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

का मक

का मक

का मक

का मक, 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

शासक य 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 #क म रोड, पोलाची-

642001

#वण एवं #वण िमधातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शुIता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

10

6590010819

20190208

मेसस वसSतास रा 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 रा 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 महाल‚मी {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 ी बƒारीअqमन

िमनरस

1/548, तुलूकनातोjम,

नSजVपानगर, पोयमपालयम,

पूलुवापjी (पो#ट),

ित„Vपुर-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 अƒा {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, ित„Vपुर -

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, ित„Vपुर -

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 ी

पलनीमु„गन {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 ी मु„गन इंजीिनय…रग

सं.45, ीिमयर इंडि#`यल

ए#टेट,

बालासुSदरम #`ीट,

के.आर.पुरम,

कोयqबFूर- 641006.

साफ, ठंडे पानी के िलए

अपक)ीय पुन„Jपादक पqप

IS 8472:

1998

26

6500038011

20190221

मेसस ेSसा इंड#`ीस

यूिनट ऑफ सी आर अई पqVस

ायdट िलिमटड

66/2, अितपालयम रोड,

िचƒावेदमपjी, 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 डेटाफ ड 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, िचƒा कƒूर पो#ट,

क„वलूर, अिवनािश, ित„Vपुर-

641655

कंo ट 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, िचƒा

कƒूर पो#ट, क„वलूर,

अिवनािश, ित„Vपुर-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 पिŠम बंगाल रा{य म पारादीप-

सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीया (पिŠम 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 इ स 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 पिŠम 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 पिŠम बंगाल रा{य म पारादीप-

सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीया (पिŠम 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 इ स 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 पिŠम 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 :- पिŠम 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 पिŠम बंगाल रा{य म पारादीप-

सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीया (पिŠम 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 इ स 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 पिŠम 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 पिŠम बंगाल रा{य म पारादीप-

सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीया (पिŠम 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 इ स 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 पिŠम 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 :- पिŠम 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#टूट आफ पे`ोिलयम एंड एनजt (आईआईपीई) अिधिनयम, 2017 के िनयम 5 (1) के

तहत दJ त शिW तय" का योग करते Gए, केS ) सरकार एतारा िनq निलिखत d यि&य" को इंिडयन इंि#टूट 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 शासक य 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 मं ालय

मं ालय

मं ालय

मं ालय

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 ब क 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'