
9)
Testimony of the workmen who appeared in the witness box as WW1 and WW2 is in line with the averments
made in the claim petition. It is manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the claimants Anand Kumar and
Mani Lal Shah were deployed through M/s Kiran Elevator Service w.e.f. 8th December, 1995 and 14th April, 1996
respectively, Both of them were working as Lift Operators under the Management of CPWD and were posted at Lady
Harding Medical College and Smt.SSK Hospital, New Delhi. It is undisputed fact that the claimants had filed a Civil
Writ petition bearing. No.2637/98 titled CPWD Karamchari Union and others Vs. UOI and others for abolition of
contract system and in relation to contract labour workers who were engaged by different contractors of Central Public
Works Department and who were working in the Electrical Division of CPWD, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had given
following directions to the respondents viz. UOI and CPWD vide order dated 20/5/2000, (copy now exhibited as Ex.C-
1) with the following directions :
1. The services of these contract workers shall not be substituted with other contract workers i.e. if the respondent
require to employ contract workers in the jobs assigned to these contract workers, then they will not replace the
present contract workers with fresh contract workers.
2. In case of contract with a particular contractor who has engaged these petitioners/contract workers comes to an
end, the said contract may be renewed and if that is not possible and the contract is given to some other contractor,
3826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
endeavour should be made to continue these contract workers with the new contractor. It would be without
prejudice to the respective stand of the parties before the “appropriate government” and their continuation would
depend upon the decision taken by the Govt to abolish or not to abolish the contract labour system.
3. These directions shall not apply in those cases where the particular contract of maintenance etc. given by other
establishment to the CPWD earlier has ceased to operate with the result that CPWD is not having the
work/contract any longer. In those cases it would be open to the CPWD to disengage such contract workers as not
required any longer in the absence of work/job/particular activity with the CPWD.
4. If the decision is taken to abolish the contract labour in particular job/work/process in any of the
office/establishments of CPWD (as per the terms of reference contained in Resolution dated 30th March, 2000), as
per the judgement of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation (supra), such contract workers would
be entitled to be absorbed with CPWD and would be entitled to claim the benefits in terms of aforesaid
judgement. In case the decision of the “appropriate Government” is not to abolish contract labour system in any
of the works/job/ process in any offices/establishments of CPWD, the effect of that would be that contract labour
system is permissible and in that eventuality CPWD shall have the right to deal with these contract workers in any
manner it deems fit.
5. Such contract labours who are still working shall be paid their wages regularly as per the provisions of Section
21 of the Act and in those cases where the contractor fails to make payment of wages, it shall be the responsibility
of the CPWD –the principal employer to make the payment of wages.
6. The exercise undertaken by the “appropriate Government” u/section 10 of the Act starting with the formation
of a Committee by Resolution dated 30th March, 2000 should be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any
case within a period of six months from today.”
10.
Perusal of the record shows that the claimants/workmen herein had raised a dispute regarding
regularization/absorption of their services and the said dispute ID No.63/2003 was disposed of by Shri R.N. Rai,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-II, New Delhi vide Award dated 21/2/2007 (copy of which is now marked as Ex.C-2) wherein
it has been held that “:-
“In view of the above discussion, it becomes quite obvious that the contractors workmen in the instant case
have been retained all along and contractors have been changed. So, the contractor is only a label of a bottle.
This label is changed from time to time but the contents of the bottle always remain the same. The contractors
have been changed and the workmen have been retained. Such a system is inhuman. The contractors are the
direct employees of the respondent/Management.
From the foregoing, it becomes quite obvious that these two workmen have been working regularly and even
without artificial breaks since 1995-967. The contract is camouflage. There is direct relation of master and
servant between the respondent and the workmen.”
In the result, while noting that these workmen worked for more than 11 years and their services have not been
regularized, so the Respondent no.1 viz. CPWD was directed to regularize the workmen on the post of Lift Operators
from the date of Award.
11-
No doubt, the Management/Respondent has assailed the aforesaid Award dated 21/2/2017 before Hon’ble
High Court in W.P. (Civil) No. 6799/2007, yet the fact remains that the findings of the CGIT-II in aforesaid Award to
the effect that there is direct relation of master and servant between the respondent and the workmen, still subsists.
MW1 A.K. Chadha has admitted that overall supervision of the work of lift operations is being looked after by the
officials of their department/CPWD. As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of
employer-employee between the workmen/claimants herein and the Management/CPWD.
12-
It is manifest from the evidence adduced on record that services of the workmen/claimants herein were
terminated on 1st October, 2008 and this was done during the pendency of the proceedings/dispute before Hon’ble High
Court regarding regularization/ non regularization of the workmen/claimants herein. MW1- A.K. Chadha –witness of
the Management has admitted that no notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation was given by the Management. It
seems that the claimants/workmen herein were discharged/dismissed not in good faith but in the colourable exercise of
the employer’s rights, and by way of victimization. To my mind, this amounts to unfair labour practices as provided
under Section 2(ra) of the Act read with item No.5 of the Fifth Schedule. It is apparent that there is also
violation/contravention of Section 33 (1)(b) of the Act, inasmuch as Section 33(1) clearly forbids the employer to alter
the condition of service to the prejudice of the workmen concerned during pendency of industrial dispute/proceedings
between the parties and undisputedly the dispute between the parties was pending before the Hon’ble High Court. It is
worthwhile to mention here that provisions of Section 33 have been enacted for the protection of the workmen
concerned in the dispute against victimization by an employer on account of his having raised an industrial dispute or
his being a party to a pending industrial proceedings and to ensure that pending industrial disputes are brought to an
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3827
expeditious determination in a peaceful atmosphere. In Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand (1978) 2 LLJ
1,5(SC), Hon”ble the Apex Court had held that :-
“The purpose of the prohibitions contained in Section 33 of ID Act is twofold. On the one hand, they are
designed to protect the workmen concerned during the course of industrial conciliation, arbitration and
adjudication, against employer’s harassment and victimization, on account of their having raised the industrial
dispute or their continuing the “pending proceedings”, on the other, they seek to maintain ‘status quo” by
prescribing management conduct which may give rise to fresh disputes which further exacerbate the already
strained relations between the employer and the workmen”.
13-
As a sequel to the above discussion, it is held that action of the Management in terminating/removing the
workmen from service was unjust, improper and illegal.
14-
As regards terms of reference in question as well as claim petition o pertaining to regularization of the
workmen/claimant herein, it will be suffice to say that for the same relief the matter is sub-judice before Hon’ble High
Court and hence it will be improper for this Tribunal to give any findings in this respect. For the same reasons, at this
stage I am afraid to deal with the issue regarding entitlement of the claimants/workmen to receive salary/wages, on the
principle of equal pay for equal work, w.e.f. 8/12/1995 and 14/4/1996 respectively till 1/10/2008 - the date of their
termination, more so when the claimants herein were engaged through contractors and were not engaged through
recruitment/selection process and there is nothing on record to suggest that level/degree of responsibility and duties
were the same as that of regularly recruited employees of CPWD.
15-
Now the residual question is whether the claimants/workmen are entitled to any incidental relief of payment
of back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimants were
continuously serving with the Management since 1995-96. There is no notice, notice pay or compensation has been
given to the claimant/workman by the Management prior to the termination of their services on 1/10/2008 Moreover,
the job of the workmen as Lift Operator/s is considered to be of perennial and regular nature.
16-
The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”
reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i)
In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and
back wages is the normal rule.
ii)
Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is
desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement
before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not
gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid
payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove
that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the
wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is
settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the
person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a
positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was
employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee
was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”
16.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of
termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the
mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se,
sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that
termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one
month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering
the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not
terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
17.
It will not be out of place to mention here that the claimants/workmen have neither pleaded nor adduced any
evidence to show that they were/are not gainfully employed anywhere, since the date of their termination. Having
regard to the legal position as discussed above and the facts of this case, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the
claimants/workmen herein are entitled for reinstatement into service on the same post with continuity of service.
Award is passed accordingly.
Dated : 11.04.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
3828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली , 16 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 904
904
904
904.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस िनदेशक, खरपतवार िव=ान अनुसंधान िनदेशालय, जबलपुर (म) और अ य एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं& के
संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन+द, औोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण
एवं .म यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ संया 24/2012) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 22.04.19
को ा2 3आ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/87/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2019
S.O. 904.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director,
Directorate of Weed Science Research ICAR, Jabalpur (MP) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 22.04.19.
[No. L-42012/87/2011-IR (DU)]
V .K .THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/24/12
Ram Sushil Patel,
S/o Shri Sukh Lal Patel,
R/o Sanjay Nagar, Near Ramrati School,
Adhartal, Jabalpur.
…Workman
Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Weed Science Research ICAR,
Maharajpur, Adhartal,
Jabalpur
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of March, 2019
1.
As per letter dated 13-1-2012 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 as per Notification No.L-
42012/87/2011-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Director, Directorate of Weed Science Research, ICAR,
Jabalpur in terminating the service of Shri Ram Sushil Patel S/o Shri Sukhlal Patel w.e.f. 15-2-2011 is
legal and justified? What relief, the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Case No. RC/5/2011 was registered under Section 2A(2 & 3) of ID Act, subsequent to which reference was
received from Ministry, as such vide order dated 2-3-12, Case No. RC/5/2011 was merged with this case i.e. Case No
R/24/12. Since both the cases are identical, award is passed in R/24/12.
3.
After registering the case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties. Workman alleged in his
statement of claim that he was employed as contract worker in the year 2000 through contractor with the employer
respondent firstly in the audit and account section, attending messengerial work relating to Bank transactions and other
related works and continued in employment till 15-2-2011, when his services were terminated by oral order. he had
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3829
been in continuous service in each consecutive year of employment for a period more than 240 days. His work and
conduct was appreciated by the Principal Employer, the respondent in the case in hand. According to the workman, the
reason behind his retrenchment was he was discriminated in an interview advertised by the Principal Employer for the
Group D post, held on 30-12-2009 and workers junior to him were selected in the interview against whichhe had made
a representation. Further, it was alleged that after filing the petition against the discrimination, he was shifted for field
duty before his retrenchment.He raised dispute with the appropriate Government. After failure of FOC, reference was
sent to the Tribunal. Workman has prayed for quashing the retrenchment holding the retrenchment illegal and his
reinstatement and regularization with backwages and interest.
4.
Employer Respondent pleaded in their statement of defense that the workman was never in the employment or
engagement of the employer respondent hence there was no question of his completing 240 days in the preceding year
of his date of alleged retrenchment or at any point of time as stated by him because there was no relation of employer
and employee between the parties at any point of time. It was further pleaded that the employer Respondent entered into
an agreement dated 18-2-2005 with service provider contractor M/S R.B.Consultancy and Security Services for taking
their service for the works detailed in the contract and the present workman was engaged through the service provider
on daily basis as unskilled/ semiskilled labor. He was paid his wages through the service provider and when his work
was found not satisfactory, the service provider was asked by the management not to deploy him with the respondents
and accordingly, the service provider stopped his deployment with the respondents. The employee was paid by the
service provider. Accordingly it was pleaded that the reference be answered in negative.
5.
Workman filed his rejoinder wherein he reiterated his case as mentioned in his statement of claim.
6.
At the stage of evidence, workman filed and proved Exhibit W-1appreciation letter, said to be issued by an
officer of the respondent also filed and proved two work agreements between the service provider and the respondent,
principal employer.
7.
Respondent employer examined on oath Mr.S.K.Giri, Administrative Officer as its witness and proved service
agreement dated 8-2-2005 as Exhibit M-1.
8.
I have heard argument of Mr. Balwant Raj on behalf of workman and Shri R.K.Soni from the side of
respondent employer. Both the sides have filed memorandum of argument which are on record. I have gone
through the written argument as well as record. After perusal of record, in the light of rival argument,
following points arise for determination:-
i.
Whether the workman was at all engaged by the present respondents?
ii.
Whether the workman had been in engagement of present respondent for a period of 240 days
in the year preceding his alleged disengagement/ retrenchment?
iii.
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
9.
Point Nos. 1 & 2-
Since these two points for determination are linked with each other, they are being taken together.
10.
Admitted is the fact between the parties that workman had worked at the work place of the respondents but the
parties differ on the point as to whether he was engaged by the respondent employers or supplied by the service
provider as pleaded by the respondents under the work contract between the respondent and the service provider.
Details of the pleadings on this point have already been mentioned in the judgment earlier. The respondent employer
has filed and proved the work agreement dated 18-2-2005. The work agreement dated 27-1-01 and 24-1-2011 have
been filed and proved by the workman. This is an agreement between the respondent employer and service provider
contractor. The paragraph-1 of the agreement mentioned in Exhibit M-1 which reads as follows:-
i.
M/S R.B.Consultancy and Security Services Jabalpur the party shall carry out the work/ area
basis “A” (i) to (vii), “B” (a) and (b), “C”, “D” and “E” of the tender form at the above
mentioned establishment on the terms and conditions herein set forth the agreement will be
valid initially for a period of one year commencing from 18-2-2005 to17-2-2006. The party/
other party will provide contract labors as per the following terms and conditions.
Paras 5 & 6 of the said agreement are also relevant for this purpose which are being reproduced as follows:-
(vi)
The Agency shall submit their bills for the works done every month and the one part/ first party
agrees to honor the same within 5 days from the date of receipt of the said bills or soon thereafter as
may be possible.
(vi)
It is further clarified that under no circumstances the staff members and/ or the workman/
employee of Agency shall be treated/ considered or considered or deemed to be the employees of the one
part/ First party and the agency aloneshall be responsible for their remuneration, wages and to their
benefits and services conditions of all employees deployed by the agency and shall indemnify and keep
3830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
indemnified the one part/First party against any claim that they may have to meet towardsthe
employees of the agency.
Same is the condition in the agreement Exhibit W-1 & W-2 proved by workman.
11.
Perusal of these conditions makes it clear that it is agreed between the respondent and service provider that the
bills regarding work done by the service provider shall be submitted by him and it shall be paid by the respondent
employer and also that the staff engaged by the service provider under the agreement shall in no case be treated as
workman/ employee of the present respondent. Exhibit W-2, the latest agreement between the respondent employer and
service provider which was entered upon between them in the year preceding the alleged disengagement of workman
mentions the services to be supplied by the service provider. This paper is Exhibit W-2. The workman had admitted that
he was put on work through a service provider. He had stated that appointment letter was issued by him but infact no
such appointment letter was filed. He also admits that his wages were paid by the service provider/ contractor. On the
other hand, the witness for the respondent has supported their case that infact the workman was engaged by the service
provider and was paid through the service provider and also that there was no employer employee relationship between
the workman and the respondent. This nature of evidence as mentioned above leaves no doubt that there was no relation
of employer and employee of any nature between workman and the respondent. Rather the workman was engaged by
the service provider contractor who had supplied him to work with the respondent, under a contract between the
respondent and the service provider.
12.
Point No.-3-Learned counsel for workman has relied upon the case between Bhavnagar Municipal
Corporation and others versus Jadeja GovubhaChhanubha and another reported in (2015) 2-SCC-535 and Raj
Kumar versus Director of Education and others reported in (2016)6SCC-541. These two cases can be
distinguished on the fact from the case in hand. in the referred cases, it was proved that the workman was engaged by
the respondent employers which is not in this case. Hence these two cases donot help the workman in the case in hand.
Another judgment of CGIT Rajasthan is also referred but it is not relevant because this is also on facts peculiar to that
case. Moreover that judgment is not binding on this Tribunal.
13.
Learned counsel for respondent has referred to case International Airport Authority of India versus
International Air Cargo Workers Union and another reported in (2009)13 SCC-374 wherein it was held that
whether the labor contract is genuine or sham, it will be seen whether direction and control is with the principal
employer or with the contractor which has to be determined with reference to factors like, who pays the salary, who has
power to initial disciplinary action, to remove/ dismiss from service, who can tell employee the way work should be
done etc. and when the contract is merely to supply labor only though the contract labor is bound to work under
supervision of principal employer, primary control still vests with the contractor and not with principal employer. The
same is the case in hand.
14.
On the basis of above discussion, employer employee relation of any nature, be it fulltime or part time
or daily/casual is held not proved between the parties. Accordingly, the allegation that the workman was
disengaged/ retrenched by the respondent is also held not proved. Point No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly
15.
Point No. 3-On the basis of above discussion, workman is held not entitled to any relief as claimed.
16.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The workman Shri Ram Sushil Patel S/o Shri Sukhlal Patel was not disengaged/ retrenched by the
management of Director, Directorate of Weed Science Research, ICAR, Jabalpur w.e.f. 15-2-2011 as
he was employed by Service Provider- the contractor and not by the management.
(2) Workman Shri Ram Sushil Patel is not entitled to any relief.
Dated:7-3-2019
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 905
. 905
. 905
. 905.—सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन) के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976
(यथासंशोिधत,1987) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण म, .म और रोजगार मं&ालय के शासकय िनयं&णाधीन
िन? निलिखत कायालय को, िजनके 80 ितशत से अिधक कमचा@रय) ने िह दी का कायसाधक =ान ाA त कर िलया है,
एतदBारा अिधसूिचत करती है;
01; उप-Cे&ीय कायालय, को लम
[सं. ई-11016/1/2017-रा.भा. िन.]
देवे Dसह, आEथक सलाहकार
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3831
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2019
S. O. 905.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the
administrative Control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi:—
01. Sub-Regional office, Kollam
[No. E-11016/1/2017-RBN]
Devender Singh, Economic Adviser
नई द ली, 22 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 906
906
906
906.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस आईआरसीटीसी िलिम टेड बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन+द, औोिगक
िववाद म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण न-II द ली के पंचाट (संदभ संया 74/2014) को कािशत करती है जो
केीय सरकार को 22.05.2019 को ा2 3ए थे ।
[सं. एल-12025/01/2019-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी.एस. िबF ट, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2019
S.O. 906.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. II, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Indian Railway Catering
& Tourism Corporation Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 22.05.19.
[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, 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. 74/2014
Date of Passing Award- 15th March, 2019.
Between:
Shri Surjeet Shyamal,
S/o Shri Shivchandra Prasad Navin,
Flat No. 06, 1st Floor,
H. No. 135, Gali No. 2,
Khicharipur Village,
New Delhi- 110091.
… Workman
Versus
1. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.
Through its Managing Director,
Corporate Office, B-148,
11th Floor, Statement House,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- 110001.
2. M/s. Shomuk Engineering Consultancy Services,
Through Its Managing Director,
G-1, Ground Floor, South Extension,
Part-II, New Delhi- 110049.
3832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. M/s. JMD Consultants,
310A, R-21, 22 &23, Khanoja Complex,
Sakarpur, New Delhi-110092.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Vishwanath,
…For the Workman
(Advocate)
Shri J.K. Singh
…For the Management
(Advocate)
AWARD
This is an application filed by the workman u/s 2-A of the ID Act 1947(herein after referred to as The
Act) claiming reinstatement into service with all back wages and other consequential benefits by the
management No. 1, alternatively with management No. 2 or 3 as the case may be.
Statement of claim filed by the workman reveals that on 23.06.2006 he was appointed as a customer
care executive by the management No. 1, a public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Railways,
Government of India. The management No. 1 was incorporated into the service of Railway in the year 1999 to
upgrade, professionalize, and manage the Catering and Hospitality Services, promote domestic and
international tourism etc. In addition to this the management No. 1 also under takes, many fold activities to
facilitate their objectives like internet ticketing, tourism activities, managing enquiry, call centre, expansion on
passenger ticketing etc. Advertisement was made in the website & notice board and pursuant thereto the
workman had applied for the post. The management No. 1 constituted a screening committee for selection of
candidates and as a part thereof, interview test and selection took place. After completing all administrative
formalities appointment letter was issued to the workman but the same was routed through one M/s. Cheque
Jour outsourcing solution Pvt. Ltd. which is a company dealing with supply of manpower only. All the
interview and selection procedure of the candidates were directly conducted by the officers of the management
No. 1 without the involvement of management Nos. 2 and 3. The workman was selected since he mate all the
requirements like educational qualification, experience and skill, as set out by the management No. 1.
Proficiency in computer was one of the required qualifications. For each day of work, the attendance of the
workman was also taken through biometric like other regular employees.
Though the workman was working since 23.06.2006, his service was shown as if employed through
one M/s. Cheque Jour outsourcing w.e.f. 23.06.2010 and thereafter through M/s. Shomuk Engineering and
consultancy w.e.f. 02.12.2011. It is the further stand of the workman that though the contractors were coming
and going, the service of the workman was continuous, and uninterrupted. M/s. Cheque Jour had a contract for
2 years from 01.12.2008 to 31.12.2010 and the management No. 2 Shomuk Engineering took the place of a
new contractor on 30.11.2011 for another period of 2 years. Though there was a gap of about 11 months
between the end tenure of Cheque Jour Outsourcing, and start day of Shomuk Engineering, the workman and
others continued to work for management No. 1 without interruption, as the work done by him was perennial
and important in nature. In absence of the workman and the persons like him the network of the management
No. 1 was likely to be paralyzed. Hence, the appointment by the so called contractors was a myth, and infact
the workman was an employee by the principal employer i.e. the management No. 1.
The management was changing the contractor periodically without causing the disruption to the
tenure of work of the workman who was mainly confined to internet ticketing and responsible for some critical
task beneficial for the customers. His responsibility and job requirement was purely technical and operational
in nature and he was never discharging the duty, managerial or supervisory in nature. For the excellence
exhibited in his performance, he was rewarded with a posting in development team, with changed designation
as Executive IT, a field covered by regular employees only. In this regard an appointment letter was issued to
him by management No. 1 which goes to show that the management No. 1 had all the administrative and
supervisory control over the workman. For the good work done, he was also issued a certificate of merit dated
27.09.2012 by the management No.1. The contracts between the management No. 1 in one hand and the
contractors on the other hand was sham and camouflage designed only to deprive the workman from his
legitimate due and claim of regularization. The management No. 1 was directly paying salary to the bank
account of the workman and in appropriate cases the management No. 1 was also taking disciplinary action
against the persons shown to have been engaged through the contractor. Thus, for all practical purposes, the
management no. 1 has complete control over the workman so far as the assignment of work place of posting
etc are concerned on 13.04.2011 was one showcause notice was directly issued to the workman by the IRCTC
i.e. management No. 1 before his termination. The present workman and others were often demanding equal
remuneration for equal work and in this regard demands were raised before several statutory authorities by
way of representation. The management No. 1 being annoyed called the workman and asked him to resign
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3833
from the service, to which the workman denied. Then the management No. 1 verbally informed him about his
transfer to customer care department and a transfer order dated 30.09.2013 was issued to him. On 16.10.2013
his service was terminated and a letter to that effect was issued to him on 17.10.2013 through the contractor
management No.2.
It is the further stand of the workman that he was the employee of management No. 1 and before his
termination no termination notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to him. All the letters
and representations submitted by him to management No. 1 remained unheard. Finding no other efficacious
remedy the workman approached the Labour Commissioner. In that forum the management No. 1 contested
and the conciliation proceeding failed. Though a reference was made by the government the workman filed a
direct complaint invoking the jurisdiction of this tribunal u/s 2-A of the ID Act. The further grievance of the
workman is that he is the only person whose service was terminated after change of the contractor i.e. the
management No. 3. All his juniors are still working with management No. 1. He had completed 240 days of
work in the preceding calendar year of the termination and entitled to regularization of service. Since the date
of termination he is unemployed and has not arranged a gainful employment till date. Thus, he has prayed for
reinstatement to service with back wages and consequential benefits in the office of the management No. 1 as
his principal employer and alternatively with the management No. 3 the present contractor.
Being noticed the management No.1 and management No. 3 entered appearance and filed their
written statements separately. Management No. 2 choose to remain absent and thus, set ex-parte.
The management No. 1 by filing the written statement raised objection that the provisions of
Industrial Dispute act are not applicable to the management No. 1. The workman was never an employee of
management No. 1 and all the claim advanced against management No. 1 are baseless. While quoting the law
laid in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma devi the management No. 1 has pleaded that the workman a
contractual employee of the contractor on account of his termination cannot claim reinstatement and
absorption by management No. 1. It has strongly pleaded that there exist no employer employee relationship
between the workman and management No. 1. He was an employee of the contractor who terminated his
service for his non performance. Management No. 1 had no administrative or supervisory control over the
workman. This workman had approached the Hon’ble High Court by fling WPC No. 263 of 2014 which was
dismissed as withdrawn since the workman could not establish the employer employee relationship between
management No. 1 and the workman. While denying the allegation that the contract between the management
No. 1 and management Nos. 2 and 3 is sham and camouflage, the answering management prayed for dismissal
of the claim of the workman leveled against him. It is also the stand of the management No. 1 that the
workman had not completed 240 days of work in the preceding calendar year with the management No. 1 as
such his claim for regularization is absurd.
The management No. 2 as indicated above has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.02.15.
The management No. 3 filed a written statement stating that the workman was never employed by
him as the Customer Care Executive or Executive IT. While admitting about its contract with management No.
1 as the manpower service provider, this management No. 3 has stated that the name of the present workman
has no where been reflected in its record as an employee after the agreement between the management No.1
and management No. 3 came into force. Thereby the management No. 3 has taken a stand of not terminating
the service of the workman and also pleaded that management No. 3 is no way responsible for reinstating him
giving all consequential benefits.
On this rival pleading following points emerged for consideration and adjudication.
1. If there exist any employer employee relationship between the workman and the management
No.1.
2. If the workman was illegally terminated and thus entitled to reinstatement to service with all
consequential benefits with management No. 1 .
3. If the management No. 3 is under any kind of obligation of reinstating the workman to service.
During the course of hearing the workman had filed an application invoking the provisions of section
11(3) of the ID Act seeking a direction to management No. 1 for production of documents. The management
No. 1 could not produce the documents and thus liberty was granted to the workman for adducing secondary
evidence.
The workman examined himself as WW1 and filed a series of documents which were marked as
Exhibit WW1/1 to WW1/13. He also examined one Ravi kumar as WW2 who was also a co-employee of the
workman. Who is still continuing in work as a customer care executive and conversant with the facts of the
3834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
case. These witnesses were not cross-examined neither by management No.1 nor management No.3 since both
the managements’ were set ex-parte by order dated 20.02.2017.
The documents filed and relied upon by the workman include the noting of IRCTC constituting
screening committee for selection and appointment of candidates like the workman marked as WW1/2,
WW1/1 is the appreciation letter issued to the workman by the management no. 1, WW1/7 and WW1/6 are the
letters of directing termination and disciplinary action taken by management no. 1 against the outsourced
employees, WW1/8 is the transfer order and WW1/9 are the cash award given to the outsourced employees by
the management No.1 etc. On the basis of these documents the workman argued that for all the practical
purposes the management No. 1 was the principal employer having administrative and supervisory control on
the workman. Thereby the workman submitted that the procedure of section 25-F of the ID Act having not
been complied by the management, the order of termination is illegal. It has also been argued that no rebuttal
evidence has been adduced by the management to the claim of the workman that he had worked for 240 days
or more in the preceding calendar year of his termination. This pleading of the workman since has been
admitted by the management No. 1 he is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits. The workman
also argued that sufficient evidence has been adduced by him to show that he was directly working under the
management No. 1 and since the date of termination he has no where been gainfully employed.
The workman placed reliance in the case of Ram Singh and Others vs. Union Territory
Chandigarh and Others reported in (2004)1 SCC Page 126 to say that for determination of employer
employee relationship the factors to be considered interalia are (i) control (ii) integration (iii) power of
appointment and dismissal (iv) liability to pay remuneration (v) Liability to organize the work (vi) nature of
mutual obligations etc. He also placed reliance in the case of ONGC vs. ONGC Contractual Workers Union
reported in 2008 LLR Page 801 to say that in order to ascertain the status of the workman, the period of work
rendered by him, when there was no contractor is also to be taken into consideration. By placing reliance in the
above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the workman has asserted to prove that he was the
employee of the principal employer i.e. IRCTC. Reliance has also been placed by the workman in the case of
Hari Palace Ambala City vs. Labour Court, Rohtak decided in Civil Writ Petition No. 3521 of 77 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana to say that ordinarily a workman whose service has been illegally
terminated would be entitled to full back wages when he is found not gainfully employed. Reliance has also
been place by the workman in the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of
Munshi Singh vs. Nagar Panchayat Joura reported in 2010 Labour and Industrial Cases 370 were in the
Hon’ble High Court have held that when the termination was found to be illegal or abinitio-void, the workman
is entitled to reinstatement to service.
FINDINGS
POINT No. 1
The workman has filed affidavit stating that he was initially appointed on 23.06.2006 and worked
with the management No. 1 till the date of his termination i.e. 17.10.2013. His specific stand is that the
management No. 1 a public sector undertaking and an extended arm of the Indian Railways had made
notification for appointment and after completing all administrative formalities he was given appointment
though the appointment letter was routed through one M/s Cheque Jour Outsourcing Solution the then
contractor of management No. 1. Infact the appointment was made through the interview and selection test
conducted directly by the officers of the management No.1. This oral statement of the workman has remained
uncontroverted since the management in this proceeding has been proceeded ex-parte. Though this aspect was
denied in the Written Statement by the management no. 1 the same will not outweigh the oral statement of the
workman in absence of proof to that effect. On behalf of the workman the appointment letter has been filed as
Annexure 1. Though the recital of Annexure 1 shows that the workman was appointed as a customer care
executive for a fixed term contract there is no mention about the term and it only reads that the appointment
will terminate on the date of termination of the contract of Cheque Jour with IRCTC. This recital of the
appointment letter itself goes contrary to the stand of management No.1 taken in the Written Statement that the
workman was a fixed term employee, since his appointment letter nowhere contains a clause indicating the
term of employment. The workman had also filed a certificate of merit issued to him by the managing director
of IRCTC which has been marked as Annexure 5, another letter issued by IRCTC changing the designation of
the workman from Customer Care Executive to Executive IT by the Authorities of IRCTC. In the oral
testimony the workman has also stated that he was working under the direct supervision and control of
management No.1 who had reserved the authority of initiating departmental proceeding and punishing the
outsourced employees. Annexure 6 is a document filed by the workman issued by the CS/ IT operation of
IRCTC internet ticketing centre giving warning to some of the outsourced employees for their irresponsible
behaviour with the ultimatum of suspension. On the basis of these documents the workman has pleaded that
for all practical purposes he was the employee of IRCTC the principal employer.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3835
In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in
(2001) 7SCC Page 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain
about the relationship of the workman with the management or the contractor. Not only that in the case of
Chintaman Rao (1958(II)LLJ252) the Apex court ruled that the concept of employment involves 3
ingredients (i)Employer (ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The employer is one who employees or
engages the service of other person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is
the contract of service between the employer and employee, where under the employee agrees to serve the
employer subject to his control and supervision. In the case of Food Corporation of India reported in
(1985(ii) LLJ4) the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced that the contract of employment always discloses a
relationship of command and obedience between them. Where a contractor emplyoes a workman to do the
work which he contracted with a third person to accomplish, the workman of the contractor would not become
more than the workman of the third person.
Not only that in the case of Shankar Balajiwale reported in 1962(1) LLJ 119 the Hon’ble Supreme
court have clarified that the control of the management which is a necessary element of the relationship of
master of servant is not directed towards providing or dictating the nature of the article to be produced or work
to be done, but refers to other incident having bearing on the process of the work the person carries out. The
manner of work is to be distinguished from the type of work to be performed. In the case of Ram Singh and
Others vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and Others (2004)1 SCC 126 the Hon’ble Apex Court have
elaborately discussed the factors to be considered for determining the employer employee relationship and the
factors include control, integration power of appointment, liability to pay, liability to organize work etc. Thus,
from the above analysis of the Principle of Law, it emerges that the effective control is a test to determine the
employer employee relationship between the parties.
In this proceeding the workman has all along maintained that he was working under the supervision
and control of management No. 1 and not the contractor. While testifying as WW1 he fortified the said fact.
WW2 an employee still working for management No.1 has also stated that the management No. 1 has all sort
of administrative control over the workers like the workman of this case. This statement alone indicates the
effective supervision of the work of the workman by management no. 1 which is also evident from the
document like the certificate of merit granted to him by management no. 1 and disciplinary action taken by
management no. 1 against the other co-workers. Hence it is concluded that the workman was the employee of
the management NO. 1 and the contract between the management and the contractor is a camouflage. Point no.
1 is accordingly answered in the favour of the workman and it is held that he was working for the management
no.1 till his service was dispensed with from 17.10.2013.
POINT No.2
It is a decided principal of law that the employer and employee relationship is a question of fact and
the burden lies on him who asserts existence of the same. While answering point no.1 it has been held that the
workman has successfully established his relationship as an employee of the employer IRCTC. It is now to be
seen if the termination of the workman was made following the procedure of law or illegal for non compliance
of the same. Reference can be made to section 25-F of the ID Act 1947 which precisely speaks that no
workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than 1 year under an
employer, shall be retrenched until the workman has been given one month notice in writing, or has been paid
retrenchment compensation. In this case in the written statement the management has taken a plea that no such
notice was served since the workman was not an employee of management No. 1. Thereby management No. 1
has admitted non compliance of the provision of section 25-F. In the preceding paragraph it has already been
held that the contract of the management no. 1 and management no. 2 were sham and infact the workman was
the employee of the management No. 1. In that case, the mandatory provisions of section 25-F was required to
be complied before his termination. The non compliance of the same has made the termination of the workman
in the hands of management No. 1 illegal. Thus, the moot question which remains to be replied is what would
be the relief that can be granted to the workman.
Way back in the year 1980 the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma
and Others vs. CGIT Delhi had observed that
“Plain commonsense dictates that the removal order terminating the service of the
workman must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement in the service of the workman. It
is as if the order was never been made and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages.
But there may be exceptional circumstance which makes it impossible for the
employer to direct reinstatement with full back wages.”
In such cases the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appropriate order would be for payment of
compensation in lieu of reinstatement. But in the case of G.M ONGC Silchar vs. ONGC Contractual
Worker Union reported in 2008 LLR 801 the Hon’ble Apex Court after giving due consideration to several
observations in different pronouncement which suggest that a workman who was put in 240 days or a
3836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contractual worker is not entitled automatically to regularization came to hold that in appropriate cases
regularization can be ordered.
Here is a case were the workman has prayed for a relief simplicitor for reinstatement to service either
by the management no. 1 or by management no. 3 which shows his anxiety for reemployment. The basic issue
in the present case is the status of the workman and whether he was an employee of IRCTC or the contractor.
While adducing evidence the workman has successfully proved that the management no. 1 on periodical
intervals was changing the contractors though the workman and many other likes him were continuing to work
uninterruptedly. The document filed by the workman clearly shows that the previous contractor Cheque Jour
Outsourcing had a contract w.e.f. 01.12.2008 for a period of 2 years which ended on 31.12.2010. This
workman was appointed on 23.06.2010 by the management no. 1 directly but was shown as if employed
through M/s Cheque Jour Outsourcing. The term of this contractor though ended on 31.12.2010, the next
contractor was inducted on 30.11.2011 for another 2 years having a gap of 11 months. During this intervening
period there was no contractor but the workman was continuing to work under the effective control of
management No. 1. This clearly leads to a conclusion that the workman being the employee of the Principal
Employer continued to work even though there was no contractor for the intervening period.
In the case of Secretary State of Karnatak and Others vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006)4 SCC 1
though the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appointment of contractual employee and regularization
of their services is not an automatic process, in the instant case the workman was never employed through the
contractor rather he was the employee recruited by IRCTC who was exercising effective control and
supervision on him. His service was terminated illegally without following the statutory provisions and as such
he is held entitled to back wages alongwith the relief of reinstatement to service since a specific denial has
been made by the workman regarding his non employment and no contrary evidence is available on record.
There is also no evidence to presume that the workman had a tented track record of employment and his
reinstatement will affect the industrial peace. But it is a rule of law that for no work done, no remuneration is
to be paid. Keeping that principle in view it is held 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.
ORDER
The claim petition be and the same is allowed. It is held that the termination of the workman by the
management no. 1 is illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement to his service with Management no. 1 alongwith
20% of the back wage from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Management no. 1 is further
directed to reinstate the workman to the service within 3 months from the date when this award becomes
executable and shall pay the back wages accordingly within the said period. On the event of nonpayment of the
back wages accrued, the amount 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.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 907
907
907
907.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय
सरकार पिHम मI य रेलवे के बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन+द, औोिगक िववाद
म केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ संया 17/2008) को कािशत करती है, जो केीय
सरकार को 22/05/2019 को ा2 3आ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/12/2008-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी.एस. िबF ट, अवर सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3837
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2019
S.O. 907.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-1 Jaipur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of West Central Railway.
and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 22/05/2019.
[No. L-41012/12/2008-IR (B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 17/ 2008
jsQjsUl ua--L- 41012/12/2008–IR(B-1) fnukad02/06/2008
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
vCnqy vtht lsokfuo`r jsy pkyd
}kjk& ,- Mh- xzksoj 2@391 MMokMk dksVk taD'kuA & izkFkhZ
cuke
e.My jsy izcU/kd] if'pe e/; jsyos] dksVkA
& vizkFkhZ
mifLFkr %&
Jh vCnqy eksbn
& izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ
Jh vkj- ,y- eh.kk
&izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZ
%vf/kfu.kZ; :
fnukad % 10- 05- 2019
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10
mi/kkjk 2 ¼,½ ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr fookn vf/kfu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks fnukad 02/06/2008 dks
izsf"kr fd;k x;kA **D;k e.My jsy izca/kd] if'pe e/; jsyos] dksVk e.My] dksVk dks Jh vCnqy vtht] lsok fuo`Rr jsy pkyd
¼osrueku 950&1500½ dks osrueku 1350&2200 ds vuqlkj LFkkukiUu HkRrs ds Hkqxrku ugha djus dh dk;Zokgh fof/k ,oa U;k;laxr gS\
deZdkj fdl jkgr dk vkSj dc ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**
2- mi;qZDr fookn izkIr gksus ij bl vf/kdj.k }kjk mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;k vkSj deZdkj dks funsZ'k fn;k x;k fd og vius
nkos dk vfHkdFku vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr djsaA
3- fnukad 18-10-2010 dks izkFkhZ }kjk nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd fnukad 21-8-1990 ls 25-12-94 rd
rFkk 21-1-95 ls 20-2-95 rd dqy 1616 fnu rd mlus xqM~l MªkbZoj ds in ij yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ ds lqijokbZtj }kjk izkFkhZ
ds LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk jksy cukdj Hkqxrku gsrq Hkstk x;kA izkFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k x;k fd LFkkukiUu HkRrk iznku fd;s tkus gsrq
dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gS] dk;Zokgh iw.kZ gksus ij lwfpr fd;k tk;sxk fdUrq izkFkhZ dks u rks HkRrs dk Hkqxrku fd;k vkSj u gh dksbZ lwpuk
nhA vr% izkFkhZ dks mlds lqijokbZtj }kjk vxzsf"kr jksy ds vuqlkj LFkkukiUu HkRras dk Hkqxrku djok;k tk;sA
4- vizkFkhZ dh vkSj ls oknksRrj esa dgk x;k gS fd nkos dk vfHkdFku xyr rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks iwoZ esa gh lHkh
ifjykHkksa dk Hkqxrku 2453 :i;s 15-11-2003 dks fd;k tk pqdk gS vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vfHkdFku fujLr fd;k tkosaA
5- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Loa; izkFkhZ vCnqy vtht dk 'kiFki= fu"ikfnr fd;k vkSj dksbZ izys[k iznf'kZr ugha fd;kA
6- foi{kh us vius lk{; esa fnus'k ekFkqj dk;kZy; v/kh{kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ bZ-Vh- 1 ls bZ-Vh- 3 rd
izys[k iznf'kZr fd;sA
7- fnukad 1-5-19 dks eSuas mHk;i{k ds rdZ&fordZ lqusA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 19-8-2003 dks e.My jsy izcU/kd] dksVk }kjk tkjh i= dh
iBuh; izfr izLrqr dh xbZA tks izn'kZ bZ-Vh-Mh- 1 Hkh gSA
8- izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 17-4-95 ds vkns'k ls xqM~l MªkbZoj ds in ij osrueku 1350&2200 #i;s esa
fu;fer :i ls inksUur fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ bl inksUufr ds iwoZ ls gh xqM~l MªkbZoj dk dk;Z LFkkukiUu :i ls djrk pyk vk jgk
FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks LFkkukiUu HkRrk Hkh xqM~l MªkbZoj ds osrueku 1350&2200 #i;s ds vuqlkj gh fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA foi{kh
}kjk 1200&2020 #i;s osrueku ds vuqlkj tks Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS og vuqfpr vkSj voS/k gSA
9- foi{kh ds izfrfuf/k dk ;g fojks/kh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks LFkkukiUu :i ls xqM~l MªkbZoj ds in ij dk;Z djokuk fookfnr ugha gS]
fdUrq LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks vkxkeh ,d mPprj osrueku ds vuqlkj gh fd;k tk ldrk gS tks fd 1200&2020 #i;s
osrueku gSA izkFkhZ vkxkeh nks mPprj osrueku ds vuqlkj ¼1350&2200 #i;s½ LFkkukiUu HkRrk pkgrk gS tks fd egkizcU/kd ¼if'pe
3838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
jsyos] eqEcbZ½ ds i= fnukad 13-2-87 ds vuqlkj ns; ugha gSA izkFkhZ dks ns; LFkkukiUu HkRrk mls fn;k tk pqdk gSA vr% nkok fujLr
fd;k tkosA
10- eSusa mHk;i{k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdksZa ij euu fd;kA
11- izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a dks lgk;d MªkbZoj ds in fu;qDr gksdj fnukafdr 21-8-90 ls 25-12-94 rFkk 21-1-95 ls 20-2-95 rd 1616 fnu
xqM~l MªkbZoj ds in ij LFkkukiUu :i ls dk;Z djuk dgk x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd bl rF; dks foi{kh }kjk dksbZ pqukSrh ugha nh
xbZ gSA foi{kh dk ;g dFku gS fd LFkkukiUu HkRrk 2543 :i;s izkFkhZ dks 15-11-03 dks gh mlds cSad [kkrs ds ek/;e ls Hkqxrku fd;k
tk pqdk gSA izkFkhZ us Hkh bl Hkqxrku dks vLohdkj ugha fd;k gS fdUrq ;g dgk gS fd ;g Hkqxrku mls fu;ekuq:i ugha fd;k x;kA
izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj og 21-8-90 dks lgk;d MªkbZoj ds in ij osrueku #i;s 950&1500 esa fu;qDr gksdj osru izkIr dj jgk FkkA xqM~l
MªkbZoj ds in dk LFkkukiUu :i ls dk;Z djus ds dkj.k mls 1350&2200 #i;s ds osrueku ds vuqlkj LFkkukiUu HkRrk ns; FkkA
foi{kh us osrueku 1200&2020 :i;s ds osrueku ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k tks fu;efo:) gSA
12- foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks lgk;d MªkbZoj ds in gsrq fofgr osrueku ls ,d mPprj osrueku ¼1200&2020½ ds vuqlkj
LFkkukiUu HkRrk ns; FkkA izkFkhZ dh ekax nks mPprj osrueku 1300&2200 ds vuqlkj LFkkukiUu HkRrk fn;s tkus dh gS tks fu;e ds
foijhr gksus ls Lohdk;Z ugha gSA
13- eSuas mHk;i{k ds rdkZsa ij fopkj fd;k rFkk egkizcU/kd ¼LFkkiu½ if'pe jsyos] ppZ xsV] eqEcbZ ds i= fnukad 13-2-1987 dk
/;kuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;kA bl i= ds iSjk 5 esa fuEukuqlkj funsZ'k fn;s x;s gS %&
"5. In short the practice of putting employees to officiate in two grades higher may be discontinued
forthwith. Employees should be paid officiating allowance at the daily rate of next higher grade
only. ........."
bl i= esa fufgr funsZ'k ds vuqlkj 13-2-87 ls gh ,sls jsyos deZpkjh tks LFkkukiUu :i fdlh in ij dk;Zjr gksa] dks muds
osrueku ls nks mPprj osrueku ds vuqlkj LFkkukiUu HkRrs ds Hkqxrku dh jhfr dks lekIr dj fn;k x;k gS rFkk ;g funsZ'k
fn;k x;k gS fd ,sls deZpkjh dks mlds osrueku ds ,d mPprj osrueku ds vuqlkj gh LFkkukiUu HkRrk fn;k tkosxkA
Lohd`r :i ls izkFkhZ vius ewy in lgk;d MªkbZoj ds in ij 21-8-90 ¼ LFkkukiUu dk;Z izkjEHk gksus dh frfFk½ dks fu;qDr
FkkA ;g Hkh fookfnr ugha gS fd og osrueku 950&1500 #i;s esa rRle; osru izkIr dj jgk FkkA xqM~l MªkbZoj ds in ij
LFkkukiUu :i ls dke djus ij mls fu;ekuqlkj rRle; ns; osrueku ls ,d mPprj osrueku ds vuq:i gh LFkkukiUu
HkRrk ns; FkkA izkFkhZ dh fu;fer inksUufr fnukad 17-4-95 dks lgk;d MªkbZoj ls xqMl MªkbZoj ds in ij osrueku
1350&2200 #i;s esa dh x;h gS fdUrq LFkkukiUu dk;Z djus dh vof/k 20-2-95 rd gh Fkh bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks ;g
vf/kdkj dnkfi mRiUu ugha gksrk gS fd og inksUufr ds iwoZ dh LFkkukiUu dk;Z vof/k esa mls ns; osrueku ls nks mPprj
osrueku ds vuqlkj LFkkukiUu HkRrk izkIr djsaA ;g fufoZokn gS fd #i;s 950&1500 osrueku dk vkxkeh izFke mPprj
osrueku 1200&2020 #i;s gSA blfy;s bl vkxkeh mPprj osrueku ds vuqlkj gh izkFkhZ LFkkukiUu HkRrk izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh izekf.kr gksrk gSA
14- bl fu"d"kZ ds mijkUr izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk osrueku 1350&2200 #i;s ds vuqlkj LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk Hkqxrku u djuk iw.kZr%
fu;fer oS/k ,oa U;k;laxr gSA pwafd bl jhfr ls izkFkhZ dks LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk 15-11-03 dks gh fd;k tk pqdk gS]
izkFkhZ dks vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k ns; ugha gSA
15- vr% bl vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr vkS|ksfxd fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u djrs gq;s e.My jsy izcU/kd] if'pe e/; jsyos] dksVk e.My] dksVk
}kjk izkFkhZ dks osrueku 1350&2200 ds vuqlkj LFkkukiUu HkRrs dk Hkqxrku u djuk oS/k ,oa U;k;laxr gSA izkFkhZ deZdkj vU; fdlh
vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
vkns'k
16- vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fjQjsUl dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj
fn;k tkrk gSA
17- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh
tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई द ली, 22 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 908
908
908
908.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
दिCण पूव मI य रेलवे के बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन+द, औोिगक िववाद म
केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ संया 64/2014-15) को कािशत करती है जो केीय
सरकार को 22/05/2019 को ा2 3आ था ।
[सं. एल-41011/104/2014-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी.एस. िबF ट, अवर सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3839
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2019
S.O. 908.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2014-15) of the Central Government Industrial 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, which were received by the Central Government on 22/05/2019.
[No. L-41011/104/2014-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/64/2014-15
Date: 26.04.2019
Party No.1(a)
:
The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation),
South East Central Railway,
DRM Building, 4th Floor, Kingsway,
Station Road, Nagpur – 440001.
Party No.1(b)
:
The Contractor,
M/s Arun S. Ate, Jamil Co-operative Society,
Plot No. 59, Vidyanagar, Bokhara,
Post: Godhani, Tehsil & Distt. Nagpur,
Nagpur – 441111.
Versus
Party No.2(a)
:
Smt. Rita Shivshankar Mahato,
R/o Flat No. 401, Rajat Heights,
Koradi Road, Nagpur – 444111.
Party No.2
:
The General Secretary,
Parcel Porter Sanghatana,
New Mankapur, Plot No. 37,
Mhada Colony ke pass,
Nagpur – 440030.
AWARD
(Dated: 26th April, 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 workman,
Smt. Rita Shivshankar Mahato, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-41011/104/2014 (IR (B-I) dated 10.02.2015, with
the following schedule:-
“Whether the demand raised by the applicant vide her representation dated Nil received on 30.04.2014
(Annexure ‘A’) and representation Union dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure ‘B’) is just, fair & legal? If yes, then what
relief the concerned applicant/Union is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, Smt. Rita Shivshankar Mahato (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim and the
management of the SECR (here-in-after referred to as the Party No.1) filed its written statement.
3.
According to the workman, she is a member of the union namely, Parcel Porter Sanghatana, which is
registered under Trade Union Act and she prayed before the union to redress through negotiation/discussion amicably.
According to her, she was working as casual cook at Santra Market Running Room by authorized contractor, Shri Arun
Aate on behalf of Sr. Divisional Electric Engineer of SEC Railway, Nagpur from 26.12.2013. She was working
continuously in shift without any break and undergoing medical examination, which was conducted by the Railway
doctor.
4.
According to the workman, this post is sanctioned cadre post. She was also given duty of 10 hours per day and
Identity Card was also issued by the contractor. She was initially paid Rs. 3500/- per month. After that, salary was
3840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
increased up to Rs. 4500/- per month. She was permanent Gr. ‘C’ staff, so she is entitled Rs. 22,000/- per month and
other service benefits. Party No. 1 filed a criminal case against the contractor for improper payment of salary and
contractor appeared before the JFMC on the basis of complaint. According to her, engaging by contractor in a
perennial nature of work, contractor had no license and paying below the rate of daily wager. According to her, Party
No. 1 passed contractor’s bill once in two or three months. Party No. 1 illegally issued contract to contract labour;
contractor is nothing but only sheepgoat person of the Party No. 1. She prayed that, she was illegally retrenched, so
retrenchment order is to be set aside, she also prayed for regularization of her services, because she completed 240 days
in each calendar year and she also claimed against the party No. 1 for non-payment of wages and engage contract
labour.
5.
The Party No. 1 filed their reply in the form of short written statement by raising the preliminary objection and
denied all facts asserted by the workman by saying that, there was no employee and employer relation between the
Party No. 1 and the workman, so such type of claim is not sustainable in the eye of law and Party No. 1 also prayed
that, statement of claim need to be dismissed in-limini with exemplary cost. According to the Party No. 1, her claim
does not fall under the purview and provisions of Industrial Disputes. According to the Party No.
1, workman was not a member of the union, Parcel Porter Sanghatana, such dispute lies between
the contractor and the workman, so they prayed that, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this
case.
6.
Party No. 1also reserved their right to file W.S., but they did not file the same even at the last moment. Party
No.1 also prayed that, this reference be answered in negative in favour of them. The contractor and the Party No. 1 did
not file any formal W.S. to deny all the facts asserted in the statement of claim.
7.
Point of determination:
i.
Whether the termination of the workman from service is illegal?
ii.
Whether rejection of the representation of the workman is illegal?
iii.
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
Reason for determination:
8.
The workman examined herself to prove her case or in support of her statement of claim by proofing the
documents P-1, P-2 and P-3. On behalf of the Party No. 1 and the contractor, two witnesses namely, Mr. Bhanuprakash
(MW-1) and Arun Aate (MW-2) were examined in support of their defence, but they do not file formal written
statement, so in my opinion, they took only defence, which was raised by them in short submission i.e. rest of defence
or case taken by the Party No. 1 and the contractor was not considered.
9.
The workman asserted that, she was initially appointed in Running Room as a cook. She also admitted that,
Shri Arun Aate and his wife were conducting the Santra Market Running Room. She also admitted that, her job was to
cook to food for running railway staff. She also admitted that, Appointment Letter and Identity Card were issued by the
contractor. Wages were also paid after three months by the contractor. Railway did not issue any confirmation of her
service. She did not know about the complaint and inspection conducted by the Railway Authority. She also admitted
that, address given by the Railway Authority is correct, but she did not know whether her letter/representation was
received by the Railway Authority or not. In this way, she remained unrebutted in Court statement. Now I want to see
the Party No. 1’s statement:
10.
MW-1, Shri Bhanuprakash asserted in evidence on affidavit that, one Running Room is managed by the
Railway Authority for running staff, which is situated at Santra Market. He also asserted that, Shri Arun Aate was the
contractor for the period of 2013 to 2015. He also admitted that, the workman was appointed as a cook in Running
Room on behalf of the contractor, but there were so many complaints i.e. 90 against the workman regarding behavior
and work of her. Regular inspection was conducted by the Railway Authority about working and complaint of the
workman. This fact was supported by MW-2, Shri Arun Aate. They proved two documents, M-1 and M-2, which are
related to Staff Complaint and Inspection Report conducted by ADEE (OP) dated 29.04.2014. Both these witnesses
remained unrebutted in major statement. Nothing is shown that, they are prejudiced or ill-motive with the workman.
11.
In case law--- Delhi Transport Corp. vs. Ombir Singh 2017 LLR 252, Hon’ble Lordship held that “Where
principles of natural justice are not being complied with, then in such cases, compensation ought to be granted even if
termination of service is found to be valid”. On the basis of principle laid down in Engineering Laghu Udhyog
Employees Union vs Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & others – (2003) 12 SCC 1 in which it was held
that:- “no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under S.33 or on a reference under S.10
of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required
by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts
as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” “A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same
footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would
have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.” These principles are also laid
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3841
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case laws- Punjab Urban Planning & Development authority Vs. Mandip Singh
(2016) 7 SCC-571, UPSRTC Vs. Gopal Shukla (2015) SCC 603, Sanjay Singh Vs. National Seed Corporation (2017)
13 SCC 269, V.D. Vegad Vs. State of Gujurat (2017) 2 SCC 508 and Angikr Oriental (Arbic) Higher Secondary School
Vs. A. Harnoon (2017) 2 SCC 510.
12.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, as I observed that,
the workman was a contract labour, she did not create any rights with the Railway for giving service i.e. employee and
employer relation did not exist between the workman and the Railway management. The workman failed to prove that,
Party No. 1 illegally terminated him from the services and agreement between the contractor and Railway is bogus and
sham. I also observed that, rejection of representation of the workman is proper, because she was not a regular staff,
but it also appears that, Party No. 1 and the contractor did not pay any retrenchment compensation to the workman in
lieu of service rendered by her. So, she is entitled Lumpsum compensation of Rs. 60,000/- from the contractor or Party
No. 1/Railway. Railway may recover this amount from the contractor with interest after the payment to the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The demand raised by the applicant vide her representation dated Nil received on 30.04.2014 (Annexure ‘A’)
and representation Union dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure ‘B’) is not just, fair & legal but the workman is entitled for
Lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement in service,
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 workman is not entitled for any other relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 27 मई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 909
909
909
909.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
यूिनयन बJक ऑफ इंिडया के बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन+द, औोिगक िववाद म
केीय सरकार औोिगक अिधकरण/.म यायालय, ईरनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदभ संया 30/2011) को कािशत करती है
जो केीय सरकार को 27/05/2019 को ा2 3आ था ।
[सं. एल-39025/01/2019-आईआर (बी-II)]
सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2019
S.O. 909.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court- Ernakulam, 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 27/05/2019.
[No.L-39025/01/2019-IR (B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULUM
Present: Shri. V .Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Thursday the 9th day of May 2019)
ID No. 30 of 2011
Workman
: M.K. Sukumaran,
S/o M. A. Kutty
Mozhukattil House,
Peroor P.O.
Ettumanoor (Via), Kottayam
By Adv.Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan
M/s.Murikan & Mangot
3842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management
: Union Bank of India
Represented by its Regional Manager
Union Bank Bhawan
M.G.Road , Ernakulum
By Adv.K.J.Ajay Gosh
This case coming up for final hearing on 18.03.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 09.05.2019
passed the following.
AWARD
This is an application filedby the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2.
The case of the workman is that while working as cashier in Nedumkandam Branch of the management
bank he was imposed a punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect without notice as per
order dated 26.02.2010. The appeal preferred by the workman was also rejected by the Appellate
Authority.
3.
The workman was appointed as peon in Kattappana Branch of the management bank on 30.10.1976. In
1984, he was promoted as clerk and posted to Shanthanpara branch. In 1995, he was promoted as Head
Cashier and posted to Rajakkad branch. He worked as Head cashier in Ayyappankovil branch, St.Johns
Hospital extension counter, Kattappana and Nedumkandam branches. He was sent to Kattappana branch on
Deputation. When he was working in Kattappana branch, he was suspended from service of the bank on
20.10.2008. He received a show cause notice on 23.05.2009 and filed his reply on 05.06.2009 denying the
allegations. The management initiated disciplinary action by issuing a charge sheet on following grounds.
Gross misconduct : Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.
Minor misconduct : Breach of any rule of business of the bank or instructions for running of
any department
The management conducted an enquiry. The enquiry officer found all the charges proved against the
workman. The disciplinary authority dismissed the workman from the service of the bank accepting the
finding of the enquiry officer. The appeal preferred by the workman was also rejected by the Appellate
authority.
4.
Quoting the enquiry report, the workman stated that he was given time upto 04.01.2010 to file defense
statement. However the enquiry officer finalized the report on 31.12.2009 which clearly shows the malafides
and is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. According to him, the enquiry report is
preconceived , biased and is due to undue influence. The workman was given time upto 28.12.2009 to file his
reply to the disciplinary authority. Since his defense assistant had undergone brain surgery and was in
hospital, the workman sought time to file reply which was denied by the disciplinary authority. This is a clear
case of denial of reasonable opportunity and clear infraction of principles of natural justice. There is no
evidence that the workman was handling counterfeit notes. The enquiry officer relyed only on the crime case
registered against him by the police to arrive at the conclusion that he is guilty of charges. With regard to the
minor charge, the workman stated that it is a normal practice that late receipts of cash is entered in the bank
records on the next day. After having convinced of the explanation, the complainant customer withdrew the
complaint. The imposition of the penalty without calling for objection of the enquiry report from the workman
is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. At any rate the punishment imposed is highly
excessive and disproportionate.
5.
The management denied all the allegations in their written statement. According to the management, the claim
of the workman is not maintainable as the same is directly filed before the tribunal. According to the
management the workman was deputed to Kattappana branch as Head cashier from 18.08.2008. He was
attending the receipts and payments of cash apart from keeping physical cash inside the cash safe at the end
of the day duly tallying with books of accounts and take out physical cash at the commencement of business
hours everyday. On 16.10.2008 closing balance of cash was Rs.18,85,502.41 in different denominations. As
per procedure the Accountant verified the cash balance of 16.10.2008 in the presence of the workman and
Shri.SivarajanKunju, Daftray and confirmed that the physical cash balance tallied with the books and there are
no counterfeit notes of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 denominations. On 17.10.2008 the workman in the presence of
Sri.SivarajanKunju and Smt.Marykutty K, a Part Time Sweeper took out the entire cash (excluding
Rs.1,40,000 in denomination of Rs.10) stating that the unlabelled currency notes have to be affixed with
branch remittance slips and rubber band for remittance in currency chest at Vandanmedu. Thereafter the
workman handed over 13 sections of Rs.500 denomination notes and 3 sections of Rs.1000 denomination
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3843
notes to Sri.Sivarajankunju. Sri Sivarajankunju affixed slips on all sections of notes handed over to him and
kept the notes in the cash cabin. In the meanwhile, 2 cash cheques for Rs.7 lakhs were presented by
Sri.E.M.Baby and Smt.Lissamma . Without noticing that Sri.Sivarajankunju had already kept the money in
the cash cabin, the workman asked Sri.Sivarajankunju to bring backthe cash to the cash cabin. The workman
took 2 sections of Rs.1000 notes and 5 sections of Rs. 500 notes from it and along with other notes were
handed over to the account holders against the 2 instruments for Rs.7 lakhs presented by them. At around 11
am Sri.Sivarajankunju informed the Branch Manager that the workman noticed some counterfeit notes inside
the cash cabin. The workman having doubted the genuineness of 2 sections of Rs.500 notes ( Rs.1 lakh) that
have been paid to the Sri.E.M.Baby requested the same to be brought back to the bank for verification. The
workman brought 1 section of Rs.1000 denominations counterfeit notes ( Rs.1 lakh) which he said that he
found in the cash cabin. By the time representative of Mr.E.M.Baby met the Bank Manager and handed over
2 sections of 500 notes (Rs.1 lakh) earlier given to him from the bank. The Branch Manager found that the 2
sections of Rs.500 notes returned by the representative of E.M.Baby are counterfeit notes and were replaced
with original notes debiting the suspense account of the bank. It is very clear that the counterfeit notes would
not have come inside cash cabin without the knowledge of the workman. On filing criminal complaint , the
police registered a case and arrested both the workman and Sri.Sivarajankunju. The above acts of the workman
resulted in huge financial loss to the bank besides tarnishing the image of the bank. Hence a show cause notice
was issued to the workman. Since his explanation was not satisfactory, a charge sheet was issued to him
including therein a minor misconduct of not crediting the amount deposited by M/s.Chola Huts on the same
day. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry proceedings in a proper manner and in compliance in the
principles of natural justice. After due consideration and evaluation of evidence on record the enquiry officer
found both the above charges proved. The disciplinary authority found that the charges proved against the
workman are of grave nature and imposed a punishment of ‘dismissal from service of the bank with immediate
effect with out notice’ against the charge of gross misconduct and of ‘censure’ for minor misconduct. The
appeal filed against the said order of the disciplinary authority was also dismissed by the Appellate authority.
6.
The management examined the disciplinary authority as MW1 and marked the enquiry file as Exbt.M1, as the
enquiry officer in this case retired from the service of the bank and is reported to be no more.
7.
The validity of the enquiry report was considered as a preliminary issue and this court vide order dated
13.06.2016 held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is valid , just and proper.
8.
At this stage of final hearing the workman filed IA 162/2016 pleading to reopen evidence and mark three
documents in the proceedings. This is strongly objected to by the management on the ground that Section 11A
of Industrial disputes Act 1947, specifically restricts the Tribunal from relying on any other material other than
those that are on record. Hence the IA was dismissed.
9.
The issues to be decided are ;
1.
Whether the findings of the enquiry officer are proper , legal and based on legal evidence?
2.
Whether the punishment imposed on the workman is proportional to the proved misconduct?
3.
Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
10.
Issue No.1
This court vide its order dated 13.06.2016 found that the enquiry conducted against the workman by the
management is valid, just and proper and is in compliance the principles of natural justice. Hence what is left to
be decided is whether the finding of the enquiry officer is based on evidence and whether a reasonable man
will take the same decision on the available evidence or whether the same is perverse.
11.
There are two charges leveled against the workman. One is a gross misconduct and the other one being
minor misconduct.
12.
With regard to the first charge, the workman is deputed to the Kattappana branch as Head cashier and he was
responsible for receipt and payments of cash apart from keeping physical cash in side the cash cabin at the
end of the day tallying with books of accounts. On 16.10.2008 after close of office hours the workman tallied
the cash balance, the Accountant verified the cash balance 100 percent in the presence of Sri.Sivarajankunu
and an amount of Rs. 18,85,502.41 in different denomination were kept in the cash safe. On 17.10.2008 the
workman took out the whole money except Rs.1,40,000/- in denominations of Rs.10/-. The workman handed
over 13 sections of Rs.500 denomination notes and 3 sections of Rs.1000/- denomination notes to
Sri.Sivarajankunu for affixing branch slips and plastic bands. This work is done outside the cash cabin. Sri
Sivarajankunu after affixing branch slips kept the note bundles inside the cash cabin. In the meanwhile two cash
cheques for Rs.7 lakhs were presented by E.M.Baby, and Lissamma, customers of the bank. The workman
took 2 sections of Rs.1000 denomination notes and 5 sections of Rs.500 denomination notes from the cash
bundle returned by Sri.SivarajanKunju and gave to the customer along with other notes. Later the workman
noticed some fake notes in the Rs.1000 denomination section labeled and kept inside the cash cabin by
3844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sivarajankunu. The workman also doubted fake notes in 2 sections of Rs.500 denomination in the cash given to
Sri.E.M.Baby and Smt.Lissamma and called him over telephone to return the same. The representative
ofE.M.Baby returned 2 sections of Rs.500/- denomination notes and the same was replaced with original notes
by debiting suspense account of the bank. The workman also reported to the Bank Manager that 1 section of
Rs.1000/- was also fake. Hence a criminal case was file with the police and workman along with
Sri.Sivarajankunu were arrested by the police. It can be seen that there is no serious dispute regarding the
facts of the case between the workman and the management.
13.
With regard to the second charge , the management case is that they received a compliant against the workman
when he was working as Head Cashier in Nedumkandam branch from one Mr.Haridas of Hotel Chola Huts
that they remitted Rs.53,000 on 28.05.2008 and the same was credited to their account only on 29.05.2008.
The workman admitted the same explaining his action on the ground that it was a late receipt and as per
practice late remittance are accounted only on the next day. When the position was explained to the compliant
he withdrew his compliant.
14.
The counsel for management argued that having found the enquiry proper and legal and following the
principles of natural justice this court shall not venture to reappreciate the evidence which is within the
competence of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The counsel for the
management relied on the decisions of Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs Rattan Singh,
1977 AIR (SC) 1512 and B.C.ChathurvediVs Union of India, 1995 (SCC) 749 to argue that the powers of
reappreciateion of evidence in disciplinary cases by courts is very much restricted and the question is
whether there is some evidence or no evidence.
15.
The counsel for the workman on the other hand argued that in view of Section 11A of Industrial Disputes
Act 1947, this court has wider powers to reappreciate the evidence in an enquiry proceeding in appropriate
cases. He cited the case of Workman Vs Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company, 1973 (1 SCC) 813 to press
his point.
16.
It is settled law that the courts can examine in appropriate cases whether the findings of the enquiry officer is
based on some evidence or no evidence. The reappreciation of evidence by courts is restricted to the minimum
and is depended on the circumstances of each case. In this case the facts are not in dispute in general. There is
no dispute regarding the fact that workman was the Head Cashier in Kattappana branch of the management on
16.10.2008. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the cash was counted and verified and found to be in
order on 16.10.2008 after closing of business on that day. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the cash
balance was kept in cash safe in the presence of the workman and the Accountant of the bank. There is no
dispute regarding the fact that the workman took out the entire cash balance (except Rs.140000/-) on
17.10.2008. There is no dispute regarding the fact that 13 sections of Rs.500 denomination notes and 3 sections
of Rs.1000 denomination notes were given to Sri.Sivarajankunu for affixing bank slips. There is no dispute
regarding the fact that 1 section of Rs.1000 denomination notes in the cash cabin was found to be fake. There is
no dispute regarding the fact that 2 sections of Rs.500 denomination notes handed over to Sri. E.M.Baby, a
customer by the workman was found to be counterfeit. The only point of divergence is the point at which the
counterfeit currency entered the cash cabin. According to the workman the interpolation of fake currency
with the original currency of the bank happended at the hands of Sri. Sivarajankunu when 16 sections of notes
were taken out by him to affix bank slips. However there is no conclusive proof as to when, where and who
introduced the counterfeit currency in to the cash cabin. The management case is that after the cash is taken
out of the cash safe, it is the responsibility of the Head cashier and he cannot escape the liability for the
counterfeit currency in cash cabin saying that the mistake is done by somebody else.
17.
With regard to the second charge also the facts are fairly admitted the cash deposited by the representative of
M/s.HotelChola Hut on 28.05.2008 was accounted by the workman only on 29.05.2008 there by holding the
cash unaccounted for a day. The case of the workman is that being a late remittance the same was accounted
on the next date. The management rejected the claim of the workman since the cash deposited by M/s. Hotel
Chola Hut was not available neither in the books of accounts nor in the cash balance, of the Bank.
18
During the course of argument it was pointed out by the learned Counsel that the workman is acquitted by 3rd
Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Session case no.34/2013 vide its order dated 03.07.2013 in the crime
registered by the police in this case. According to the prosecution in that case, one Mr.Shajahan (accused No.3)
procured counterfeit currency and handed over to Sri.Sivarajankunu ( accused No.2) who in turn handed over
the same to the workman (accused No.1). The workman stole Rs.2 lakhs original currency from the bank and
replaced the same with fake currency received from Sri.Sivarajankunu. The Sessions Court found that the 3rd
accused is not arrested and there is no evidence that the fake currency is taken by the sri. Sivarajankunu from
the 3rd accused and is given to the workman. The original currency alleged to have stolen from the bank is not
retrieved by the police and there is no evidence for theft. Finally the Sessions Court found that the prosecution
failed to prove the guilt against the workman beyond doubt. Hence the accused are entitled for “benefit of
doubt”.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3845
19.
The learned counsel for the management pointed out that the disciplinary enquiry is initiated independed of the
criminal case and the workman is aquitted on benefit of doubt and is not an honourableaquittal. And hence the
decision in this proceedings shall not be influenced by the final outcome in the criminal case.
20.
It is well settled principle of law that the yardsticks and standards of proof in criminal cases are different
from that of disciplinary proceedings. While the standard of proof in criminal case is proof beyond
reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in a departmental proceedings is preponderance of probabilities. The
Honourable Supreme Court in B.C. ChathurvediVs Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 794 held that ;
Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor proof of fact or evidence as defined therein apply to
disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts the evidence and conclusion receives support there from
the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.
This legal position was reiterated by the Apex court in State ofHaryana vs Rattan Singh, 1977 AIR(SC)
1512 and State Bank of India Vs R.D. Punde , 2006 (6) SC 245.
21.
The Sessions Court in the criminal proceedings examined issues such as transfer of counterfeit notes from
accused no. 3 to 1, the theft of Rs.2 lakhs from the bank, the breach of trust , replacement of original notes
with fake notes and concluded that the workman is entitled for benefit of doubt. Whereas in the disciplinary
enquiry the questions considered by the enquiry officer are whether the workman is responsible for the
replacement of original notes with the counterfeit notes, whether there is any loss to the bank and whether there
is any loss of reputation to the management bank because of the action or inaction on the part of the workman.
The enquiry officer found that the workman is responsible on all counts and the same is accepted by the
disciplinary authority and the appellate Authority.
22.
The proceedings of enquiry shows that the workman detected counterfeit notes in 1 section of Rs.1000
denomination notes. It is further seen that the workman immediately contacted Mr.E.M.Baby and informed
him that 2 sections of Rs.500 denomination notes might be fake and asked them to be returned. A natural
question that may seek clarification is that when the workman noticed the fake currency in 1 section of
Rs.1000 denomination notes, why he suspected fake currency in Rs.500 denomination notes in 2 bundles
issued to Mr.E.M.Baby, unless he is aware of the counterfeit currency in the cash cabin. The evidence on
record completely support the finding of the enquiry officer on the financial loss to the management and
tarnishing the image of the bank.
Considering all the above facts, I hold that the findings of the enquiry officer are supported by adequate
evidence. Hence issue no.1 is answered in favour of the management and against the workman.
23.
Issue No.2.
The charges alleged and proved against the workman are of vary serious nature. The workman was Head
Cashier in the management bank and is responsible for all cash transactions in the branch. If such an
employee is responsible for interpolating counterfeit currency using the banking system which he is part of,
it will lead to disastrous consequences not only to the finance of the management bank but the finance of the
nation as well. As per law declared by Honorable Supreme Court in Union Bank of India Vs Viswamohan,
(1998) 4 SCC 310, in banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty need to be preserved
by every bank employee and if it is not observed, the confidence of the public would be impaired. In Chairman
and the Managing Director United commercial banks and other Vs P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 the
Appex Court reiterated the above principles and held that a bank employee is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity, he being a person dealing with the money of the public. Further in
Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs Hotilal, (2003) 3SCC 605, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that if
the charged employee holds a position of trust where the honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of
functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently and the misconduct in such cases has to
be dealt with iron hands. The learned counsel for the management further supported the above propositions
with the following decisions of the Apex court and High Court of Kerala.
1.
State bank of India Vs R.D. Punde (Supra)
2. GvindanVs State Bank of Travancore, ILR (2016) 4 Kerala 345
24.
Having explained the factual and legal position as above, I hold that the punishment imposed on the
workman is proportional to the proved misconduct. Hence the issue is answered in favour of the management
and against the workman
25.
Issue No.3
In view of the findings in the issues no.1 and 2 above , the workman is not entitled to any relief. In the result
an award is passed finding that the action of the management bank in imposing the penalty of dismissal from
service of the bank with immediate effect without notice for the gross misconduct and censure for the minor
misconduct is fully justified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
3846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Assistant , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and passed by me on this the 9th day of
May 2019.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the worman
-
Nil
Witness for the Management
-
MW 1 23/02/2016 Sri.M.Prabhakar
Exhibits for the union
-
Nil
Exhibits for the Management
-
M1 Enquiry file
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2019
dk- vk- 910-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
us”kuy cSad vkQ ,xzhdYpj ,.M :jy fMoyeSaV ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;ky;] egkjk’V~z] iq.ks ds iapkV (20@2017) izdkf”kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27.05. 2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y 12012/23/2017-vkbZ vkj (ch-II) ]
lhek caly, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2019
S.O. 910.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 20/2017 of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of National Bank of Agriculture & Rural Development
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2019.
[No. L-12012/23/2017-IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE
Reference (IT) No.20 of 2017
CNR. No. MHIC12-001680-2015
1. National Bank of Agriculture & Rural Development, Boat Club Road, Salisbury Park,Pune-1.
2. M/s. Shubham Biz Facility Management (P) Ltd., 301 & 303, Laxmi Complex,
3rd Floor, MumbaiPune Rd., Chinchwad,Pune9
…First Party
And
Smt. Rajjama Raji Chinna,
Sant Gadge Maharaj Vasti Galli,
No.3, Nr Navnit Laundry, South Main Rd.,
Koregaon Park, Pune.
…Second Party
CORAM : M.R. Kumbhar, Presiding Officer.
Appearances : Both parties absent.
AWARD
(Dated : 16.03.2019)
This is a reference made by Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The demand is for
reinstatement of the services of Smt. Rajjama Raji Chinna who was allegedly working with NABARD Regional
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3847
office Pune. The reference is, as to whether the said demand of reinstatement with full back wages is legal or
justified, and if yes, to what relief the said workman is entitled to and from which date. The reference order makes it
clear that the demand is made in personal capacity by Smt. Chinna.
After receiving the said reference order, notices were issued to both parties vide Exh.O-2, O-3, O-4 & O-5
though served but remained absent.
Since long the case is adjourned for filing the statement of claim, in absence of statement of claim the
reference was posted for award since 15/12/2018. Inspite of this since long neither first party or second party workman,
nor their Advocate filed application for adjournment, nor filed any statement of claim. It appears that second party has
lost interest to proceed with the reference. In view of this in absence of statement of claim reference cannot be
adjudicated. Hence I have no alternative, but to proceed further and hold that the second party is not interested and
therefore the reference should be answered in negative. With this I proceed to pass following award.
AWARD
1. The reference is answered in negative.
2. No order as to costs.
3. The copies of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action.
M.R. KUMBHAR, Presiding Officer
Dated :16.03.2019
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2019
dk- vk- 911-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUV~zy cSad
vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks 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;] vgenkckn ¼xqtjkr½ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66@2004) izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-05-2019
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la0 ,y 12012/336/1997---vkbZ vkj (ch-II) ]
lhek caly, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2019
S.O. 911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the
Award (Ref. 66/2004) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, AHMEDABAD(GUJARAT) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2019
[No. L-12012/336/1997 - IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, 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 24th April, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No- 66/2004
The Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Dehmai Branch, Tal Byad,
Sabarkantha (Gujarat)
…First Party
3848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Girishbhai Gababhai Solanki,
C/o All Gujarat General Workers and Employees Union,
Mazoomnagar Society, Opp. Octroi Point,
Meghraj Road, Modasa,
Sabarkantha (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri P.S. Chari
For the Second Party
: Shri G.K. Parmar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/336/97–
IR(B-II) dated 26.02.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether Shri Girishbhai Gababhai Solanki resident of Dehmai, Dist. Sabarkantha was in employment as part time
sweeper at Central Bank of India, Dehmai Branch and if so, whether the action of the management of Central Bank
of India is justified in discontinuing the services of Shri Girishbhai Gababhai Solanki w.e.f. 08.06.1967? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?”
1. The reference dates back to 26.02.1998 and received on 04.03.1998 from Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex.
3 on 30.04.1998 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 on 24.04.2000.
3. The second party workman has submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 alleging that he had been sweeper with
the first party The Manager, Central Bank of India, Dehmai Branch, Tal Byad, Sabarkantha, hereinafter
referred to as ‘first party’ since last 20 years with a wages at the rate of Rs.20/- per month and had worked
honestly and diligently. He requested for the enhancement of wages but to no result. He also approached the
first party through All Gujarat General Workers and Employees Union, Modasa, hereinafter referred to as
‘union’ on 25.05.1996 for regularisation on the post of part time sweeper that too no result and subsequently,
under a revenge, his services were terminated orally on 08.06.1996. Therefore, he prayed for reinstatement on
his original post as sweeper w.e.f. 08.06.1996.
4. The first party vide written statement Ex. 12 partly admitted the fact that the workman was a part time sweeper
and as per the rules, his regularisation for service was not possible to be made because there was no master and
servant relationship with the party. Thus the reference has no force and liable to be dismissed.
5. The advocate for the first party submitted a letter Ex. 25 along with death certificate of the workman stating
that the workman had died on 17.06.2013.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i. Whether Shri Girishbhai Gababhai Solanki resident of Dehmai, Dist. Sabarkantha was in
employment as part time sweeper at Central Bank of India, Dehmai Branch and if so,
whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India is justified in discontinuing
the services of Shri Girishbhai Gababhai Solanki w.e.f. 08.06.1967?
ii. To what relief, if any, the workman is 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 workman who had examined vide Ex. 13 reiterating the averments made
in the statement of claim and had not said anything contrary to his examination-in-chief.
8. The first party examined one Mahendrabhai, the Branch Manager of the Bank vide Ex. 22 who stated on oath
that the workman was a part time sweeper on a fixed wages of Rs.20/- per month. He never worked for 240
days in any calendar year but he was not cross-examined on the date of examination-in-chief. Thereafter the
first party witness appeared on 18.12.2013 and 17.01.2014 but the second party avoided cross-examining him
seeking adjournment. As per the record that is death certificate, the workman died on 17.06.2013 and since
then the legal heirs of the deceased workman did not prefer to be substituted as legal heirs of the deceased
workman.
9. The workman in his statement on oath has admitted that he was a sweeper on fixed wages of Rs.20/- per month
since last 20 years but has not proved that he ever worked for 240 days in any calendar year. Moreover, he has
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3849
expired and his legal heirs have not preferred to be substituted as legal heir, therefore, no relief can be granted
and the matter is already abate.
10. Thus the reference is finally disposed of with the observation as given above.
11. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 ebZ] 2019
dk- vk- 912-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad
vkQ cMkSnk ds izca/kr= 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;] vgenkckn ¼xqtjkr½ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 64@2010) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-05-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@14@2009-vkbZ vkj (ch-II) ]
lhek caly, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2019
S.O. 912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
AHMEDABAD (GUJARAT) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of
Baroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 27/05/2019
[No. L-12012/14/2009 - IR(B-II)]
SEEMA BANSAL, 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 02nd May, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 64/2010
The Assistant General Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office,
Suraj Plaza – III, 5th Floor, Sayajiganj,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390005
…First Party
V/s
Shri Bhaskar M. Joshi,
28/2, Pareshnagar,
Shriji Krupa, Near Gajrawadi Bus Stand,
Opposite Municipal Ward Office,
Vadodara (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
: Shri M.S. Mansuri
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/14/2009–
IR(B-II) dated 18.06.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
3850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda through Assistant General Manager in terminating the
services of Shri Bhaskar M. Joshi vide order dated 09.12.2006 by way of imposing punishment of ‘dismissal from
Bank’s service without notice’ is legal, proper and just? What relief the concerned workman Shri Bhaskar M. Joshi
is entitled to?”
1. The reference dates back to 18.06.2009 and received on 30.06.2009 from Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on
10.08.2009 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 15 on 11.01.2018.
3. The second party union in his statement of claim has alleged that he joined the first party Bank of Baroda in
the year 1980 as a Clerk. His service tenure was spotless but he and his wife were falsely implicated by Bank
of Baroda Housing Finance in some loan case wherein a charge-sheet was served on them on 24.06.2005 to
victimize them and the Bank of Baroda got them arrested. They were released on bail by the High Court. The
Bank of Baroda put him under suspension on 07.03.2003. He was also subjected to departmental enquiry in the
said mala-fide charges wherein he was not given reasonable opportunity in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. The evidence given on record was also not considered. The Bank of Baroda served him a show-
cause notice dated 14.05.2004 proposing the penalty of dismissal. He submitted the reply to the show-cause
notice on 10.06.2004 but the disciplinary authority without considering his explanation communicated him the
order of dismissal on 09.12.2006. He also preferred an appeal against the said order of dismissal within the
prescribed limit but his appeal was dismissed without considering the merits of the case.
4. The union to which he belongs raised a dispute. The bank did not pay him gratuity and provident fund. Thus
the second party workman has prayed for declaring the order of dismissal as illegal for want of opportunity of
proper hearing and also prayed for reinstatement with back wages and all consequential benefits along with Rs.
15000/- as cost of reference.
5. The first party Bank of Baroda, hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’ has submitted the written statement Ex. 15
stating that all the averments made in the statement of claim are not true. The reference is barred on the ground
of delay and latches. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference as the workman has no existing
right to raise the reference against the first party Bank. He is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The workman has not admitted that he has been unemployed during the intervening
period. It is not true that the workman has ever worked with the Bank with due care and faithfulness as a
permanent clerk. It is wrong to say that he was falsely impleaded in a loan case granted by Bank of Baroda
Housing Corporation. It is also wrong to say that loan amount was recovered from the workman by
confiscating the workman’s property. The workman made a direct role in grant of and obtaining loans
individually, therefore, he was put under suspension on 07.03.2003 and was dismissed on 24.06.2005 after
serving a charge-sheet on him and conducting a disciplinary enquiry. The charge-sheet served on him have
following allegations:
i. You have engaged in trade or business outside the purview of your duties without bank’s
written permission.
ii. You have wilfully done damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or
any its customers.
iii. You have done all acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank.
iv. You have aided and abetted/instigated innocent general public to raise funds in your own
benefit.
v. You have knowingly made false statements/certificates.
vi. Attempt to collect or collecting money without permission of the bank.
vii. Incurring debts to an extant considered by the management an excessive.
Thus the first party has alleged that the reference has no force and liable to be rejected.
6. The second party workman has also moved an application Ex. 5 alleging that his termination order was passed
in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3851
7. The second party workman as well as his advocate has not been appearing since last several dates, therefore,
the application Ex. 5 was ordered to be disposed of at the time of final argument and the case was listed for
evidence on 02.05.2019. Today on 02.05.2019, again the second party workman as well as his advocate has
been absent. Thus it appears that the second party workman as well as his advocate is not willing to prosecute
the case.
8. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of evidence of the second party workman with the
observation as under: “the action of the management of Bank of Baroda through Assistant General Manager in
terminating the services of Shri Bhaskar M. Joshi vide order dated 09.12.2006 by way of imposing punishment
of ‘dismissal from Bank’s service without notice’ is legal, proper and just.”
9. The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2019
dk- vk- 913-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 680@2004) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-
05- 2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la0 ,y 41012@177@99---vkbZ vkj (ch--I) ]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2019
S.O. 913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 680/2004) 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 28/05/2019
[No. L-41012/177/99 - IR(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 02nd May, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No. 680/2004
1. The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Head Quarter Building, Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400001
2. The Assistant Mechanical Engineer (II),
Western Railway,
Loco Shed Vatva,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
3. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer (I),
Western Railway,
Loco Shed Vatva,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001
…First Parties
3852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Laxmiben Kantibhai Mohania,
Legal heir and widow of Late Kanti Soma,
C/o Shri J.K. Ved,
General Workmen’s Union,
Sinduri Mata Devasthan, S.T. Nagar Road,
Godhra (Gujarat) – 389001
…Second Party
For the First Parties
: Shri N.J. Acharya
For the Second Party
: Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/177/99–
IR(B-I) dated 09.11.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway through the General Manager, Mumbai and
other officers in terminating the services of Mr. Kanti Soma by way of ‘removal from the service w.e.f.
17.12.1996 is legal, proper and justified?”
And
“Whether the penalty/punishment of ‘removal from service’ is proportionate to the gravity of offence? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman Mr. Kanti Soma is entitled to and what directions are necessary
in the matter?”
1.The reference dates back to 09.11.1999 and received on 03.12.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.After issuing notice to the parties, the second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 21.01.2000
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 26.08.2000.
3.The second party workman Kanti Soma in his statement of claim Ex. 3 has alleged that he had worked for 10
years continuously and interruptedly after getting appointment on compassionate ground in the event of death of
his father. Her widow Mother has also been staying with him. The first party The General Manager, Western
Railway, Head Quarter Building, Churchgate, Mumbai, The Assistant Mechanical Engineer (II), Western Railway,
Loco Shed Vatva, Ahmedabad and The Divisional Mechanical Engineer (I), Western Railway, Loco Shed Vatva,
Ahmedabad, hereinafter referred to as ‘western railway’ served him a charge-sheet on 20.03.1995 for absence from
duty for the period from 22.12.1994 to 05.03.1995. He has further alleged that he has been a permanent employee
of western railway and was entitled for casual leave and earned leave as per the statutory provisions. He could not
informed the western railway about the sickness due to adverse conditions but the western railway conducted the
departmental enquiry ex-parte against him and terminated his service illegally. He moved an appeal as well as the
review against the order of dismissal but both were rejected violating the provisions of D.R. Rules 1968. He was
not given any opportunity of defence. Enquiry was held violating the provisions of principles of natural justice. The
punishment was unjust and harsh for such a trivial conduct of absence due to long illness. The said termination of
service was an economic death of his family. Thus he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages and
consequential benefits.
4.The first party western railway in his written statement Ex. 9 submitted that the reference is bad, illegal and
untenable. This workman never worked for 10 years though he was given a compassionate appointment under
dying in harness rules. The termination of service was done after conducting a departmental enquiry as history was
in the nature of habitual absentee from duty. The details of absence from duty are as under:
Year
No. of days
1985
125
1986
365
1987
152 and 124
1990
111 and 32
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3853
1991
42 and 29
1992
28 and 17
1993
30 and 115
1994
17
1995
168 and 93
1996
97 and 131
Therefore, his order of termination was legal and as per rules. There was no violation of any principles of
natural justice in the enquiry. As he did not appear in the departmental enquiry, therefore, the enquiry was
conducted ex-parte. As regards appeal and review, his history was considered. Therefore, there was no
illegality in the appeal as well as review and the reference is liable to be rejected.
5. It is unfortunate that the workman died on 04.11.2010; therefore, the widow of the deceased workman named
Laxmiben Kantibhai Mohaniya moved an application Ex. 19 for substitution as legal heirs of the deceased
workman with a proof of death certificate Ex. 20/2 and election ID Ex. 20/1 which was allowed by the Tribunal
and the legal heirs widow of the deceased workman named Laxmiben Kantibhai Mohania substituted as legal heirs
in the statement of claim as well as reference.
6.On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i.
Whether the action of the management of Western Railway through the General Manager,
Mumbai and other officers in terminating the services of Mr. Kanti Soma by way of
‘removal from the service w.e.f. 17.12.1996 is legal, proper and justified?”
ii.
Whether the penalty/punishment of ‘removal from service’ is proportionate to the gravity of
offence?
iii.
To what relief, if any, the widow of the deceased workman is entitled?
7. Issue No. i, ii and iii: As all the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of
these issues lies on the widow named Laxmiben Kantibhai Mohania of the second party workman who
submitted her affidavit Ex. 21 on 13.03.2012 wherein she has reiterated the averments made in the statement
of claim. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her husband has been working in the diesel shed of
western railway and died on 04.11.2010. He was discharged from service for the charges of long absence from
duty but she is not aware of the whole details of departmental proceedings as appears from her cross-
examination.
8. The first party western railway did not prefer to lead any evidence but the second party witness failed to prove
that her husband was discharged from duty violating the procedure of law.
9. The widow of the workman moved an application dated 27.04.2017 under Section 11 (a) of the Industrial
Disputes Act alleging that the first party be asked to submit the copies of departmental proceedings, original
medical certificates and service book of the deceased workman insisting that the misconduct of her husband
was of a trivial nature and the punishment awarded was harsh and excessive and as her husband served for 10
years, therefore, the applicant widow is entitled for family pension as per the provisions of Rule 75 of the
Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993.
10. I would like to reproduce the provisions of the Rule 65 and 75 (2 a) of the Railway Service Pension Rules,
1993 as under:
“65. Compassionate allowance -
(1) A railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity.
Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving
of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or
gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. “
“75 (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Sub-rule (3), where a railway servant dies:
3854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(a) After completion of one year of continuous service.
11. I perused the punishment order which reveals that the deceased workman was removed from immediate effect
but the order was silent regarding the pension and gratuity, therefore, in the light of the Rules 65 (1) and 75
(2a) of Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 considering the illiteracy and sickness of the deceased workman,
the Railway ought to have ordered two-third pension to the workman. But now the workman has died and his
widow is in financial distress, therefore, it would be appropriate that the railway authority ought to have
granted family pension to the widow of the deceased workman. All the issues are decided accordingly.
12. The widow named Laxmiben Kantibhai Mohania of the deceased workman named Kanti Soma shall apply for
the family pension to the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority shall considered it favourably
within 30 days from moving of application by the widow of the deceased workman.
13. The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2019
dk- vk- 914-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
भारतीय टेट बक izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 89@2011½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
28@05@2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y- 12012@93@2011- vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
ch-,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2019
S.O. 914.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.89/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad 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 28/05/2019.
[ No. L-12012/93/2011– IR(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 02nd May, 2019
Reference: (CGITA) No- 89/2011
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Mangal Bhawan, Diwanpura Road,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Smt. Shobhnaben Hasmukhbhai Bhavsar,
Diwanpura Road, Near State Bank of India, Bhanovado,
Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri S.N. Mishra
For the Second Party
: Shri M.H. Sanghariyat
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/93/2011–IR(B-
I) dated 02.12.2011 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:
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3855
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management State Bank of India, Bhavnagar in terminating the services of Smt.
Shobhnaben Hasmukhbhai Bhavsar w.e.f. 07.05.2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the workwoman is
entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 02.12.2011 and received on 19.12.2011 from Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.
2.
After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 29.10.2013 and
the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 16.2.2013. Thereafter, the second party workwoman
submitted her affidavit Ex. 11 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim. The case was listed for
argument.
3.
On 02.05.2019, the second party workwoman moved an application Ex. 12 for taking the matter today on
board which is allowed.
4.
Today on 02.05.2019, the second party workwoman Smt. Shobhnaben H. Bhavsar and the first party State
Bank of India submitted the settlement Ex. 13 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime
payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workwoman Smt. Shobhnaben H.
Bhavsar vide Bankers Cheque No. 396167 dated 24.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) in the favour of Shri M.H. Sanghariyat, advocate of second party workwoman vide Bankers
Cheque No. 396166 dated 24.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex.
13 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement.
Therefore, the settlement Ex. 13 is accepted by the Tribunal.
5.
Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 13. The settlement Ex. 13 shall remain the
part of the award.
6.
The award is passed accordingly.
P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2019
dk- vk- 915-— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
QsMjy cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,ukZdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 28@05@2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@53@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
ch-,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2019
S.O. 915.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.13/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Earnakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Federal Bank Limited and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28/05/2019.
[ No. L-12012/53/2010– IR(B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer.
(Thursday the 2nd day of May, 2019)
ID No 13 of 2011
Workman
:
Shri. S. Vinod,
Revathy, Polachira.P.O.,
3856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Paravoor, Kerala
District: Kollam (Kerala)
By M/s H.B. Shenoy Associates.
Management
:
The Chairman,
Federal Bank Limited,
Regd. Office, Federal Towers,`
Post Bag.No.103, Kerala,
Aluva – 683101.
By M/s B.S. Krishnan Associates.
This case coming up for final hearing on 07.03.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 02.05.2019
passed the following:
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and 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-12012/53/2010-IR(B-I) dated 23.05.2011 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
1.
The dispute is:
“Whether the action of the Management of Federal Bank Limited in imposing the
penalty of dismissal from service on Sri. S Vinod, Ex-Bankman vide their order
dated 10/09/2009 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
2.
After entering appearance the workman filed his claim statement. It is alleged that while he was employed as
Bankman at Paravor branch, he was placed under suspension pending prosecution – initiation of disciplinary
action with effect from 24/05/2008. He was suspended because of his alleged involvement in Crime No.
105/2007 registered by the Police. He was remanded by the Magistrate court for 15 days in connection with a
case relating to fraudulent withdrawal of Rupees 19,500/- from SB A/c No. 197 of Sri. Bhaskaran on
25/01/2007 and 27/01/2007 using an ATM card which was not delivered to the customer. Later a charge
memo dated 22/11/2008 was issued to him on the same allegations on which he was suspended. An Inquiry
Officer was appointed without calling for the explanation of the workman. The Inquiry Officer submitted his
report on 27/07/2009 and a copy of the same was sent to the workman to offer his comments on the findings of
the Inquiry Officer. Though the workman sought time the management refused the same and issued the
preliminary order dated 27/08/2009 finding the workman guilty of the alleged charges and proposing a
punishment of dismissal from service without notice. The workman was afforded a personal hearing. However
one weeks’ time sought by him was refused and final order dated 10/09/2009 was passed imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service without notice and treating the period of suspension from 24/05/2008
as out of duty without eligibility for salary or any other benefits other than the subsistence allowance. The
appeal preferred by the workman was also rejected confirming the punishment. The punishment imposed on
the workman is irregular, illegal, unjust and unreasonable. The workman alleged that the punishment imposed
is vitiated by bias and is in violation of clause 4 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10/04/2002 especially when
criminal proceedings are pending. The workman further alleged that the allegations in the Charge memo are
vague and the inquiry is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Non-examination of the
complainant, absence of expert opinion on hand writing, non-comparison of signature in Exibit ME 6 with the
admitted signatures of the account holder etc. has led to wrong conclusion of guilt of the workman. The
finding of guilt is perverse and punishment is irregular and illegal. Further the impugned punishment imposed
on the workman is disproportionate, harsh and excessive in the circumstances of the case.
3.
The management filed their written statement denying all the allegations of the workman. According to the
management, when the workman was working in their Paravur Branch, they received a complaint dated
12/02/2007 from one R. Bhaskaran, one of their customers. As per the bank statement dated 02/01/2007 he
had a balance of Rs.19,506/- on 16/12/2006 in his SB account No.197 maintained with the bank. He visited
the bank on 30/01/2007 and remitted Rs.1,000/- and got his passbook updated. He noticed 2 debit entries of
Rs.12,000/- on 25/01/2007 and Rs. 7,500/- on 27/01/2007. He never withdrew any money using ATM card as
he was not issued with the same. As per records the customer was issued a Visa Silver card on 19/12/2006.
The account was again registered for Fed Card on 26/12/2006 and same was issued on 17/01/2007. The
investigation conducted by the Vigilance Department of the Bank revealed that the first withdrawal of
Rs.12,000/- was made from ATM attached to Umayanallur Branch on 25/01/2007 and the second
withdrawal of Rs.7,500/- from the ATM attached to Quilon branch on 27/01/2007 using ATM card. The
account of the customer was dormant from December 2005. An amount of Rs.300/- was deposited into the
account on 16/12/2006. Sri. Bhaskaran did not remit Rs.300/- on 16/12/2006 and the signature in the
remittance voucher has no similarity with the specimen signature of the customer. On verification of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3857
handwriting on the voucher it is revealed that the handwriting is similar to that of the workman. Hence a
complaint was lodged with Paravur police station. As per the forensic report the handwriting on the deposit
voucher tallied with that of the workman. The workman was arrested on 19/05/2008 and remanded 15
days of judicial custody. As per the Vigilance investigation of the management bank and the police, the
workman deposited Rs.300/- into the account of Mr. Bhaskaran on 16/1/202006 to make the account active
and withdrew Rs.19,500/- using ATM card that he got issued using fraudulent means. Hence disciplinary
proceedings was initiated against the workman for acts of misconduct of “doing any act prejudicial to the
interest of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank serious losses” as
per bi-patriate settlement dated 10/04/2002. An inquiry was conducted as per rules complying with the
principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the workman. A copy of
the report was given to the workman. He did not respond in time. Hence the proposed punishment of
dismissal without notice was communicated to him on 27/08/2009 also requesting him to attend a personal
hearing on 07/09/2009. Even though he attended the hearing, he failed to plead his case on the ground that his
advocate is not well. The Disciplinary authority after verification and analysis of the records of inquiry and
report came to the conclusion that the charges against the workman is conclusively proved and vide order
dated 10/09/2009 imposed a punishment of dismissal without notice. The appellate authority also rejected the
appeal vide order dated 22/12/2009. According to the management the punishment imposed on the workman
is legal, valid and in proportion to the gravity of the misconduct proved in the inquiry. Bank is an institution
dealing with public money and it survives only due to the trust and confidence which the public reposes on it.
An employee who is proved to have indulged in activities which may shatter the confidence of the public have
no right to continue in the rolls of the bank. The punishment imposed on the workman is legal and valid and
the workman is not entitled for any relief claimed in the statement. If for any reason this court finds that the
domestic inquiry is vitiated in any manner the management sought to adduce fresh evidence to prove the
charges against the workman.
4.
The workman filed replication denying all the allegations in the written statement filed by the management.
5.
On completion of the pleadings, the issue is whether the Disciplinary inquiry was conducted in a just and
proper manner following the principles of natural justice was taken up as a preliminary issue.
6.
The Inquiry Officer was examined as MW 1 and the Inquiry file is marked as Exbt. M 1.
7.
After elaborate hearing this court vide order dated 28th February 2017 answered the preliminary issue in favour
of the management and against the workman holding that the inquiry conducted by the management is just,
proper and following the principles of natural justice.
8.
Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer is perverse and is not
based on any evidence. He also submitted that the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the
charges found to be proved. There is a need to reappraise and re-evaluate the evidence before the Inquiry
Officer at least for this limited purpose.
9.
The learned counsel for the management summited that the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some
evidence and the rules of absolute evidence is not applicable to domestic inquiries. It is further submitted that
the punishment imposed on the workman is just, legal and proportionate to the gravity of proved misconduct in
the inquiry. The Counsel also pointed out that the workman is a bank employee handling public money and
absolute integrity and honesty is expected from him.
10.
The issues for determination are
i.
Whether the findings by the Inquiry Officer are based on evidence and whether the same cause for
any interference?
ii. Whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is justified, legal and proportionate to
the gravity of proved misconduct?
iii. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
Issue number 1
11.
Strenuous arguments were made by both the counsels on the question of re-appreciation of evidence in a
domestic inquiry by this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the workman cited the decision of the Apex Court in Roop
Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank, 2009 KHC 4143. The facts of this case are similar to that of the present case.
In that case some fraudulent demand draft payments were made by the bank and the custodian of the draft books were
held responsible. Later, one peon of the bank is charge sheeted for stealing the draft books on the basis of the
confession he made before the police. In the inquiry the Inquiry Officer inferred on the basis of the police report that
the workman had connection with the other accused who used those bank drafts. After examining various decisions of
the Apex court on the subject the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that “the learned Attorney General has stressed
before us that in dealing with this question we ought to bear in mind the fact that the appellant is acting with
determination to root out corruption, and so, if it is shown that the view taken by the appellant is a reasonable possible
view, this court should not sit in appeal over that decision and seek to decide whether this court would have taken the
same view or not. This contention is no doubt absolutely sound. The only test that we can legitimately apply in dealing
3858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
with this part of respondents case is, is there any evidence on which a finding can be made against the respondent that
charge number 3 was proved against him? In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea the High Court
cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is
a matter which is within the competence of the authority which dealt with the question. But the High Court can and
must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole
of the evidence led in the inquiry is accepted as true does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved
against the respondent. This approach will avoid weighing of the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands only
examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test we are inclined to
hold that the respondents’ grievance is well founded because, in our opinion, the finding which is implicit in the
appellants order dismissing the order that charge No. 3 is proved against him is based on no evidence”.
Indisputably this court will have to bear in mind the distinction between some evidence and no evidence and
whether that some evidence will lead to the conclusion of guilt of the workman.
12.
It is by the counsel for the workman that in view of Section 11 A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 this further
argued court has wider powers to re-appreciate the evidence before the Inquiry Officer and arrive at a different
finding in appropriate cases. He cited the following cases in support of his proposition.
i.
Workman of Balmadies Estate Vs Management, 2008 KHC 4111.
ii. The Workman Vs Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company, 1973 (1) SCC 813.
iii. IOB Vs IOB Canteen Staff Workers Union, 2000 (4) SCC 245.
13.
The learned Counsel for the management cited various authorities to drive home the fact that the powers for
re-appreciation of evidence in a disciplinary case by the Court is very much restricted. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana Vs Rattan Singh, 1977 AIR (SC) 1512 held that the test is there is some
evidence or no evidence. However the court further clarified that “absence of evidence in support of a finding
is certainly available to the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the face of the
record”. The learned counsel for the Management also cited the following decisions to substantiate his case
that re-appreciation of evidence by this court need be restricted to the minimum.
i.
B C Chathurvedy Vs Union of India 1995 (6) SC 749
ii. CMD, United commercial bank Vs P C Kakkar, 2003 AIR (SC) 1571.
iii.
Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Vs M Mani and others, CDJ 2017 (SC) 1245
14.
The judicial dicta laid down by the courts in the above decisions can be summed up as follows:-
a.
The Tribunals and Courts shall refrain from re-appreciating the evidence adduced in an Inquiry proceeding in
general, where in the inquiry is conducted in a just and fair manner following the principle of natural justice.
b. The Tribunal and Courts are justified in interfering with the findings of the Inquiry Officer if the same is based
on no evidence or the findings are perverse that no reasonable man will arrive at such conclusion on the
available evidence.
c.
The Tribunal and courts can interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority if the penalty imposed is
shockingly is disproportionate.
d. In cases where Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act is applicable, the Tribunal will have wider jurisdiction
to looking into the finding of the Inquiry Officer and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
15. Having examined the legal position, let us now consider the facts of the case. As per the charge memo number
AW : DE: 10: 2008 dated 22nd November 2008 issued to the workman, one Sri R Bhaskaran holder of SB A/c
197 in Paravur branch of the Management filed a complaint dated 12/02/2007stating that when he came to the
bank to receive ATM card on 30/01/2007 he deposited Rs.1,000/- in his account and when he got his pass
book updated, he found two debit entries of Rs.12,000/- on 25/01/2007 and Rs.7,500/- on 27/01/2007. He
neither received an ATM card nor withdrew money using the same. On investigation, the management found
that the withdrawal was made using Fed Card no. 5044811420100002672 which was issued on 17/01/2007.
The SB A/c No.197 of Sri. R Bhaskaran remained dormant since December 2005.
Hence operation of the account was not possible even using ATM card. An amount of Rs.300/- was deposited
into the account on 16/12/2006. The signature in the remittance slip does not tally with that of Sri.R
Bhaskaran. The handwriting in the remittance slip was tallied with that of the workman in many official
documents. TA bills of Sri. Dileep Kumar who was a temporary bank man was also compared and Sri. Dileep
Kumar stated that his TA bills were written by the workman. The workman denied having written the bills
of Dileep Kumar. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Bank Manager, Praravur police registered crime
No. 105 of 2007. During the investigation the police sent the handwriting samples along with Vouchers dated
16/12/2006 for forensic verification and they confirmed the handwriting on the remittance slip as that of the
workman. The police arrested the workman and during interrogation he admitted to have committed the
crime.
16. According to the learned counsel for the workman there is no evidence to prove any of the above charges. It
has come out in evidence that MW 4 and MW 5 were the joint custodians of the ATM card. It has also come
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3859
out in evidence that MW 2 and MW 4 were the joint custodians of PIN mailers. Management has no case that
the ATM Card and PIN mailers in the name of Sri. R Bhaskaran were stolen by the workman. There is no
proof that the ATM card and the PIN mailers were stolen by the workman. There is no proof that the money is
withdrawn from the ATMs by the workman. There is no proof as to who deposited Rs.300/- in the cash
counter of the bank on 16/12/2006. The Cashier in the Cash counter on 16/12/2006 could have identified the
person who deposited the money. Particularly so, if the same is deposited by the Workman. It is Sri. Philip C
G (MW 4) who activated the account of Sri. R Bhaskaran. The only allegation against the workman is the
handwriting in the remittance slip dated 16/12/2006 (ME 6) bears some similarity with the handwriting of the
workman. No forensic lab analysis report is produced in the inquiry. There is a police report dated
29/05/2008 of Sub Inspector of Police, Paravur (ME 28) wherein it is stated that the document expert opined
that the person who wrote the forged document was similar with the standard and sample writings collected
from the workman. It was also reported that the workman confessed to the crime. The contends of ME 28 is
neither proved nor the Forensic lab report produced in the inquiry. In view of the above the counsel for the
workman argued that this is a case of no evidence.
17. The counsel for the management took the Court through the details of evidence brought before the Inquiry
Officer to justify its finding and the decision of the management in dismissing the workman from the
service of the management bank. For fear of crossing the limits set by the decisions of the Apex court
discussed above I am not inclined to go into the details of evidence as pointed out by the counsel. However as
has been decided in Roop Singh Negi (Supra), I will confine the examination to the generality of evidence
available before this court. The thrust of the argument of the counsel for the management is that the person
who deposited Rs.300/- into SB A/c No.197on 16/12/2006 to activate the dormant account has acted in
malafide and is responsible for the fraud. The evidence before the Inquiry Officer such as the handwriting on
the remittance slip date 16/12/2006, the expert opinion from the Forensic lab, the police report dated
29/05/2008, the admission of the workman before the police having committed the crime and the evidence that
the workman is Computer literate will adequately support the case of the management in the charge memo
regarding the involvement of the workman in the crime. The learned counsel for the management also
submitted that strict standards of proof under Evidence Act is not applicable to enquiries in disciplinary cases.
He cited the following cases:
i.
State of Haryana Vs Rattan Singh, 1977 AIR (SC) 1512
ii.
State Bank of India Vs R D Punde, 2006 (6) (SC 245
iii.
JDJ Vs SBI, 1982 AIR (SC) 673
18. Having heard the counsels on either side let us examine whether finding of the Inquiry Officer is supported by
legal evidence. The Inquiry Officer has raised two issues for himself to be answered in the inquiry.
i.
Who has remitted Rs.300/- into the SB account No.197 of Sri. R Bhaskaran on 16/12/2006 and was
there any intention on the part of the remitter to activate the dormant status of SB account 197?
ii.
Who has physically received from the bank the ATM Fed Card bearing number
5044811420100002672 which was issued in the system on 17/01/2007 in SB account No. 197 of Sri.
R Bhaskaran ?.
19. Even assuming that the above questions are answered by the Inquiry Officer positively it is very difficult to
substantiate the charges in the charge memo against the workman. However let us examine whether the
answers to the above questions are supported by some evidence. The Inquiry Officer relied on the evidence of
MW 1 and ME 28 to conclude that the workman remitted Rs.300/- using ME 6 without the knowledge and
consent of the account holder when he observed “having examined the issue in the cross examination it is clear
that the deposition of MW 1 and ME 28 document clearly affirms the handwriting in ME 6 document as that of
CSE”. It is true that the handwriting in ME 6 was compared with the handwriting in some documents written
by the workman. However the main evidence on which the Inquiry Officer as well as MW 1 has relied on is
that of ME 28. ME 28 is taken as a forensic lab report. In fact ME 28 is a police report dated 29/05/2008
regarding the arrest of the workman in this case. In that report it is mentioned that the forged document along
with some standard sample handwriting was sent to forensic laboratory and the document expert opined that
the handwriting of the person who wrote the forged documents was similar to the sample writing
collected from the workman. The learned counsel for the management citing the judgment of State Bank of
India Vs R D Punde (Supra) argued that the expert evidence of handwriting shall be relied on to conclude the
involvement of the workman. The question to be answered in this case is whether there is any expert evidence
in this case. It is seen that there is only a police report mentioning the availability of the report of a document
expert. No such report is produced in the inquiry and as such the above referred judgment cannot be relied on
by the management. The police report also indicates of a confession by the workman that the ATM card in
respect of SB A/c No. 197 is received by him and it was destroyed after its misappropriation. On going
through the evidence in general it can be seen that this report of the police form the basis for all further
allegations. This relies on a forensic laboratory report which is neither available to the Inquiry Officer nor to
this court to confirm the veracity of the same. The legality of a confession given by the workman in police
3860
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
custody is also subject to verification by the Criminal court. Hence the contents of the above report and
validity of the assertions can be established only in the pending criminal adjudication.
20. While answering the second question, the Inquiry Officer has again relied on ME 28 police report regarding
the confession of the workman in police custody. The rest of the evidence are presumptions of various
witnesses. The Inquiry Officer himself is ultimately falling into the trap of the presumption and surmises of
those witnesses. Exbt. DE 13 and 14 are instructions for issue and maintenance of ATM cards. MW4 and MW
5 are joint custodians of ATM cards. MW 2 and MW 4 are joint custodians of PIN mailers. MW 4 released
the ATM card in respect of SB A/c No. 197 in the system and activated the same. If the allegation in the
charge memo is to be established there shall be some evidence that the workman had access to ATM cards and
PIN mailers. There shall also be evidence to show that the workman released the ATM card in the system and
activated the same. All these activities leave trail in the system and it is not that difficult to establish the same.
Since there is no evidence against the workman it is not possible to accept a finding of guilt on presumptions
alone. The alleged confession in police custody can be accepted only after the same is tested in criminal
adjudication. Hence I am of the considered view that the finding of the Inquiry Officer on the second issue is
perverse and is without any evidence.
21.
As already pointed out, there is a third link to the charge sheet against the workman i.e. the illegal withdrawal
of money from the ATM. According to the charge memo the workman withdrew Rs.12,000/- on 25/01/2007
and Rs.7,500/- on 27/01/2007 using the Fed card issued in the system in the name of Sri. R Bhaskaran, the
holder of SB A/c No. 197. There is no evidence whatsoever to establish the charge except the alleged
confession made by the workman in police custody. Since the alleged confession is not part of this inquiry and
since the correctness of the same is being tested in criminal adjudication the same cannot be accepted as
evidence at this stage of the proceedings.
22.
The learned counsel for the management cited various decisions of Apex courts to argue that when the charged
employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning it
would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.
i.
State Bank of India Vs R D Punde (Supra).
ii.
CMD, United Commercial Bank Vs P C Kakkar (Supra)
iii.
Regional Manager, UPSRTC Vs Hotlal (Supra)
iv.
Union of India Vs Viswamohan 1998 AIR (SC) 2311
23.
I do agree with the learned counsel for the management that persons holding responsible positions deserve no
leniency in matters of proved financial fraud. In this case the workman is a Bankman (peon) who is last in the
hierarchy of the employees of the management bank. Even then for proven misconduct he do not deserve any
misplaced sympathy. In this case the line of evidence do not tally with the findings by the Inquiry Officer and
the findings are based on presumptions and surmises.
24.
In view of the above, I am inclined to hold that there is very little or no evidence the findings recorded by the
Inquiry Officer. Hence issue number 1 is answered in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue number 2
25.
Issue number 1 is decided in favour of the workman for the reasons stated above. Apart from some similarity
in handwriting in ME 6, the remittance slip dated 16/12/2006 and some documents that originated from the
workman there is no evidence against the workman having stolen the ATM card and there is no evidence that
he withdrew the money using ATM card from A/c No. 197. The finding of the Inquiry Officer on those issues
are not on the basis of evidence but on presumptions and surmises. The finding of the Inquiry Officer and the
decision of the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of dismissal based on those findings are not
justified.
Hence the issue is answered in favour of the workman and against the management.
Issue number 3
26.
After introduction of Section 11 A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, there is no two opinion that this court has
wider powers to interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority in appropriate cases. This proposition is confirmed by the Apex courts and High courts in various
decisions.
i.
Workman Vs M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber company of India, 1973 (1) LLJ 278.
ii.
Rajindra Kumar Kindra Vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1984 (SC) 1805.
iii.
Workman Vs Management of Balmadies Estate, 2008 (1) LLJ 673
iv.
IOB Vs IOB staff canteen workers union, AIR 2000 (SC) 1508.
v.
Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Vs Labour Court, Eranakulam, 2014 (4) KHC 107.
27.
In Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company, (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3861
“therefore it will be seen that both in respect of cases where a domestic inquiry has been held as also in
cases where the Tribunal considers the matter on evidence adduced before it for the first time, the
satisfaction under Sec 11A about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned is that of the Tribunal”.
In this case it has already been found that the finding of the Inquiry Officer is not fully supported by
evidence and hence the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on those findings is grossly
disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved against the workman.
28.
Though it is not a mitigating circumstance it is seen that the workman received a lot of letters of appreciation
and certificate of merit during 2005-2006 period.
29.
Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to modify the penalty directing the
management to reinstate the workman in service with continuity of service but without back wages.
30.
Hence an award is passed holding the action of the Management bank in imposing a penalty of dismissal from
service without notice on the workman is not justified and hence the management is directed to reinstate the
workman into service with continuity of service but without back wages.
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 2nd day of
May, 2019.
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
V.VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 28 ebZ] 2019
dk- vk- 916-& vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mrj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/k rarz ds lc) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
28@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y -41011/18/2015- vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
ch.,l. fc’V] अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 28th May, 2019
S.O. 916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.39/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Western Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 28/05/2019.
[No. L-41011/18/2015– IR(B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 39/ 2015
jsQjsUl ua--L- 41011/18/2015–IR(B-1)fnukad 15/04/2015
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
ykypUn iq= Jh jkepUnz fuoklh& iwjkuh xtusj jksM+] pkS[kwaVh] chdkusj
tfj;s egkeU=h jsYos dStqvy yscj ;wfu;u] Mkxk Ldwy ds ikl] chdkusjA
& izkFkhZx.k
3862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2019/JYAISTHA 11, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cuke
1-
e.My fo|qr vfHk;Urk¼fuekZ.k½] mRrj if'pe jsyos]
30 uEcj dksBh] <+ksyk ek: ds lkeus] chdkusjA
2-
ofj"B dkfeZd vf/kdkjh ¼fuekZ.k½] egkizcU/kd dk;kZy;]
mRrj if'pe jsyos] txriqjk] t;iqjA
& vizkFkhZx.k
mifLFkr %&
izkFkhZx.k dh rjQ ls % Jh f'ko vorkj flag
& izfrfuf/k
vizkFkhZx.k dh rjQ ls % Jh ,y- ih- fla?ky&vf/koDrk
vf/kfu.kZ;
fnukad % 03- 04- 2019
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 15-4-2015 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ¼ftls
vkxkeh pj.kksa esa vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk ¼1½ ¼Mh½ rFkk /kkjk 2 ¼,½ ds vUrXkZr fuEukafdr
vkS|ksfxd fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZu gsrq lEizsf"kr fd;kA
2
**D;k izca/ku fo/kqr vfHk;Urk ¼fuekZ.k½] mRrj if'pe jsyos] chdkusj dk deZdkj ykypUn] VsDuhf'k;u xzsM
izFke dks fnukad 22-4-2007 ls 19-6-2010 rd dh vof/k dk okgu pkyd ds in ij dk;Z djus ds QyLo:i
le;ksifj HkRrs ds Hkqxrku uk fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus
dk vf/kdkjh gS\**
3-
mDr fookn ds izkIr gksus ij mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;kA fnukad 14-9-2015 dks izkFkhZ ykypUn us
egkeU=h yscj ;wfu;u ds ek/;e ls nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj mldh izFke fu;qfDr
fnukad 3-7-1980 dks [kyklh ds in ij ykyx<+ odZ'kkWi chdkusj esa gqbZA izkFkhZ ls e.My fo|qr vfHk;Urk] mRrj
if'pe jsYos chdkusj }kjk fu/kkZfjr vkB ?k.Vs lsok ds mijkUr Hkh okgu pkyd dk vfrfjDr dk;Z fy;k tkrk FkkA
izkFkhZ ls 22-4-2007 ls 19-6-2010 rd yxkrkj okgu pkyd dk vfrfjDr dk;Z fy;k x;k fdUrq vfrfjDr vof/k dk
vksojVkbZe jkf'k dk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us dbZ ckj Hkqxrku gsrq fu;kstd ls fuosnu fd;k
fdUrq dksbZ ifj.kke ugha fudyk blfy;s 22-4-2007 ls twu 2010 rd dh vof/k dk le;ksifj HkRrk ¼vksojVkbZe
HkRrk½ izkFkhZ dks fnyok;k tk;sA
4-
fnukad 30-3-2016 dks vizkFkhZx.k us oknksRrj esa dgk gS fd nkos esa Hkkjr la?k dks i{kdkj izkFkhZ }kjk u
cukus ls nkok fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA ;g fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn ugha gSaA oLrqr% ;g lsok lEcfU/kr ekeyk
gSA izkFkhZ deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa Hkh ugha vkrkA izkFkhZ dks okgu pykus dk dk;Z dHkh ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ okgu
pkyd ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ik=rk ugha j[krk FkkA blfy;s ;g le;ksifj HkRrk ¼vksojVkbZe HkRrk½ izkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh ugha gSA fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh us izkFkhZ dks okgu pykus gsrq vknsf'kr ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ us ek= 9 fnu
okgu dh ejEer vkfn dk dk;Z dk;kZy; le; esa fd;k Fkk vr% okn fujLr fd;k tk;A
5-
foi{khx.k ds mRrj ds mijkUr izkFkhZ us vfrfjDr dFku izLrqr djrs gq, iqu% le;ksifj HkRrk C;kt lfgr
nsus dk fuosnu fd;kA
6-
fnukad 3-1-2019 dks izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k us ;g lwfpr fd;k fd izkFkhZ dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS rFkk izkFkhZ ¼e`rd½
ds ifjtuksa ls bl nkos ds vxzlj.k gsrq funsZ'k izkIr djus ds fy;s mUgksus le; pkgkA
7-
vkt fnukad 3-4-2019 dks izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k us izkFkhZ dh e`R;q gks tkus ds lEcU/k esa ;|fi dksbZ izys[kh;
izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k fdUrq ekSf[kd :i ls ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ ds ifjtuksa ls mUgksus bl nkos ds vxzlj.k gsrq
dgk Fkk ysfdu izkFkhZ ds ifjtuksa dh vkSj ls mUgsa vkt rd dksbZ funsZ'k ugha feys gSA bl dkj.k og bl nkos ds
vxzlj.k gsrq izkFkhZ ds ifjtuksa ls dksbZ funsZ'k izkIr u gksus ds dkj.k vf/kd`r ugha gS vkSj dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha
djuk pkgrs gSA
8-
izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k }kjk bl dFku ds mijkUr izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr bl nkos esa lk{; ds vHkko esa xq.kkoxq.k ds
vk/kkj ij dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ;u djuk lEHko ugha gSA
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 1] 2019@T;s"B 11] 1941
3863
9-
izkFkhZ }kjk nkos ds vxzlj.k ,oa leFkZd lk{; ds vHkko esa bl vf/kdj.k dks lEizsf"kr vkS|ksfxd fookn dk
vf/kfu.kZ;u fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gS vkSj ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd mHk;i{k ds e/; dksbZ fookn vc vfLrRo esa ugah
jgk gSA vr% lEizsf"kr fookn dk mRrj mijksDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA
vkns'k
10-
vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr
fjQjsUl dk mRrj mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA
11-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr
izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed
by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2019.06.20
14:26:11 +05'30'