3024 GI/2019

(4663)

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- 27]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 30—tqykbZ 6] 2019] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 9—vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

No. 27]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 30—JULY 6, 2019, SATURDAY/ASADHA 9— ASADHA—15, 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

िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 27 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1123

1123

1123

1123.—रा ीय आवास बक अिधिनयम, 1987 (1987 का 53) क धारा 6 क उप-धारा (2) और धारा 7

क उप-धारा (1) के साथ पठत धारा 6 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (क) ारा द शिय का योग करते ए, के" #ीय

सरकार, एत$ारा, केनरा बक के महाबंधक )ी सरद कुमार होता (ज"म ितिथ: 25.5.1966) को पद का काय+भार -हण करने

क तारीख से तीन वष+ क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो, 2,05,400-2,24,400 (लेवल 16) के

वेतनमान म2 रा3ीय आवास बक (एनएचबी) म2 बंध िनदेशक (एमडी) के पद पर िनयु करती है।

[फा. सं. 24/10/2018-आईएफ-II]

नेहा चौहान, उप िनदेशक

4664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2019

S.O. 1123.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub-

section (2) of Section 6 and sub-section (1) of Section 7 of The National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the

Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sarada Kumar Hota (DoB: 25.05.1966), General Manager, Canara Bank as

Managing Director (MD), National Housing Bank (NHB) in the scale of pay of Rs. 2,05,400- 2,24,400/- (level 16) for a

period of three years with effect from the date of his assumption of charge of the post, or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[F. No. 24/10/2018-IF-II]

NEHA CHAUHAN, Dy. Director

का मक

का मक

का मक

का मक, लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

लोक िशकायत तथा पशन मंालय

(कामक और िश ण िवभाग)

(कामक और िश ण िवभाग)

(कामक और िश ण िवभाग)

(कामक और िश ण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 20 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1124

1124

1124

1124.—के" # सरकार एतदारा द ली िवशेष पुिलस 6 थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम

सं8 या 25) क धारा 3 ारा द शिय का योग करते ए िन:िलिखत अपराध क जांच द ली िवशेष पुिलस 6 थापना

के सद6 य के ारा कया जाना िविन>द? करती है।

(अ)

िन:िलिखत के तहत दBडनीय अपराध –

1)

ाचीन सं6मारक तथा पुरातDवीय 6थल और अवशेष अिधिनयम, 1958 (1958 का 24)।

2)

ाचीन सं6मारक तथा पुरातDवीय 6थल और अवशेष (संशोधन तथा िविधमा"यकरण) अिधिनयम, 2010

(2010 का 10)।

3)

कशोर "याय (बालक क देखरेख और संरOण) अिधिनयम, 2000 (2000 का 56)।

4)

कशोर "याय (बालक क देखरेख और संरOण) अिधिनयम, 2015 (2015 का 2)।

5)

जQमू-कSमीर राTय रणबीर दंड संिहता, 1989 (1989 का 12) क धारा 420ए।

6)

इनामी िचट और धन परचालन 6कम (पाबंदी) अिधिनयम, 1978 (1978 का 43)।

7)

भारतीय दंड संिहता, 1860 (1860 का 45) क धारा 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120

8)

भारतीय रजव+ बक अिधिनयम, 1934 क धारा 45 (एस) तथा धारा 58 बी एवं सी।

9)

अि-म संिवदा (िविनयमन) अिधिनयम, 1952 (1952 का 74)।

10) 6 Yी अिश? Zपण (ितशेध) अिधिनयम, 1986 (1986 का 60) तथा

ब)

उपयु+\ त अपराध के संबंध म2 कए गए दु यास, दु ेरणा] और ष^ंY तथा उसी सं_ यवहार म2 कए गए अथवा

उ" ह` तa य से उD प" न ासंिगक कसी अ" य अपराध/अपराध हेतु।

[फा. सं. 228/56/2016-एवीडी-II]

पी. के. जायसवाल, अवर सिचव

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4665

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2019

S.O. 1124.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

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

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely:-

(a) Offences punishable under:-

1)

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (Act No. 24 of 1958).

2)

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010

(Act No. 10 of 2010).

3)

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act No. 56 of 2000).

4)

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act No. 2 of 2015).

5)

Section 420A of Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (Act No. 12 of 1989).

6)

Section 3 and 6 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Act No. 43 of

1978).

7)

Section 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860).

8)

Section 45(S) and Sec. 58 B & C of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

9)

Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (Act No. 74 of 1952).

10)

The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (Act No. 60 of 1986).

and

(b)

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

other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/56/2016 –AVD-II]

P. K. JAISWAL, Under Secy.

कृिष

कृिष

कृिष

कृिष एवं

एवं

एवं

एवं कसान क या

कसान क या

कसान क या

कसान क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

ण मंालय

ण मंालय

(कृिष

कृिष

कृिष

कृिष अनुसंधान

अनुसंधान

अनुसंधान

अनुसंधान एवं

एवं

एवं

एवं िश ा

िश ा

िश ा

िश ा िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 11 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1125

1125

1125

1125.—के"#ीय सरकार, कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंYालय, कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशOा िवभाग, राजभाषा

(संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयमावली 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म2 भाकृअप -

भारतीय पशु िचकD सा अनुसंधान सं6 थान, िशOण एवं िशOण के" #, पुणे को, िजसम2 80 ितशत से अिधक कम+चारय ने

िह" दी का काय+साधक cान ाd त कर िलया है, एतदारा अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं. 13-10/2009-eहदी(पाट+)/205-261]

राजेश कुमार, अवर सिचव

4666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER WELFARE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019

S.O. 1125.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, Department of Agricultural

Research & Education hereby notifies the ICAR- Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Training and Education Centre,

Pune where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. 13-10/2009-Hindi (Part)/205-261]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 11 जून, 2019

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1126

1126

1126

1126.—के"#ीय सरकार, कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंYालय, कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशOा िवभाग, राजभाषा

(संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयमावली 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म2 भाकृअप -

भारतीय पशु िचकD सा अनुसंधान सं6 थान, पूवf OेYीय 6टेशन, कोलकाता को, िजसम2 80 ितशत से अिधक कम+चारय ने

िह" दी का काय+साधक cान ाd त कर िलया है, एतदारा अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं. 13-10/2009-eहदी(पाट+)/262-318]

राजेश कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2019

S.O. 1126.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, Department of Agricultural

Research & Education hereby notifies the ICAR- Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Eastern Regional Station, Kolkata

where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. 13-10/2009-Hindi(Part)/262-318]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

पेोिलयम

पेोिलयम

पेोिलयम

पेोिलयम और

और

और

और ाकृितक

ाकृितक

ाकृितक

ाकृितक गैस

गैस

गैस

गैस मंालय

मंालय

मंालय

मंालय

शुि

शुि

शुि

शुि–प

प

प

प

नई दली, , , , 24 जून, 2019

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1127

1127

1127

1127.—के"#ीय सरकार, पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाई" स (भूिम म2 उपयोग के अिधकार का अज+न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) ारा दत शिय का योग करते ए, भारत सरकार

पे ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंYालय क अिधसूचना म2 िन:िलिखत संशोधन करती है, राजपY सं. 3 भाग II, खBड 3, उप

खBड (ii) तारीख 13 जनवरी से 19 जनवरी 2019, का. आ. 108 तारीख 10 जनवरी 2019 म2 पृh 417 पर dलॉट नंबर

615 से शुZ होकर पृh 419 के dलॉट नंबर 2 म2 -ाम का नाम सेमुलडुबी -12 के 6थान पर उदलजुिड़ - 4 के Zप म2 कािशत

है, अथा+त् :—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4667

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला : जमताडा

जमताडा

जमताडा

जमताडा

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

के #थान पर

के #थान पर

के #थान पर

के #थान पर

पढ़'

पढ़'

पढ़'

पढ़'

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

तहसील

तहसील

तहसील

तहसील

(लॉट

(लॉट

(लॉट

(लॉट नंबर

नंबर

नंबर

नंबर

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

तहसील

तहसील

तहसील

तहसील

(लॉट

(लॉट

(लॉट

(लॉट नंबर

नंबर

नंबर

नंबर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

फतेहपुर

पृh 417 पर dलॉट

नंबर 615 से पृh

419 dलॉट नंबर 2

तक

सेमुलडुबी - 12

फतेहपुर

पृh 417 पर dलॉट

नंबर 615 से पृh

419 dलॉट नंबर 2

तक

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/21/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27764]

शा" तनु धर, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

ERRATUM

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2019

S. O. 1127.—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 makes the

following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

number S.O. 108 dated 10th January 2019, published at pages 417 starting from plot no 615 to Plot No 2 in page No 419

the Village name is published as Udaljuri-4 instead of Semldubi-12 issued under Part II, Section 3, Sub–Section (ii) of

the Gazette of India No. 3, dated January 13 to January 19, 2019, namely:—

In the Schedule to the said notification: -

SCHEDULE

District: Jamtara State : Jharkhand

For

Read

Village

Tehsil

Plot No.

Village

Tehsil

Plot No.

Udaljuri-4

Fatehpur

Plot no 615 in

page no 417 to

Plot No. 2 in page

No 419

Semldubi-12

Fatehpur

Plot No 615 in

page No 417 to

Plot No. 2 in page

No 419

[F. No. R-11025(11)/21/2018-OR-I/E-27764]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 24 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का. आ. 1128

1128

1128

1128.—के"#ीय सरकार ने पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म2 उपयोग के अिधकार का अज+न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम2 इसके पS चात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) के

अधीन जारी क गई भारत सरकार के पे ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंYालय क अिधसूचना सं8या का.आ. 108, दनांक

10 जनवरी 2019, , , , भारत के राजपY सं8या 3, , , , दनांक 13 जनवरी 2019 से 19 जनवरी 2019, , , , म2 कािशत क गई थी ।

इन अिधसूचना से संलl अनुसूची म2 िवनी>द? भूिम म2 झारखंड राTय म2 “हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस6टQस परयोजना”

4668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िजला जमताडा म2 कnे तेल के परवहन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के

अिधकार के अज+न के अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी |

और उ राजपY अिधसूचना क ितयाँ जनता को दनांक 24 फ़रवरी 2019 तक उपलtध करा दी गई थी,

और सOम ािधकारी ने उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन के"#ीय सरकार को रपोट+ दे दी है,

और के"#ीय सरकार ने, उ रपोट+ पर िवचार करने के पuात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिOत है, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज+न करने का िविनuय कया है;

अतः अब, के"#ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) ारा दत शिय का योग करते ए यह घोषणा

करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलl अनुसूची म2 िवनी>द? भूिम म2 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज+न

कया जाए;

और के"#ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) ारा दत शिय का योग करते ए, यह िनदvश देती है

क उ भूिम म2 उपयोग के अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क दनांक से के"#ीय सरकार म2 िनिहत होने के बजाए, सभी

िवलंगमो से मु होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड म2 िनिहत होगी;

पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन अिधिनयम,1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी Oितपूwत के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड पूण+तया उरदाई होगा और पाइपलाइन से संबि"धत कसी भी मामले पर के"#ीय सरकार के िवxy कोई

दावा या कानूनी काय+वाही नह` हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

जमताडा

जमताडा

जमताडा

जमताडा

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

तहसील

तहसील

तहसील

तहसील

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

सव,

सव,

सव,

सव, न-बर

न-बर

न-बर

न-बर

े

े

े

ेफल

फल

फल

फल

हे0टेयर

हे0टेयर

हे0टेयर

हे0टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग1 मीटर

वग1 मीटर

वग1 मीटर

वग1 मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

1627

00

02

26

1626

00

03

17

1625

00

05

26

1612

00

01

39

1558

00

00

59

1557

00

01

73

1560

00

03

49

1559

00

00

89

1515

00

03

79

1575

00

00

27

1576

00

01

55

1573

00

00

45

1574

00

01

34

1564

00

01

89

1567

00

00

61

1568

00

00

20

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4669

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

1566

00

02

25

1234

00

00

82

1233

00

00

20

1235

00

02

70

1232

00

01

19

1237

00

03

43

1238

00

00

20

1282

00

02

70

1283

00

01

66

1280

00

02

59

1286

00

00

38

1279

00

00

29

1287

00

01

12

1335

00

00

51

1288

00

01

71

1289

00

01

08

1291

00

02

53

1290

00

00

20

1302

00

00

47

1300

00

01

38

1301

00

02

29

1307

00

01

85

1306

00

01

17

1305

00

01

06

1324

00

02

22

1325

00

01

30

1329

00

00

20

1326

00

04

55

1368

00

03

66

1369

00

00

33

1370

00

00

59

1367

00

04

28

1378

00

00

75

1379

00

01

77

1380

00

01

36

1384

00

04

13

4670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

फतेहपुर

उदलजुिड़ - 4

1383

00

00

81

1385

00

00

98

1052

00

00

20

1053

00

05

62

1049

00

07

24

1048

00

11

07

1047

00

00

55

1042

00

00

44

1045

00

03

14

930

00

04

95

931

00

05

74

932

00

00

20

933

00

05

30

920

00

00

78

919

00

07

52

914

00

00

20

810

00

00

67

फतेहपुर

खमारचक - 45

137

00

01

46

136

00

01

80

134

00

04

09

143

00

11

40

235

00

00

24

147

00

03

38

148

00

03

62

149

00

00

20

150

00

03

63

151

00

01

40

152

00

01

06

155

00

13

30

161

00

00

38

157

00

02

45

156

00

02

41

108

00

01

20

109

00

04

81

110

00

01

17

111

00

09

38

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4671

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

फतेहपुर

खमारचक - 45

117

00

05

09

114

00

00

40

113

00

01

12

112

00

01

86

96

00

04

26

फतेहपुर

चड़कमारा - 46

4

00

02

41

3

00

01

93

2

00

00

67

1

00

01

37

फतेहपुर

मझलािड - 44

332

00

04

94

331

00

02

36

329

00

02

55

330

00

02

01

312

00

04

05

291

00

02

26

292

00

02

07

293

00

02

00

303

00

01

61

301

00

03

23

266

00

02

04

267

00

02

58

268

00

00

28

757

00

04

40

265

00

00

79

फतेहपुर

लाकड़ाकु"दा - 43

269

00

05

62

283

00

00

39

256

00

07

71

258

00

01

60

259

00

00

66

245

00

05

36

244

00

01

79

243

00

01

28

242

00

04

96

241

00

02

38

4672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

फतेहपुर

लाकड़ाकु"दा - 43

225

00

01

68

195

00

00

96

116

00

01

69

113

00

05

29

114

00

02

30

115

00

03

09

118

00

04

55

117

00

00

38

119

00

00

82

122

00

00

41

120

00

06

92

112

00

00

36

16

00

02

47

15

00

00

61

17

00

01

24

18

00

01

87

19

00

06

94

24

00

00

20

25

00

03

85

28

00

02

96

29

00

00

38

30

00

03

80

32

00

00

46

31

00

05

12

33

00

00

20

1

00

01

05

फतेहपुर

जलाँइ - 19

1143

00

00

20

611

00

05

98

607

00

01

94

608

00

04

49

609

00

04

95

603

00

01

00

599

00

00

68

600

00

17

41

फतेहपुर

बाबुडी - 25

344

00

03

33

346

00

03

20

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4673

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

फतेहपुर

बाबुडी - 25

345

00

04

71

343

00

00

84

341

00

02

06

339

00

00

92

340

00

03

52

336

00

11

52

338

00

08

17

304

00

00

20

267

00

01

02

301

00

01

29

299

00

05

98

289

00

02

28

288/755

00

00

88

291

00

04

12

115/756

00

01

90

फतेहपुर

दुमदुमी- 22

364

00

02

00

365

00

01

34

362

00

03

68

360

00

01

51

338

00

02

02

333

00

04

78

322

00

08

24

330

00

02

45

154

00

03

08

फतेहपुर

कमा+टाँड - 20

117

00

01

00

109

00

04

83

108

00

00

20

106

00

00

75

4

00

02

98

3

00

00

20

2

00

09

30

1

00

05

78

फतेहपुर

डुमरया - 21

1560

00

05

67

1561

00

03

04

1559

00

00

53

1558

00

02

77

4674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

फतेहपुर

डुमरया - 21

1552

00

02

43

1554

00

03

14

1553

00

02

99

1513

00

00

20

1507

00

01

72

1508

00

01

27

1511

00

02

59

1510

00

00

46

1476

00

06

80

1482

00

01

61

1481

00

00

96

1480

00

01

71

1479

00

00

40

1469

00

00

27

1477

00

00

20

1478

00

02

31

1471

00

00

78

1473

00

04

08

1472

00

05

13

1394

00

03

95

1399

00

03

18

1397

00

03

48

1415

00

02

89

469

00

00

97

470

00

04

91

472

00

02

37

473

00

01

80

474

00

03

41

656

00

00

86

658

00

02

05

657

00

00

41

659

00

01

29

1582

00

00

33

649

00

05

11

722

00

01

35

723

00

04

06

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4675

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

फतेहपुर

डुमरया - 21

724

00

01

59

729

00

03

81

1578

00

02

35

730

00

01

32

733

00

02

61

732

00

01

30

736

00

00

79

734

00

02

04

735

00

01

70

772

00

03

39

609

00

02

95

773

00

00

27

774

00

08

48

788

00

00

42

787

00

04

89

786

00

05

53

784

00

00

48

785

00

00

88

817

00

12

56

816

00

04

73

818

00

06

20

836

00

00

62

835

00

00

20

फतेहपुर

अQबावाँक - 13

1438

00

00

44

1240

00

00

81

1245

00

05

06

1244

00

01

33

1243

00

06

26

1300

00

10

61

1113

00

00

20

1112

00

03

28

1111

00

00

67

1124

00

15

17

1126

00

02

13

1127

00

03

27

1128

00

00

46

4676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

फतेहपुर

अQबावाँक - 13

1130

00

01

84

1148

00

01

11

1185

00

01

93

1184

00

00

92

1183

00

02

44

1175

00

03

80

1177

00

00

20

1173

00

00

20

1172

00

00

69

1171

00

02

77

1170

00

00

20

1169

00

00

31

फतेहपुर

डाँड़पुजा - 15

657

00

00

20

612

00

00

62

611

00

01

54

592

00

00

44

610

00

00

50

593

00

00

94

594

00

01

21

595

00

01

25

596

00

00

23

597

00

00

20

591

00

00

94

590

00

00

21

588

00

01

51

587

00

02

17

586

00

00

20

598

00

03

91

599

00

02

98

576

00

00

20

541

00

14

11

575

00

00

34

574

00

00

20

542

00

01

11

543

00

00

20

फतेहपुर

परासी - 14

338

00

00

68

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4677

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

फतेहपुर

परासी - 14

339

00

03

49

337

00

01

09

336

00

02

03

335

00

05

79

247

00

04

36

246

00

00

39

240

00

00

31

244

00

02

19

245

00

00

20

230

00

02

23

617

00

00

26

229

00

10

00

228

00

01

80

227

00

00

67

185

00

02

63

212

00

01

75

186

00

04

50

211

00

01

33

188

00

07

93

190

00

03

68

189

00

04

82

296

00

00

60

66

00

03

09

65

00

04

63

56

00

02

33

57

00

04

41

58

00

03

02

55

00

02

16

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/21/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27764]

शा" तनु धर, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2019

S. O. 1128.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of the India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas S. O. No. 108 Dated 10th January, 2019 published in the Gazette of India No. 3 dated 13th January to 19th

January, 2019, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of

User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India, the

Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to

that notification for the purpose of laying “Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project” for the transportation of Crude Oil

in Jamtara District in the State of Jharkhand by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

4678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 24th February 2019.

And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the

Central Government;

And Whereas the central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government

hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central

Government, vest on the date publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act,

1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the

pipeline.

SCHEDULE

District : JAMTARA State : JHARKHAND

Tehsil

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

UDALJURI - 4

1627

00

02

26

1626

00

03

17

1625

00

05

26

1612

00

01

39

1558

00

00

59

1557

00

01

73

1560

00

03

49

1559

00

00

89

1515

00

03

79

1575

00

00

27

1576

00

01

55

1573

00

00

45

1574

00

01

34

1564

00

01

89

1567

00

00

61

1568

00

00

20

1566

00

02

25

1234

00

00

82

1233

00

00

20

1235

00

02

70

1232

00

01

19

1237

00

03

43

1238

00

00

20

1282

00

02

70

1283

00

01

66

1280

00

02

59

1286

00

00

38

1279

00

00

29

1287

00

01

12

1335

00

00

51

1288

00

01

71

1289

00

01

08

1291

00

02

53

1290

00

00

20

1302

00

00

47

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4679

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

UDALJURI - 4

1300

00

01

38

1301

00

02

29

1307

00

01

85

1306

00

01

17

1305

00

01

06

1324

00

02

22

1325

00

01

30

1329

00

00

20

1326

00

04

55

1368

00

03

66

1369

00

00

33

1370

00

00

59

1367

00

04

28

1378

00

00

75

1379

00

01

77

1380

00

01

36

1384

00

04

13

1383

00

00

81

1385

00

00

98

1052

00

00

20

1053

00

05

62

1049

00

07

24

1048

00

11

07

1047

00

00

55

1042

00

00

44

1045

00

03

14

930

00

04

95

931

00

05

74

932

00

00

20

933

00

05

30

920

00

00

78

919

00

07

52

914

00

00

20

810

00

00

67

FATEHPUR

KHAMARCHAK - 45

137

00

01

46

136

00

01

80

134

00

04

09

143

00

11

40

235

00

00

24

147

00

03

38

148

00

03

62

149

00

00

20

150

00

03

63

151

00

01

40

152

00

01

06

155

00

13

30

161

00

00

38

157

00

02

45

156

00

02

41

108

00

01

20

109

00

04

81

110

00

01

17

111

00

09

38

117

00

05

09

114

00

00

40

113

00

01

12

112

00

01

86

96

00

04

26

FATEHPUR

CHARAKMARA - 46

4

00

02

41

3

00

01

93

2

00

00

67

4680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

CHARAKMARA - 46

1

00

01

37

FATEHPUR

MAJHILA DI - 44

332

00

04

94

331

00

02

36

329

00

02

55

330

00

02

01

312

00

04

05

291

00

02

26

292

00

02

07

293

00

02

00

303

00

01

61

301

00

03

23

266

00

02

04

267

00

02

58

268

00

00

28

757

00

04

40

265

00

00

79

FATEHPUR

LAKRAKUNDA - 43

269

00

05

62

283

00

00

39

256

00

07

71

258

00

01

60

259

00

00

66

245

00

05

36

244

00

01

79

243

00

01

28

242

00

04

96

241

00

02

38

225

00

01

68

195

00

00

96

116

00

01

69

113

00

05

29

114

00

02

30

115

00

03

09

118

00

04

55

117

00

00

38

119

00

00

82

122

00

00

41

120

00

06

92

112

00

00

36

16

00

02

47

15

00

00

61

17

00

01

24

18

00

01

87

19

00

06

94

24

00

00

20

25

00

03

85

28

00

02

96

29

00

00

38

30

00

03

80

32

00

00

46

31

00

05

12

33

00

00

20

1

00

01

05

FATEHPUR

JALAIN - 19

1143

00

00

20

611

00

05

98

607

00

01

94

608

00

04

49

609

00

04

95

603

00

01

00

599

00

00

68

600

00

17

41

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4681

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

BABUDI - 25

344

00

03

33

346

00

03

20

345

00

04

71

343

00

00

84

341

00

02

06

339

00

00

92

340

00

03

52

336

00

11

52

338

00

08

17

304

00

00

20

267

00

01

02

301

00

01

29

299

00

05

98

289

00

02

28

288/755

00

00

88

291

00

04

12

115/756

00

01

90

FATEHPUR

DUMDUMI - 22

364

00

02

00

365

00

01

34

362

00

03

68

360

00

01

51

338

00

02

02

333

00

04

78

322

00

08

24

330

00

02

45

154

00

03

08

FATEHPUR

KARMATANR - 20

117

00

01

00

109

00

04

83

108

00

00

20

106

00

00

75

4

00

02

98

3

00

00

20

2

00

09

30

1

00

05

78

FATEHPUR

DUMARIA - 21

1560

00

05

67

1561

00

03

04

1559

00

00

53

1558

00

02

77

1552

00

02

43

1554

00

03

14

1553

00

02

99

1513

00

00

20

1507

00

01

72

1508

00

01

27

1511

00

02

59

1510

00

00

46

1476

00

06

80

1482

00

01

61

1481

00

00

96

1480

00

01

71

1479

00

00

40

1469

00

00

27

1477

00

00

20

1478

00

02

31

1471

00

00

78

1473

00

04

08

1472

00

05

13

1394

00

03

95

1399

00

03

18

1397

00

03

48

1415

00

02

89

4682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

DUMARIA - 21

469

00

00

97

470

00

04

91

472

00

02

37

473

00

01

80

474

00

03

41

656

00

00

86

658

00

02

05

657

00

00

41

659

00

01

29

1582

00

00

33

649

00

05

11

722

00

01

35

723

00

04

06

724

00

01

59

729

00

03

81

1578

00

02

35

730

00

01

32

733

00

02

61

732

00

01

30

736

00

00

79

734

00

02

04

735

00

01

70

772

00

03

39

609

00

02

95

773

00

00

27

774

00

08

48

788

00

00

42

787

00

04

89

786

00

05

53

784

00

00

48

785

00

00

88

817

00

12

56

816

00

04

73

818

00

06

20

836

00

00

62

835

00

00

20

FATEHPUR

AMBABANK - 13

1438

00

00

44

1240

00

00

81

1245

00

05

06

1244

00

01

33

1243

00

06

26

1300

00

10

61

1113

00

00

20

1112

00

03

28

1111

00

00

67

1124

00

15

17

1126

00

02

13

1127

00

03

27

1128

00

00

46

1130

00

01

84

1148

00

01

11

1185

00

01

93

1184

00

00

92

1183

00

02

44

1175

00

03

80

1177

00

00

20

1173

00

00

20

1172

00

00

69

1171

00

02

77

1170

00

00

20

1169

00

00

31

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4683

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

FATEHPUR

DANRPUJA - 15

657

00

00

20

612

00

00

62

611

00

01

54

592

00

00

44

610

00

00

50

593

00

00

94

594

00

01

21

595

00

01

25

596

00

00

23

597

00

00

20

591

00

00

94

590

00

00

21

588

00

01

51

587

00

02

17

586

00

00

20

598

00

03

91

599

00

02

98

576

00

00

20

541

00

14

11

575

00

00

34

574

00

00

20

542

00

01

11

543

00

00

20

FATEHPUR

PARASI - 14

338

00

00

68

339

00

03

49

337

00

01

09

336

00

02

03

335

00

05

79

247

00

04

36

246

00

00

39

240

00

00

31

244

00

02

19

245

00

00

20

230

00

02

23

617

00

00

26

229

00

10

00

228

00

01

80

227

00

00

67

185

00

02

63

212

00

01

75

186

00

04

50

211

00

01

33

188

00

07

93

190

00

03

68

189

00

04

82

296

00

00

60

66

00

03

09

65

00

04

63

56

00

02

33

57

00

04

41

58

00

03

02

55

00

02

16

[F. No. R-11025(11)/21/2018-OR-I/E-27764]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

4684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 24 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का. . . . आ. 1129

1129

1129

1129.—के"#ीय सरकार के लोकिहत म2 यह आवSयक तीत होता है क पिuम बंगाल राTय म2 पारादीप-

सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीआ (पिuम बंगाल) से पे ोिलयम उD पाद के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन

िलिमटेड के ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी है।

और के"#ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवSयक तीत होता है ऐसी भूिम म2 जो इससे

उपाबy अनुसूची म2 वwणत है और िजस म2 उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 6 ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न कया जाए।

अत: अब के"#ीय सरकार पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाई" स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का

50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा 1 ारा दD त शिय का योग करते ए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न करने के अपने

आशय क घोषणा करती है।

कोई |ि जो उ अनुसुची म2 वwणत भूिम म2 िहतबy है उस तारख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के राजपY क

ितया साधारण जनता को उपलtध करा दी जाती है इ}स दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए

उसम2 उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न के सQ ब" ध म2 )ी िसबा ियादास गुd ता सOम ािधकारी इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन

िलिमटेड, मोर-ाम अ" दुल मोउर दुिलया हावड़ा 711302 पिuम बंगाल को िलिखत Zप से आOेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड

पारादीप

पारादीप

पारादीप

पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर - ह3 दी

ह3 दी

ह3 दी

ह3 दीआ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पाद पाइपलाइ

द पाइपलाइ

द पाइपलाइ

द पाइपलाइन प8रयोजना

न प8रयोजना

न प8रयोजना

न प8रयोजना

3(1)

3(1)

3(1)

3(1) अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला :- पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

राय

राय

राय

राय :- पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

=.संसंसंसं

तहसील का नाम

तहसील का नाम

तहसील का नाम

तहसील का नाम

गां

गां

गां

गांव का नाम

व का नाम

व का नाम

व का नाम

एल

एल

एल

एल आर

आर

आर

आर (लॉट

(लॉट

(लॉट

(लॉट

=मांक

=मांक

=मांक

=मांक

ेफल

ेफल

ेफल

ेफल

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

(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

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-I

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला-124

124

124

124

1386

00

04

76

2/1403

00

04

76

104/1422

00

01

83

1074/1571

00

08

10

1052

00

00

91

1043

00

00

91

1051

00

02

74

1044

00

06

18

1042

00

04

05

1045

00

08

30

1036

00

09

34

1035

00

06

45

1034

00

02

25

1037

00

00

66

113

00

00

64

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4685

(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)

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-I

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला-124

124

124

124

993

00

01

02

116

00

01

02

992

00

01

48

117

00

01

48

991

00

01

23

118

00

01

23

119

00

04

66

120

00

03

80

121

00

03

87

122

00

00

37

132

00

08

87

131

00

00

20

133

00

08

83

143

00

03

36

141

00

02

57

147

00

00

82

144

00

14

68

146

00

11

42

145/1400

00

00

20

145

00

01

45

155

00

04

47

156

00

01

82

157

00

03

71

165

00

03

13

164

00

01

70

162

00

02

95

166

00

11

84

178

00

07

24

180/1461

00

03

16

180

00

03

14

179

00

04

52

181

00

05

16

182

00

00

20

183

00

03

34

184

00

00

99

4686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-I

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला

मुकुटिसला-124

124

124

124

185

00

00

20

211

00

05

42

313

00

15

81

307

00

00

58

236

00

09

54

237

00

01

63

306

00

06

06

242

00

02

75

243

00

06

59

251

00

05

35

253

00

04

10

252

00

07

35

258

00

00

20

250

00

01

40

261

00

05

04

262

00

04

74

263

00

03

82

223

00

02

10

222/1468

00

05

02

222

00

05

19

219/1467

00

02

79

219

00

01

00

218

00

04

96

218/1416

00

00

53

220

00

00

76

218/1415

00

01

43

2

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-।

देबी चाक

देबी चाक

देबी चाक

देबी चाक-125

125

125

125

587

00

00

93

539/931

00

03

19

552/935

00

03

75

552

00

12

32

552/936

00

05

22

543

00

01

60

550

00

00

79

549/934

00

05

15

549/933

00

05

77

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4687

(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)

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-।

देबी चाक

देबी चाक

देबी चाक

देबी चाक-125

125

125

125

549

00

07

46

549/932

00

06

58

548

00

01

28

559

00

01

65

259

00

16

65

261

00

00

74

338/892

00

01

35

260

00

06

04

264

00

01

48

293

00

09

57

296

00

15

21

297

00

04

35

338

00

07

24

339

00

04

46

340

00

06

92

357

00

00

20

341

00

02

69

352

00

01

33

353

00

02

92

351

00

01

37

326

00

00

82

3

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-।

मोहाती

मोहाती

मोहाती

मोहाती-126

126

126

126

1646

00

00

89

1495

00

01

44

1494

00

00

49

1354

00

02

02

1353

00

03

39

1352

00

02

21

1226

00

00

63

1225

00

00

26

1227

00

07

08

1228

00

08

56

1234

00

07

36

1240

00

03

12

1239

00

13

52

1236

00

00

37

4688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-।

मोहाती

मोहाती

मोहाती

मोहाती-126

126

126

126

1237

00

03

85

1238

00

11

47

1200

00

00

62

1256

00

04

40

1199

00

04

47

1196

00

12

30

1197

00

01

77

1195

00

06

92

1194

00

00

20

1193

00

00

86

54

00

01

80

41/3760

00

00

53

55/3762

00

05

42

18

00

08

90

17

00

02

43

16

00

01

96

15

00

03

80

10

00

05

47

63

00

06

15

64

00

03

03

8

00

00

85

7

00

03

37

1

00

00

69

4

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-।

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन-127

127

127

127

200

00

01

25

85

00

14

60

158

00

01

05

80

00

04

13

79

00

05

46

94

00

07

18

102

00

06

46

94/1045

00

00

97

101

00

04

78

105

00

01

23

106

00

02

39

111

00

03

08

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4689

(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)

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-।

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन-127

127

127

127

114

00

03

90

115

00

00

20

113

00

02

84

126

00

11

68

125

00

00

20

124

00

05

14

121

00

00

83

122

00

02

47

451

00

00

47

463

00

04

11

464

00

02

63

504

00

06

07

503

00

01

79

502

00

02

36

501

00

03

50

501/1040

00

03

11

859

00

07

47

857

00

02

45

858

00

03

79

552

00

00

20

853

00

00

47

771

00

00

30

770

00

03

91

765

00

01

75

767

00

01

92

766

00

01

87

764

00

00

85

673

00

00

20

674

00

03

91

675

00

00

62

684

00

00

24

683

00

03

14

682

00

03

04

681

00

02

89

680

00

01

22

4690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी

खेजुरी-।

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन

खरर ऊफ1 खरन-127

127

127

127

695

00

03

85

696/1114

00

04

18

696/1113

00

01

88

698

00

01

30

696

00

00

20

699

00

04

32

[फा. सं. आर-11025(12)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29474]

शा" तनु धर, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2019

S. O. 1129.—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 PRODUCT PIPELINE PROJECT

SCHEDULE of 3(1)

DISTRICT :

PURBA MEDINIPUR

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Sl.

No.

Name of

Tehsil

Name of Village

LR Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

1

KHEJURI-I

MUKUTSILA-124

1386

00

04

76

2/1403

00

04

76

104/1422

00

01

83

1074/1571

00

08

10

1052

00

00

91

1043

00

00

91

1051

00

02

74

1044

00

06

18

1042

00

04

05

1045

00

08

30

1036

00

09

34

1035

00

06

45

1034

00

02

25

1037

00

00

66

113

00

00

64

993

00

01

02

116

00

01

02

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4691

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

KHEJURI-I

MUKUTSILA-124

992

00

01

48

117

00

01

48

991

00

01

23

118

00

01

23

119

00

04

66

120

00

03

80

121

00

03

87

122

00

00

37

132

00

08

87

131

00

00

20

133

00

08

83

143

00

03

36

141

00

02

57

147

00

00

82

144

00

14

68

146

00

11

42

145/1400

00

00

20

145

00

01

45

155

00

04

47

156

00

01

82

157

00

03

71

165

00

03

13

164

00

01

70

162

00

02

95

166

00

11

84

178

00

07

24

180/1461

00

03

16

180

00

03

14

179

00

04

52

181

00

05

16

182

00

00

20

183

00

03

34

184

00

00

99

185

00

00

20

211

00

05

42

313

00

15

81

307

00

00

58

236

00

09

54

237

00

01

63

306

00

06

06

242

00

02

75

243

00

06

59

251

00

05

35

253

00

04

10

252

00

07

35

258

00

00

20

250

00

01

40

261

00

05

04

262

00

04

74

263

00

03

82

223

00

02

10

222/1468

00

05

02

222

00

05

19

219/1467

00

02

79

219

00

01

00

218

00

04

96

218/1416

00

00

53

220

00

00

76

4692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

KHEJURI-I

MUKUTSILA-124

218/1415

00

01

43

2

KHEJURI-I

DEBI CHAK-125

587

00

00

93

539/931

00

03

19

552/935

00

03

75

552

00

12

32

552/936

00

05

22

543

00

01

60

550

00

00

79

549/934

00

05

15

549/933

00

05

77

549

00

07

46

549/932

00

06

58

548

00

01

28

559

00

01

65

259

00

16

65

261

00

00

74

338/892

00

01

35

260

00

06

04

264

00

01

48

293

00

09

57

296

00

15

21

297

00

04

35

338

00

07

24

339

00

04

46

340

00

06

92

357

00

00

20

341

00

02

69

352

00

01

33

353

00

02

92

351

00

01

37

326

00

00

82

3

KHEJURI-I

MOHATI-126

1646

00

00

89

1495

00

01

44

1494

00

00

49

1354

00

02

02

1353

00

03

39

1352

00

02

21

1226

00

00

63

1225

00

00

26

1227

00

07

08

1228

00

08

56

1234

00

07

36

1240

00

03

12

1239

00

13

52

1236

00

00

37

1237

00

03

85

1238

00

11

47

1200

00

00

62

1256

00

04

40

1199

00

04

47

1196

00

12

30

1197

00

01

77

1195

00

06

92

1194

00

00

20

1193

00

00

86

54

00

01

80

41/3760

00

00

53

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4693

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

KHEJURI-I

MOHATI-126

55/3762

00

05

42

18

00

08

90

17

00

02

43

16

00

01

96

15

00

03

80

10

00

05

47

63

00

06

15

64

00

03

03

8

00

00

85

7

00

03

37

1

00

00

69

4

KHEJURI-I

KHARAR URF KHARAN-127

200

00

01

25

85

00

14

60

158

00

01

05

80

00

04

13

79

00

05

46

94

00

07

18

102

00

06

46

94/1045

00

00

97

101

00

04

78

105

00

01

23

106

00

02

39

111

00

03

08

114

00

03

90

115

00

00

20

113

00

02

84

126

00

11

68

125

00

00

20

124

00

05

14

121

00

00

83

122

00

02

47

451

00

00

47

463

00

04

11

464

00

02

63

504

00

06

07

503

00

01

79

502

00

02

36

501

00

03

50

501/1040

00

03

11

859

00

07

47

857

00

02

45

858

00

03

79

552

00

00

20

853

00

00

47

771

00

00

30

770

00

03

91

765

00

01

75

767

00

01

92

766

00

01

87

764

00

00

85

673

00

00

20

674

00

03

91

675

00

00

62

684

00

00

24

683

00

03

14

682

00

03

04

681

00

02

89

4694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

KHEJURI-I

KHARAR URF KHARAN-127

680

00

01

22

695

00

03

85

696/1114

00

04

18

696/1113

00

01

88

698

00

01

30

696

00

00

20

699

00

04

32

[F. No. R-11025(12)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29474]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 24 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1130

1130

1130

1130.—के"#ीय सरकार के लोकिहत म2 यह आवSयक तीत होता है क पिuम बंगाल राTय म2 पारादीप-

सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीआ (पिuम बंगाल) से पे ोिलयम उD पाद के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड

के ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी है।

और के"#ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवSयक तीत होता है ऐसी भूिम म2 जो इससे

उपाबy अनुसूची म2 वwणत है और िजस म2 उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 6 ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न कया जाए।

अत: अब के"#ीय सरकार पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाइ" स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का

50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा 1 ारा दD त शिय का योग करते ए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न करने के अपने

आशय क घोषणा करती है।

कोई |ि जो उ अनुसुची म2 वwणत भूिम म2 िहतबy है उस तारख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के राजपY क

ितया साधारण जनता को उपलtध करा दी जाती है इ}स दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए

उसम2 उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न के सQ ब" ध म2 )ी िसबाियादास गुd ता सOम ािधकारी इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड,

मोर-म अ" दुल मोउर दुिलया हावड़ा 711302 पिuम बंगाल को िलिखत Zप से आOेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपC

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपC

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपC

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपCरेशन िलिमटेड

रेशन िलिमटेड

रेशन िलिमटेड

रेशन िलिमटेड

पारादीप

पारादीप

पारादीप

पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर – ह3 दी

ह3 दी

ह3 दी

ह3 दीआ

आ

आ

आ उ7 पा

उ7 पा

उ7 पा

उ7 पाद पाइपलाइ

पाइपलाइ

पाइपलाइ

पाइपलाइन प8रयोजना

न प8रयोजना

न प8रयोजना

न प8रयोजना

3(1)

3(1)

3(1)

3(1) अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला :- पूपूपूपूव1 मे;दिनपुर

व1 मे;दिनपुर

व1 मे;दिनपुर

व1 मे;दिनपुर

राय

राय

राय

राय :- पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

=.संसंसंसं

तहसील का नाम

तहसील का नाम

तहसील का नाम

तहसील का नाम

गां

गां

गां

गांव का नाम

व का नाम

व का नाम

व का नाम

एल

एल

एल

एल आर (लॉट

आर (लॉट

आर (लॉट

आर (लॉट

=मांक

=मांक

=मांक

=मांक

ेफल

ेफल

ेफल

ेफल

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

(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

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-II

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर-326

326

326

326

1972/2010

00

01

08

1965/2408

00

00

97

1965/2407

00

01

76

1965

00

05

49

1964

00

02

99

1964/2410

00

03

79

1935/2414

00

00

34

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4695

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-II

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर-326

326

326

326

1965/2409

00

00

49

1935/2413

00

00

45

1967/2417

00

00

65

1967/2416

00

04

22

1966/2385

00

05

59

1966

00

05

86

1966/2386

00

05

62

1966/2384

00

00

43

1817/2383

00

01

03

1817/2382

00

07

52

1817/2381

00

03

44

1866

00

01

01

1865

00

00

91

1864

00

00

76

1862

00

08

01

1862/1997

00

05

98

1863/2367

00

02

28

1846

00

00

20

1846/1998

00

17

26

1844/2365

00

00

86

1844/2364

00

13

57

1844

00

05

61

1834

00

00

87

1826

00

14

44

1823

00

04

95

1822

00

06

37

1821

00

05

07

1771

00

06

94

1769

00

11

13

1773

00

02

31

1774

00

03

95

1775

00

05

13

1995

00

03

60

1768

00

03

38

1759/2349

00

10

90

4696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-II

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर

िबजोयनगर-326

326

326

326

1994

00

09

35

1760

00

07

62

1759/2348

00

14

65

1984

00

00

77

1787

00

00

74

1568

00

04

71

1567

00

18

22

1552

00

02

71

1551

00

26

09

1553

00

15

76

1554

00

00

39

1555

00

09

26

1528

00

00

88

1413

00

00

20

1412

00

01

21

1473/2298

00

05

80

1414

00

05

62

1415

00

02

15

1416

00

02

72

1417

00

05

42

1419

00

01

95

1418

00

01

80

1283

00

01

78

1450

00

15

98

1458

00

00

20

1456/2291

00

01

81

1455/2290

00

04

67

1454

00

04

92

1453

00

02

23

1452

00

05

13

2

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;दिशमुिलआ

;दिशमुिलआ

;दिशमुिलआ

;दिशमुिलआ-335

335

335

335

491

00

10

44

559/675

00

00

56

559

00

06

98

558

00

01

08

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4697

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;दिशमुिलआ

;दिशमुिलआ

;दिशमुिलआ

;दिशमुिलआ-335

335

335

335

556

00

06

53

557

00

01

39

556/688

00

02

31

555

00

00

20

554

00

01

30

553

00

06

55

609

00

14

34

611

00

00

20

613

00

00

20

614

00

21

29

534

00

08

90

531

00

08

08

532/691

00

09

83

526

00

03

16

519

00

05

69

630

00

00

35

631

00

04

07

629

00

03

23

643

00

04

77

643/803

00

04

46

638

00

02

20

637

00

04

55

637/726

00

00

84

653/730

00

01

33

3

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

दि ण बरोज पाट1

दि ण बरोज पाट1

दि ण बरोज पाट1

दि ण बरोज पाट1-II

II

II

II - 333

333

333

333

508/951

00

00

20

339

00

01

45

383

00

06

86

382

00

00

65

384

00

04

74

385

00

08

24

355/901

00

01

84

355

00

00

35

356

00

04

98

359

00

04

94

4698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

दि

दि

दि

दि ण बरोज पाट1

ण बरोज पाट1

ण बरोज पाट1

ण बरोज पाट1-II

II

II

II - 333

333

333

333

449

00

20

07

451

00

15

82

457

00

03

09

456

00

02

89

453

00

07

16

454

00

00

20

375

00

01

09

4

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

िसमुलबारी

िसमुलबारी

िसमुलबारी

िसमुलबारी-331

331

331

331

120

00

00

88

163

00

00

20

164

00

04

39

165

00

00

20

161

00

00

54

160

00

00

20

166

00

05

85

168

00

07

59

167

00

00

71

254/926

00

01

12

157/887

00

06

48

157/888

00

04

16

157/889

00

03

05

158/898

00

00

25

157/890

00

02

05

158/899

00

09

93

158

00

07

02

158/900

00

02

59

158/901

00

01

26

158/902

00

00

57

158/903

00

00

20

153

00

01

82

152/885

00

00

31

152

00

08

68

883

00

00

20

152/886

00

05

82

145

00

06

32

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4699

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

िसमुलबारी

िसमुलबारी

िसमुलबारी

िसमुलबारी-331

331

331

331

144

00

08

59

143

00

01

44

139

00

01

21

141

00

00

20

42

00

01

14

41/908

00

01

79

140

00

02

37

556

00

06

00

534

00

00

68

536

00

00

33

535

00

00

20

537

00

00

20

542

00

01

48

538

00

03

47

540

00

18

99

540/969

00

07

38

567

00

00

81

611/971

00

13

95

611/972

00

00

46

603

00

01

83

607

00

01

40

863

00

04

86

5

भगवा

भगवा

भगवा

भगवानपुर

नपुर

नपुर

नपुर-।।।।।।।।

िब8रबारी

िब8रबारी

िब8रबारी

िब8रबारी-242

242

242

242

729

00

00

53

649

00

00

77

650

00

06

06

642

00

00

39

652

00

08

11

664

00

07

10

714

00

00

21

665

00

03

56

666

00

05

02

668

00

04

53

555

00

02

13

554

00

02

82

4700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

िब8रबारी

िब8रबारी

िब8रबारी

िब8रबारी-242

242

242

242

551

00

03

57

550

00

04

26

543

00

02

52

542

00

03

25

541

00

03

60

540

00

00

57

535

00

00

20

537

00

02

43

536

00

02

22

533

00

05

06

532

00

01

45

6

भग

भग

भग

भगवानपुर

वानपुर

वानपुर

वानपुर-।।।।।।।।

झु;कआ

झु;कआ

झु;कआ

झु;कआ-240

240

240

240

2601

00

00

39

2599

00

06

27

2597

00

00

20

2598

00

01

98

2596

00

04

83

2593

00

00

20

2608

00

09

38

2592

00

01

71

2586

00

00

53

2585

00

04

60

2578

00

08

33

2568

00

03

74

2567

00

03

62

2317

00

00

47

2670

00

02

91

2671

00

01

41

2680

00

08

73

2677

00

03

78

2686

00

03

33

2687

00

00

64

2279

00

03

96

2279/3250

00

01

75

2274

00

01

22

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4701

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

झु;कआ

झु;कआ

झु;कआ

झु;कआ-240

240

240

240

2273

00

12

22

2270

00

00

20

2269

00

03

28

2268

00

03

72

2267

00

05

44

2266

00

00

38

2258

00

09

91

2032

00

01

44

2832

00

01

44

2832/3321

00

09

72

2001

00

01

24

7

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

इखुपिका

इखुपिका

इखुपिका

इखुपिका-225

225

225

225

1525

00

00

71

1814

00

10

44

1832

00

00

58

1830

00

06

58

1829

00

13

05

1821

00

03

32

1823/2316

00

07

10

1824/2353

00

00

40

1823

00

04

86

1824

00

02

54

1838

00

04

73

1790/2352

00

00

20

1839

00

03

60

1840/2355

00

04

00

1840

00

02

51

1840/2354

00

06

14

1841/2100

00

01

63

1841

00

09

29

1984

00

00

29

1982

00

02

78

1973

00

04

74

1971

00

00

20

1981

00

00

86

4702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

इखुपिका

इखुपिका

इखुपिका

इखुपिका-225

225

225

225

1974

00

06

30

1948

00

00

83

1980

00

02

69

1959

00

00

51

2008

00

01

05

8

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

सडू3 या

सडू3 या

सडू3 या

सडू3 या चाक

चाक

चाक

चाक-229

229

229

229

214

00

02

30

207

00

05

51

204

00

03

77

186

00

00

20

205

00

00

42

183

00

00

67

201

00

00

20

203

00

03

97

810

00

04

46

187

00

03

75

188

00

00

22

181

00

03

25

189

00

06

59

179

00

05

44

190

00

03

85

178

00

05

38

400

00

04

80

401

00

08

06

402

00

00

20

404

00

07

16

405

00

02

36

406

00

00

62

407

00

03

94

411

00

03

64

410

00

04

55

409

00

01

24

120

00

01

17

415

00

00

84

418

00

05

25

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4703

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

सडू3 या

सडू3 या

सडू3 या

सडू3 या चाक

चाक

चाक

चाक-229

229

229

229

417

00

02

09

420

00

00

20

416

00

04

93

421

00

00

68

429

00

05

02

427

00

00

20

428

00

03

55

430

00

00

20

451

00

06

28

450

00

04

13

452

00

04

24

864

00

00

20

453

00

07

99

863

00

00

89

454

00

07

20

456

00

07

23

488

00

06

59

469

00

00

26

470

00

11

63

580

00

00

90

9

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

फकDरचाक

फकDरचाक

फकDरचाक

फकDरचाक-228

228

228

228

63

00

00

91

172/268

00

07

56

171

00

06

67

184

00

00

57

169

00

05

53

185

00

01

90

168

00

08

96

167

00

03

38

133

00

11

76

153

00

02

49

152

00

06

26

154

00

04

56

155

00

00

48

157

00

02

98

4704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

फकDरचाक

फकDरचाक

फकDरचाक

फकDरचाक-228

228

228

228

156

00

05

38

160

00

00

20

227

00

00

43

10

10

10

10

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

15952

00

00

45

15879

00

06

02

15880

00

02

12

15881

00

03

95

18722

00

03

02

15868

00

06

03

15867

00

07

27

15858

00

00

20

15903

00

06

53

15904

00

03

07

15905

00

00

24

15906

00

03

80

15912

00

00

84

15909

00

00

20

15911

00

03

71

15913

00

03

22

3009

00

03

64

3010

00

01

79

2995

00

06

29

2994

00

00

20

2996

00

00

56

2993

00

06

97

2992

00

05

29

2987

00

00

44

3012

00

00

59

3023

00

05

81

3024

00

02

52

3027

00

01

41

3028

00

00

20

3026

00

01

39

3029

00

04

86

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4705

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

3030

00

02

39

3031

00

03

69

17054

00

00

37

17053

00

02

50

3039

00

01

91

17052

00

00

20

3040

00

02

28

3041

00

00

85

17049

00

00

20

17050

00

02

47

3036

00

03

16

17051

00

01

59

3089

00

00

20

2888

00

00

87

2609

00

00

87

2514

00

03

40

2512

00

02

98

2510

00

00

77

2509

00

00

99

2486

00

01

77

2487

00

01

51

2485

00

01

58

2484

00

01

96

2483

00

04

22

2482

00

03

21

2476

00

00

20

2473

00

03

57

2475

00

03

03

2474

00

11

10

3620

00

00

86

2086

00

02

91

3621

00

02

36

2085

00

00

85

2087

00

05

25

2089

00

00

26

4706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

2088

00

04

10

16922

00

00

20

16923

00

01

06

16924

00

03

18

16925

00

02

58

2031

00

01

49

2040

00

06

71

2042

00

02

18

17125

00

04

28

2044

00

06

86

2045

00

04

05

2046

00

08

81

2051

00

03

57

2026

00

00

20

2052

00

05

93

2053

00

01

39

2025

00

00

69

2021

00

00

62

2020

00

07

87

2022

00

02

75

2012

00

06

55

17224

00

03

95

2013

00

00

82

2011

00

01

44

2010

00

06

51

2007

00

00

71

2008

00

03

77

9191

00

01

56

9190

00

03

14

9189

00

00

20

8408

00

00

97

9166

00

06

68

9167

00

04

88

9170

00

00

20

9169

00

04

90

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4707

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

9136

00

00

98

9135

00

02

83

9134

00

03

31

9133

00

01

67

17862

00

02

30

9118

00

01

95

9123

00

04

53

9122

00

01

85

9106

00

00

67

8481

00

00

20

8486

00

02

18

17842

00

01

65

8485

00

02

24

8484

00

00

24

8488

00

04

14

8490

00

00

20

8491

00

00

96

17840

00

00

20

8499

00

07

42

8500

00

02

01

8501

00

04

78

8502

00

00

20

8504

00

00

20

8503

00

03

86

8299

00

04

03

8298

00

03

75

8522

00

00

20

8297

00

00

58

8523

00

01

67

8524

00

06

38

8525

00

00

80

8535

00

03

28

8534

00

02

27

8568

00

00

20

8569

00

02

86

4708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

8570

00

01

16

8571

00

01

66

8585

00

00

86

8584

00

03

74

8583

00

03

26

8577

00

00

81

8581

00

03

39

8579

00

02

35

8580

00

02

82

6613

00

08

05

6614

00

00

20

6615

00

00

90

6754

00

00

33

6617

00

03

97

6755

00

02

70

6756

00

01

20

6753

00

10

51

6757

00

04

76

6771

00

07

66

6761

00

01

72

6763/17578

00

01

25

6763/17577

00

01

18

6763

00

00

62

6764/17580

00

00

52

6764

00

00

50

6765

00

00

53

6766

00

00

38

6767

00

09

33

8882

00

01

09

6768

00

03

01

6904

00

05

36

8881

00

00

20

8883

00

00

20

6905

00

07

98

6907

00

07

82

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4709

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-II

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

8888

00

00

94

8889

00

00

40

6909

00

02

35

6910

00

02

26

8893

00

05

25

8894

00

01

30

6911

00

05

07

6917

00

06

22

6918

00

00

82

6918/17608

00

01

65

6919

00

01

78

6921/17609

00

02

91

6921/17610

00

04

58

6921

00

00

79

6926

00

12

60

6945

00

06

30

6944

00

01

85

6946

00

02

93

6947

00

07

01

6948

00

01

06

6951

00

06

50

6958

00

07

32

6959

00

09

13

7967

00

01

21

6979/17623

00

00

72

6960

00

02

69

6962

00

04

51

6977

00

00

74

6976

00

03

30

6963

00

09

67

6964

00

11

93

6973

00

01

27

6966

00

05

59

6972

00

02

20

6968

00

06

50

4710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-II

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

6967

00

01

77

6969

00

01

59

7857

00

01

13

7829

00

01

09

7830

00

00

79

7828

00

10

87

17739

00

02

62

7824

00

09

42

17737

00

00

20

7823

00

01

82

7819

00

02

75

7807

00

02

32

7818

00

08

61

7809

00

00

88

7810

00

04

64

7814

00

15

10

7815

00

01

98

11776

00

10

70

11777

00

03

37

11772

00

02

75

11778

00

02

17

11765

00

06

14

11764

00

06

10

11763

00

07

22

11762

00

00

22

11785

00

08

02

11786

00

03

69

11791/16678

00

01

99

11787

00

02

72

11788

00

02

38

11789

00

03

40

11790

00

03

96

11805

00

07

92

11804

00

05

89

11803

00

05

34

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4711

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

11802

00

02

92

11819

00

04

22

11818

00

05

42

11814

00

00

20

11815

00

07

60

11816

00

04

18

11885

00

04

05

11858

00

05

28

11859

00

01

26

11884

00

02

38

11860

00

06

40

11883

00

08

25

11865

00

01

13

11866

00

01

76

11877

00

04

76

11869

00

02

16

11876

00

03

36

11870

00

00

73

11871

00

06

25

13020

00

00

80

13021

00

01

34

18404

00

06

76

13022

00

06

87

13058

00

01

49

13100

00

06

20

13102

00

00

20

13101

00

06

47

18407

00

04

63

13095

00

10

34

13085

00

07

39

13156

00

00

20

13084

00

07

24

13081

00

06

99

13080

00

01

26

13158

00

07

13

4712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

13075

00

01

27

13159

00

00

67

13074

00

05

77

13247

00

06

92

13249

00

03

23

13248

00

06

84

13244

00

01

24

13242

00

04

95

13253

00

00

92

13254

00

03

31

13256

00

13

10

18424

00

00

20

13259

00

04

13

13260

00

04

78

13261

00

02

19

13262

00

00

62

13269

00

11

71

13276

00

01

03

13277

00

03

56

13278/18427

00

05

08

13278

00

08

19

13279

00

00

20

13288

00

00

20

13921

00

00

20

13922

00

12

57

13923

00

04

54

13924

00

04

62

13925

00

04

08

13926

00

03

45

13981

00

02

95

13928

00

03

41

13980

00

06

23

13977

00

04

35

13978

00

00

20

18471

00

03

01

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4713

(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)

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर

भगवानपुर-।।।।।।।।

;क# म

;क# म

;क# म

;क# मत बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल

त बजकुल-156

156

156

156

18470

00

02

15

13976

00

00

67

13971

00

01

51

13973

00

25

34

13974

00

01

46

14014

00

00

87

13858

00

00

87

18475

00

04

72

18474

00

08

14

18479

00

18

73

18480

00

01

06

14049

00

10

32

14048

00

05

83

14030

00

00

38

14031

00

03

40

14032

00

02

37

14033

00

02

57

14034

00

04

59

14036

00

00

79

14035

00

00

70

14428

00

00

76

15579

00

00

28

14431

00

10

49

14430

00

05

60

14433

00

00

85

14432

00

03

10

14434

00

01

36

14435

00

01

88

15750

00

01

88

[फा. सं. आर-11025(12)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29474]

शा" तनु धर, अवर सिचव

4714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2019

S. O. 1130.—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 PRODUCT PIPELINE PROJECT

SCHEDULE of 3(1)

DISTRICT :

PURBA MEDINIPUR

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Sl. No.

Name of

Tehsil

Name of Village

LR Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

1

BHAGWANPUR-II

BIJOYNAGAR-326

1972/2010

00

01

08

1965/2408

00

00

97

1965/2407

00

01

76

1965

00

05

49

1964

00

02

99

1964/2410

00

03

79

1935/2414

00

00

34

1965/2409

00

00

49

1935/2413

00

00

45

1967/2417

00

00

65

1967/2416

00

04

22

1966/2385

00

05

59

1966

00

05

86

1966/2386

00

05

62

1966/2384

00

00

43

1817/2383

00

01

03

1817/2382

00

07

52

1817/2381

00

03

44

1866

00

01

01

1865

00

00

91

1864

00

00

76

1862

00

08

01

1862/1997

00

05

98

1863/2367

00

02

28

1846

00

00

20

1846/1998

00

17

26

1844/2365

00

00

86

1844/2364

00

13

57

1844

00

05

61

1834

00

00

87

1826

00

14

44

1823

00

04

95

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4715

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

BIJOYNAGAR-326

1822

00

06

37

1821

00

05

07

1771

00

06

94

1769

00

11

13

1773

00

02

31

1774

00

03

95

1775

00

05

13

1995

00

03

60

1768

00

03

38

1759/2349

00

10

90

1994

00

09

35

1760

00

07

62

1759/2348

00

14

65

1984

00

00

77

1787

00

00

74

1568

00

04

71

1567

00

18

22

1552

00

02

71

1551

00

26

09

1553

00

15

76

1554

00

00

39

1555

00

09

26

1528

00

00

88

1413

00

00

20

1412

00

01

21

1473/2298

00

05

80

1414

00

05

62

1415

00

02

15

1416

00

02

72

1417

00

05

42

1419

00

01

95

1418

00

01

80

1283

00

01

78

1450

00

15

98

1458

00

00

20

1456/2291

00

01

81

1455/2290

00

04

67

1454

00

04

92

1453

00

02

23

1452

00

05

13

2

BHAGWANPUR-II

DISHIMULIA-335

491

00

10

44

559/675

00

00

56

559

00

06

98

558

00

01

08

556

00

06

53

557

00

01

39

556/688

00

02

31

555

00

00

20

554

00

01

30

553

00

06

55

609

00

14

34

611

00

00

20

613

00

00

20

614

00

21

29

534

00

08

90

531

00

08

08

532/691

00

09

83

4716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

DISHIMULIA-335

526

00

03

16

519

00

05

69

630

00

00

35

631

00

04

07

629

00

03

23

643

00

04

77

643/803

00

04

46

638

00

02

20

637

00

04

55

637/726

00

00

84

653/730

00

01

33

3

BHAGWANPUR-II

DAKSHIN BOROJ

PART-II - 333

508/951

00

00

20

339

00

01

45

383

00

06

86

382

00

00

65

384

00

04

74

385

00

08

24

355/901

00

01

84

355

00

00

35

356

00

04

98

359

00

04

94

449

00

20

07

451

00

15

82

457

00

03

09

456

00

02

89

453

00

07

16

454

00

00

20

375

00

01

09

4

BHAGWANPUR-II

SIMULBARI-331

120

00

00

88

163

00

00

20

164

00

04

39

165

00

00

20

161

00

00

54

160

00

00

20

166

00

05

85

168

00

07

59

167

00

00

71

254/926

00

01

12

157/887

00

06

48

157/888

00

04

16

157/889

00

03

05

158/898

00

00

25

157/890

00

02

05

158/899

00

09

93

158

00

07

02

158/900

00

02

59

158/901

00

01

26

158/902

00

00

57

158/903

00

00

20

153

00

01

82

152/885

00

00

31

152

00

08

68

883

00

00

20

152/886

00

05

82

145

00

06

32

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4717

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

SIMULBARI-331

144

00

08

59

143

00

01

44

139

00

01

21

141

00

00

20

42

00

01

14

41/908

00

01

79

140

00

02

37

556

00

06

00

534

00

00

68

536

00

00

33

535

00

00

20

537

00

00

20

542

00

01

48

538

00

03

47

540

00

18

99

540/969

00

07

38

567

00

00

81

611/971

00

13

95

611/972

00

00

46

603

00

01

83

607

00

01

40

863

00

04

86

5

BHAGWANPUR-II

BIRIBARI-242

729

00

00

53

649

00

00

77

650

00

06

06

642

00

00

39

652

00

08

11

664

00

07

10

714

00

00

21

665

00

03

56

666

00

05

02

668

00

04

53

555

00

02

13

554

00

02

82

551

00

03

57

550

00

04

26

543

00

02

52

542

00

03

25

541

00

03

60

540

00

00

57

535

00

00

20

537

00

02

43

536

00

02

22

533

00

05

06

532

00

01

45

6

BHAGWANPUR-II

JUKHIA-240

2601

00

00

39

2599

00

06

27

2597

00

00

20

2598

00

01

98

2596

00

04

83

2593

00

00

20

2608

00

09

38

2592

00

01

71

2586

00

00

53

2585

00

04

60

2578

00

08

33

4718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

JUKHIA-240

2568

00

03

74

2567

00

03

62

2317

00

00

47

2670

00

02

91

2671

00

01

41

2680

00

08

73

2677

00

03

78

2686

00

03

33

2687

00

00

64

2279

00

03

96

2279/3250

00

01

75

2274

00

01

22

2273

00

12

22

2270

00

00

20

2269

00

03

28

2268

00

03

72

2267

00

05

44

2266

00

00

38

2258

00

09

91

2032

00

01

44

2832

00

01

44

2832/3321

00

09

72

2001

00

01

24

7

BHAGWANPUR-II

IKHUPATRIKA-225

1525

00

00

71

1814

00

10

44

1832

00

00

58

1830

00

06

58

1829

00

13

05

1821

00

03

32

1823/2316

00

07

10

1824/2353

00

00

40

1823

00

04

86

1824

00

02

54

1838

00

04

73

1790/2352

00

00

20

1839

00

03

60

1840/2355

00

04

00

1840

00

02

51

1840/2354

00

06

14

1841/2100

00

01

63

1841

00

09

29

1984

00

00

29

1982

00

02

78

1973

00

04

74

1971

00

00

20

1981

00

00

86

1974

00

06

30

1948

00

00

83

1980

00

02

69

1959

00

00

51

2008

00

01

05

8

BHAGWANPUR-II

SADULYACHAK-229

214

00

02

30

207

00

05

51

204

00

03

77

186

00

00

20

205

00

00

42

183

00

00

67

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4719

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

201

00

00

20

8

BHAGWANPUR-II

SADULYACHAK-229

203

00

03

97

810

00

04

46

187

00

03

75

188

00

00

22

181

00

03

25

189

00

06

59

179

00

05

44

190

00

03

85

178

00

05

38

400

00

04

80

401

00

08

06

402

00

00

20

404

00

07

16

405

00

02

36

406

00

00

62

407

00

03

94

411

00

03

64

410

00

04

55

409

00

01

24

120

00

01

17

415

00

00

84

418

00

05

25

417

00

02

09

420

00

00

20

416

00

04

93

421

00

00

68

429

00

05

02

427

00

00

20

428

00

03

55

430

00

00

20

451

00

06

28

450

00

04

13

452

00

04

24

864

00

00

20

453

00

07

99

863

00

00

89

454

00

07

20

456

00

07

23

488

00

06

59

469

00

00

26

470

00

11

63

580

00

00

90

9

BHAGWANPUR-II

FAKIRCHAK-228

63

00

00

91

172/268

00

07

56

171

00

06

67

184

00

00

57

169

00

05

53

185

00

01

90

168

00

08

96

167

00

03

38

133

00

11

76

153

00

02

49

152

00

06

26

154

00

04

56

155

00

00

48

157

00

02

98

4720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

FAKIRCHAK-228

156

00

05

38

160

00

00

20

227

00

00

43

10

BHAGWANPUR-II

KISMAT BAJKUL-156

15952

00

00

45

15879

00

06

02

15880

00

02

12

15881

00

03

95

18722

00

03

02

15868

00

06

03

15867

00

07

27

15858

00

00

20

15903

00

06

53

15904

00

03

07

15905

00

00

24

15906

00

03

80

15912

00

00

84

15909

00

00

20

15911

00

03

71

15913

00

03

22

3009

00

03

64

3010

00

01

79

2995

00

06

29

2994

00

00

20

2996

00

00

56

2993

00

06

97

2992

00

05

29

2987

00

00

44

3012

00

00

59

3023

00

05

81

3024

00

02

52

3027

00

01

41

3028

00

00

20

3026

00

01

39

3029

00

04

86

3030

00

02

39

3031

00

03

69

17054

00

00

37

17053

00

02

50

3039

00

01

91

17052

00

00

20

3040

00

02

28

3041

00

00

85

17049

00

00

20

17050

00

02

47

3036

00

03

16

17051

00

01

59

3089

00

00

20

2888

00

00

87

2609

00

00

87

2514

00

03

40

2512

00

02

98

2510

00

00

77

2509

00

00

99

2486

00

01

77

2487

00

01

51

2485

00

01

58

2484

00

01

96

2483

00

04

22

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4721

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

KISMAT BAJKUL-156

2482

00

03

21

2476

00

00

20

2473

00

03

57

2475

00

03

03

2474

00

11

10

3620

00

00

86

2086

00

02

91

3621

00

02

36

2085

00

00

85

2087

00

05

25

2089

00

00

26

2088

00

04

10

16922

00

00

20

16923

00

01

06

16924

00

03

18

16925

00

02

58

2031

00

01

49

2040

00

06

71

2042

00

02

18

17125

00

04

28

2044

00

06

86

2045

00

04

05

2046

00

08

81

2051

00

03

57

2026

00

00

20

2052

00

05

93

2053

00

01

39

2025

00

00

69

2021

00

00

62

2020

00

07

87

2022

00

02

75

2012

00

06

55

17224

00

03

95

2013

00

00

82

2011

00

01

44

2010

00

06

51

2007

00

00

71

2008

00

03

77

9191

00

01

56

9190

00

03

14

9189

00

00

20

8408

00

00

97

9166

00

06

68

9167

00

04

88

9170

00

00

20

9169

00

04

90

9136

00

00

98

9135

00

02

83

9134

00

03

31

9133

00

01

67

17862

00

02

30

9118

00

01

95

9123

00

04

53

9122

00

01

85

9106

00

00

67

8481

00

00

20

8486

00

02

18

17842

00

01

65

4722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

KISMAT BAJKUL-156

8485

00

02

24

8484

00

00

24

8488

00

04

14

8490

00

00

20

8491

00

00

96

17840

00

00

20

8499

00

07

42

8500

00

02

01

8501

00

04

78

8502

00

00

20

8504

00

00

20

8503

00

03

86

8299

00

04

03

8298

00

03

75

8522

00

00

20

8297

00

00

58

8523

00

01

67

8524

00

06

38

8525

00

00

80

8535

00

03

28

8534

00

02

27

8568

00

00

20

8569

00

02

86

8570

00

01

16

8571

00

01

66

8585

00

00

86

8584

00

03

74

8583

00

03

26

8577

00

00

81

8581

00

03

39

8579

00

02

35

8580

00

02

82

6613

00

08

05

6614

00

00

20

6615

00

00

90

6754

00

00

33

6617

00

03

97

6755

00

02

70

6756

00

01

20

6753

00

10

51

6757

00

04

76

6771

00

07

66

6761

00

01

72

6763/17578

00

01

25

6763/17577

00

01

18

6763

00

00

62

6764/17580

00

00

52

6764

00

00

50

6765

00

00

53

6766

00

00

38

6767

00

09

33

8882

00

01

09

6768

00

03

01

6904

00

05

36

8881

00

00

20

8883

00

00

20

6905

00

07

98

6907

00

07

82

8888

00

00

94

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4723

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

KISMAT BAJKUL-156

8889

00

00

40

6909

00

02

35

6910

00

02

26

8893

00

05

25

8894

00

01

30

6911

00

05

07

6917

00

06

22

6918

00

00

82

6918/17608

00

01

65

6919

00

01

78

6921/17609

00

02

91

6921/17610

00

04

58

6921

00

00

79

6926

00

12

60

6945

00

06

30

6944

00

01

85

6946

00

02

93

6947

00

07

01

6948

00

01

06

6951

00

06

50

6958

00

07

32

6959

00

09

13

7967

00

01

21

6979/17623

00

00

72

6960

00

02

69

6962

00

04

51

6977

00

00

74

6976

00

03

30

6963

00

09

67

6964

00

11

93

6973

00

01

27

6966

00

05

59

6972

00

02

20

6968

00

06

50

6967

00

01

77

6969

00

01

59

7857

00

01

13

7829

00

01

09

7830

00

00

79

7828

00

10

87

17739

00

02

62

7824

00

09

42

17737

00

00

20

7823

00

01

82

7819

00

02

75

7807

00

02

32

7818

00

08

61

7809

00

00

88

7810

00

04

64

7814

00

15

10

7815

00

01

98

11776

00

10

70

11777

00

03

37

11772

00

02

75

11778

00

02

17

11765

00

06

14

11764

00

06

10

11763

00

07

22

4724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

KISMAT BAJKUL-156

11762

00

00

22

11785

00

08

02

11786

00

03

69

11791/16678

00

01

99

11787

00

02

72

11788

00

02

38

11789

00

03

40

11790

00

03

96

11805

00

07

92

11804

00

05

89

11803

00

05

34

11802

00

02

92

11819

00

04

22

11818

00

05

42

11814

00

00

20

11815

00

07

60

11816

00

04

18

11885

00

04

05

11858

00

05

28

11859

00

01

26

11884

00

02

38

11860

00

06

40

11883

00

08

25

11865

00

01

13

11866

00

01

76

11877

00

04

76

11869

00

02

16

11876

00

03

36

11870

00

00

73

11871

00

06

25

13020

00

00

80

13021

00

01

34

18404

00

06

76

13022

00

06

87

13058

00

01

49

13100

00

06

20

13102

00

00

20

13101

00

06

47

18407

00

04

63

13095

00

10

34

13085

00

07

39

13156

00

00

20

13084

00

07

24

13081

00

06

99

13080

00

01

26

13158

00

07

13

13075

00

01

27

13159

00

00

67

13074

00

05

77

13247

00

06

92

13249

00

03

23

13248

00

06

84

13244

00

01

24

13242

00

04

95

13253

00

00

92

13254

00

03

31

13256

00

13

10

18424

00

00

20

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4725

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

BHAGWANPUR-II

KISMAT BAJKUL-156

13259

00

04

13

13260

00

04

78

13261

00

02

19

13262

00

00

62

13269

00

11

71

13276

00

01

03

13277

00

03

56

13278/18427

00

05

08

13278

00

08

19

13279

00

00

20

13288

00

00

20

13921

00

00

20

13922

00

12

57

13923

00

04

54

13924

00

04

62

13925

00

04

08

13926

00

03

45

13981

00

02

95

13928

00

03

41

13980

00

06

23

13977

00

04

35

13978

00

00

20

18471

00

03

01

18470

00

02

15

13976

00

00

67

13971

00

01

51

13973

00

25

34

13974

00

01

46

14014

00

00

87

13858

00

00

87

18475

00

04

72

18474

00

08

14

18479

00

18

73

18480

00

01

06

14049

00

10

32

14048

00

05

83

14030

00

00

38

14031

00

03

40

14032

00

02

37

14033

00

02

57

14034

00

04

59

14036

00

00

79

14035

00

00

70

14428

00

00

76

15579

00

00

28

14431

00

10

49

14430

00

05

60

14433

00

00

85

14432

00

03

10

14434

00

01

36

14435

00

01

88

15750

00

01

88

[F. No. R-11025(12)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29474]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

4726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 24 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का. आ. . . . 1131

1131

1131

1131.—के"#ीय सरकार के लोकिहत म2 यह आवSयक तीत होता है क पिuम बंगाल राTय म2 पारादीप-

सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीआ (पिuम बंगाल) से पे ोिलयम उD पाद के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन

िलिमटेड के ारा पाईप लाइन िबछाई जानी है।

और के"#ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवSयक तीत होता है ऐसी भूिम म2 जो इससे

उपाबy अनुसूची मे वwणत है और िजस म2 उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 6 ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न कया जाए।

अत: अब के"#ीय सरकार पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाई" स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न अिधिनयम 1962 (1962

का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा 1 ारा दD त शिय का योग करते ए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न करने के

अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है।

कोई |ि जो उ अनुसूची म2 वwणत भूिम म2 िहतबy है उस तारीख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के राजपY क

ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलtध करा दी जाती है इ}स दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए

उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न के सQ ब" ध म2 )ी िसबाियादास गुd ता सOम ािधकारी इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड,

अ" दुल मोउर दुिलया मोरी-ाम हावड़ा 711302 पिuम बंगाल को िलिखत Zप से आOेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपौरेशन िलिमटेड

पारादीप

पारादीप

पारादीप

पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर - ह3 दी

ह3 दी

ह3 दी

ह3 दीआ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पाद पाइपलाईन प8रयोजना

द पाइपलाईन प8रयोजना

द पाइपलाईन प8रयोजना

द पाइपलाईन प8रयोजना

3(1)

3(1)

3(1)

3(1) अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :- पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

राय :

राय :

राय :

राय :- पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

=.सं

=.सं

=.सं

=.सं

तहसील का

तहसील का

तहसील का

तहसील का

नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

गॉव का

गॉव का

गॉव का

गॉव का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

एल

एल

एल

एल आर (लॉट

आर (लॉट

आर (लॉट

आर (लॉट

=मांक

=मांक

=मांक

=मांक

ेफल

ेफल

ेफल

ेफल

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

(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

सुताहाटा-II

कसमत िशबरामनगर-94

1781

00

00

79

1772

00

01

10

1771

00

00

43

1770

00

00

79

1773

00

02

13

1774

00

02

10

1767

00

01

64

1766

00

02

58

1765

00

01

21

1751

00

05

93

2874

00

02

30

1750

00

07

83

1749

00

01

43

1729

00

00

20

1731

00

07

36

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4727

(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)

सुताहाटा-II

कसमत िशबरामनगर-94

1732

00

06

67

1733

00

00

20

1743

00

05

62

1734

00

04

51

1742

00

02

12

1740

00

01

60

1737

00

10

23

929

00

06

12

928

00

04

19

930

00

00

98

927

00

03

29

931

00

01

74

925

00

06

29

923

00

00

29

924

00

03

02

895

00

07

00

897

00

02

76

896

00

08

38

891

00

00

20

825

00

01

75

826

00

04

70

827

00

00

79

824

00

01

50

828

00

04

56

829

00

04

59

822

00

08

29

830

00

03

56

830/2801

00

01

13

812

00

01

40

780

00

01

18

781

00

00

20

779

00

07

12

791

00

00

20

778

00

00

36

777

00

01

45

4728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

सुताहाटा-II

कसमत िशबरामनगर-94

769

00

01

13

775

00

00

32

776

00

04

38

770

00

00

22

771

00

01

95

772

00

03

50

773

00

00

20

789

00

03

97

788

00

03

62

734

00

00

85

797

00

11

32

796

00

03

34

714

00

02

86

713

00

01

99

702

00

11

22

703

00

02

08

704

00

01

06

705

00

01

80

698

00

02

04

697

00

00

45

707

00

07

64

696

00

02

30

695

00

03

62

684

00

01

02

685

00

02

33

686

00

02

75

687

00

02

64

688

00

02

63

690

00

00

20

689

00

00

87

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4729

(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)

सुताहाटा-II

कसमत िशबरामनगर-94

654

00

05

13

655

00

07

45

657

00

06

50

656

00

02

27

658

00

08

40

[फा. सं. आर-11025(12)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29474]

शा" तनु धर, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2019

S. O. 1131.—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 ShriSibapriya 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 PRODUCT PIPELINE PROJECT

SCHEDULE of 3(1)

DISTRICT :

PURBA MEDINIPUR

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Sl. No.

Name of Tehsil

Name of Village

LR Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

1

SUTAHATA-II

KISMAT SHIBRAMNAGAR-94

1781

00

00

79

1772

00

01

10

1771

00

00

43

1770

00

00

79

1773

00

02

13

1774

00

02

10

1767

00

01

64

1766

00

02

58

1765

00

01

21

1751

00

05

93

2874

00

02

30

1750

00

07

83

1749

00

01

43

1729

00

00

20

1731

00

07

36

1732

00

06

67

4730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

SUTAHATA-II

KISMAT SHIBRAMNAGAR-94

1733

00

00

20

1743

00

05

62

1734

00

04

51

1742

00

02

12

1740

00

01

60

1737

00

10

23

929

00

06

12

928

00

04

19

930

00

00

98

927

00

03

29

931

00

01

74

925

00

06

29

923

00

00

29

924

00

03

02

895

00

07

00

897

00

02

76

896

00

08

38

891

00

00

20

825

00

01

75

826

00

04

70

827

00

00

79

824

00

01

50

828

00

04

56

829

00

04

59

822

00

08

29

830

00

03

56

830/2801

00

01

13

812

00

01

40

780

00

01

18

781

00

00

20

779

00

07

12

791

00

00

20

778

00

00

36

777

00

01

45

769

00

01

13

775

00

00

32

776

00

04

38

770

00

00

22

771

00

01

95

772

00

03

50

773

00

00

20

789

00

03

97

788

00

03

62

734

00

00

85

797

00

11

32

796

00

03

34

714

00

02

86

713

00

01

99

702

00

11

22

703

00

02

08

704

00

01

06

705

00

01

80

698

00

02

04

697

00

00

45

707

00

07

64

696

00

02

30

695

00

03

62

684

00

01

02

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4731

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

SUTAHATA-II

KISMAT SHIBRAMNAGAR-94

685

00

02

33

686

00

02

75

687

00

02

64

688

00

02

63

690

00

00

20

689

00

00

87

654

00

05

13

655

00

07

45

657

00

06

50

656

00

02

27

658

00

08

40

[F. No. R-11025(12)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29474]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 24 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का. . . . आ. 1132

1132

1132

1132.—के"#ीय सरकार के लोकिहत म2 यह आवSयक तीत होता है क पिuम बंगाल राTय म2 पारादीप-

सोमनाथपुर (ओिडशा) ह दीआ (पिuम बंगाल) से पे ोिलयम उD पाद के परवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड

के ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी है।

और के"#ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के योजन के िलए यह आवSयक तीत होता है ऐसी भूिम म2 जो इससे

उपाबy अनुसूची म2 वwणत है और िजस म2 उ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का 6 ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न कया जाए।

अत: अब, के"#ीय सरकार पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाइ" स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न अिधिनयम 1962 (1962

का 50) क धारा 3 क उपधारा 1 ारा दD त शिय का योग करते ए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न करने के

अपने आशय क घोषणा करती है।

कोई |ि जो उ अनुसूची म2 वwणत भूिम म2 िहतबy है उस तारीख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के राजपY क

ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलtध करा दी जाती है इ}स दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए

उसम2 उपयोग के अिधकार अज+न के सQ ब" ध म2 )ी िसबाियादास गुd ता सOम ािधकारी इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड

अ" दुल मोउर दुिलया मौरी-ाम, हावड़ा 711302 पिuम बंगाल को िलिखत Zप से आOेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपC

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपC

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपC

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपCरेशन िलिमटेड

रेशन िलिमटेड

रेशन िलिमटेड

रेशन िलिमटेड

पारादीप

पारादीप

पारादीप

पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर

सोमनाथपुर - ह3 दी

ह3 दी

ह3 दी

ह3 दीआ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पा

आ उ7 पाद पाइपलाईन प8रयोजना

द पाइपलाईन प8रयोजना

द पाइपलाईन प8रयोजना

द पाइपलाईन प8रयोजना

3(1)

3(1)

3(1)

3(1) अनुसू

अनुसू

अनुसू

अनुसूची

ची

ची

ची

िजला

िजला

िजला

िजला :- पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

पूव1 मे;दिनपुर

राय

राय

राय

राय :- पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

पि<म बंगाल

पि<म 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

एलआर (लॉट

एलआर (लॉट

एलआर (लॉट

एलआर (लॉट

=मांक

=मांक

=मांक

=मांक

ेफल

ेफल

ेफल

ेफल

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

है0टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

वग1मीटर

(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

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा-I

शोभारामपुर

शोभारामपुर

शोभारामपुर

शोभारामपुर-147

147

147

147

1075

00

00

30

1659

00

05

08

1658

00

03

89

1657

00

01

13

1076

00

02

56

4732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा-I

शोभारामपुर

शोभारामपुर

शोभारामपुर

शोभारामपुर-147

147

147

147

1077

00

00

20

1656

00

03

06

1651

00

00

31

1078

00

02

50

1650

00

10

61

1648

00

02

92

1647

00

03

23

1646

00

04

16

1645

00

02

20

1637

00

04

97

1638

00

03

56

1639

00

06

53

1623

00

01

24

1618

00

13

36

1619

00

00

20

1615

00

04

23

1606

00

04

54

1607

00

00

30

1605

00

18

53

1599

00

04

19

1598

00

03

59

1597

00

00

20

1596

00

01

45

1595

00

05

66

1594

00

05

08

1546

00

09

98

1306

00

02

63

1311

00

00

20

1545

00

12

76

1524

00

01

22

1525

00

07

74

1539

00

00

20

1526

00

06

27

1527

00

00

20

1519

00

06

12

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4733

(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)

1518

00

00

21

1517

00

05

17

1515

00

11

33

1512

00

00

66

1504

00

01

05

1505

00

03

73

1506

00

06

16

1499

00

00

20

1507

00

06

51

1508

00

04

28

1509

00

04

17

1477

00

00

64

1510

00

08

10

1513

00

04

68

1511

00

01

67

1512

00

00

69

1432

00

07

80

1433

00

00

42

1434

00

04

50

2

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा-।

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर-102

102

102

102

382

00

05

81

383

00

02

22

371

00

01

09

386

00

02

97

387

00

02

20

388

00

03

15

392

00

00

31

393

00

01

61

386/2280

00

00

20

393/2283

00

00

49

394

00

00

20

400/2284

00

04

70

395

00

04

76

397

00

01

04

969

00

00

53

398

00

09

16

4734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा-।

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर-102

102

102

102

973

00

00

20

398/2279

00

04

99

978

00

00

20

417

00

03

66

418

00

02

80

979

00

05

86

1010

00

07

21

1011/2229

00

07

03

1011

00

00

61

1012

00

11

14

1017

00

02

95

1016

00

01

93

1019

00

02

06

1018

00

03

38

1028

00

00

20

1029

00

05

45

1021

00

03

12

1022

00

01

13

1027

00

02

23

1026/2325

00

04

26

1026

00

00

79

1025

00

04

30

1024

00

04

14

1048

00

00

98

1061

00

01

59

1060

00

00

43

1055

00

06

91

1049

00

03

22

1050

00

00

74

1054

00

04

48

1053

00

01

63

1051

00

01

31

1052

00

00

79

914

00

00

77

1835

00

00

71

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4735

(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)

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा

सुताहाटा-।

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर

राजारामपुर-102

102

102

102

1838

00

03

05

1837

00

02

53

1836

00

07

16

1843

00

05

78

1899

00

04

35

1900

00

08

45

1914

00

00

91

1913

00

03

83

1912

00

06

42

1943

00

14

58

1936

00

14

72

1927

00

06

85

1934

00

00

20

1933

00

03

13

1932

00

02

51

852

00

00

98

2085/2395

00

00

20

2086

00

00

81

2090

00

08

96

2091/2397

00

00

40

2091

00

01

36

2089

00

02

77

2112

00

00

20

2088/2396

00

09

00

2088

00

00

34

2113

00

01

58

2115

00

05

90

2116

00

00

20

2114

00

02

30

2117

00

00

32

2122

00

00

37

2121

00

06

93

2120

00

01

18

2144

00

00

44

2145

00

08

87

4736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

2146

00

01

47

2147

00

00

20

2148

00

04

22

2149

00

01

95

2150

00

01

48

2153

00

00

63

2152

00

02

33

2151

00

00

43

2161

00

03

60

2159

00

03

97

2158

00

03

14

2162

00

00

20

2163

00

00

25

[फा. सं. आर-11025(12)/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29474]

शा" तनु धर, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2019

S. O. 1132.—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 PRODUCT PIPELINE PROJECT

SCHEDULE of 3(1)

DISTRICT :

PURBA MEDINIPUR

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Sl. No.

Name of

Tehsil

Name of Village

LR Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sqm.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

1

SUTAHATA-I

SHOBHARAMPUR-147

1075

00

00

30

1659

00

05

08

1658

00

03

89

1657

00

01

13

1076

00

02

56

1077

00

00

20

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4737

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

SUTAHATA-I

SHOBHARAMPUR-147

1656

00

03

06

1651

00

00

31

1078

00

02

50

1650

00

10

61

1648

00

02

92

1647

00

03

23

1646

00

04

16

1645

00

02

20

1637

00

04

97

1638

00

03

56

1639

00

06

53

1623

00

01

24

1618

00

13

36

1619

00

00

20

1615

00

04

23

1606

00

04

54

1607

00

00

30

1605

00

18

53

1599

00

04

19

1598

00

03

59

1597

00

00

20

1596

00

01

45

1595

00

05

66

1594

00

05

08

1546

00

09

98

1306

00

02

63

1311

00

00

20

1545

00

12

76

1524

00

01

22

1525

00

07

74

1539

00

00

20

1526

00

06

27

1527

00

00

20

1519

00

06

12

1518

00

00

21

1517

00

05

17

1515

00

11

33

1512

00

00

66

1504

00

01

05

1505

00

03

73

1506

00

06

16

1499

00

00

20

1507

00

06

51

1508

00

04

28

1509

00

04

17

1477

00

00

64

1510

00

08

10

1513

00

04

68

1511

00

01

67

1512

00

00

69

1432

00

07

80

1433

00

00

42

1434

00

04

50

2

SUTAHATA-I

RAJARAMPUR-102

382

00

05

81

383

00

02

22

371

00

01

09

4738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

SUTAHATA-I

RAJARAMPUR-102

386

00

02

97

387

00

02

20

388

00

03

15

392

00

00

31

393

00

01

61

386/2280

00

00

20

393/2283

00

00

49

394

00

00

20

400/2284

00

04

70

395

00

04

76

397

00

01

04

969

00

00

53

398

00

09

16

973

00

00

20

398/2279

00

04

99

978

00

00

20

417

00

03

66

418

00

02

80

979

00

05

86

1010

00

07

21

1011/2229

00

07

03

1011

00

00

61

1012

00

11

14

1017

00

02

95

1016

00

01

93

1019

00

02

06

1018

00

03

38

1028

00

00

20

1029

00

05

45

1021

00

03

12

1022

00

01

13

1027

00

02

23

1026/2325

00

04

26

1026

00

00

79

1025

00

04

30

1024

00

04

14

1048

00

00

98

1061

00

01

59

1060

00

00

43

1055

00

06

91

1049

00

03

22

1050

00

00

74

1054

00

04

48

1053

00

01

63

1051

00

01

31

1052

00

00

79

914

00

00

77

1835

00

00

71

1838

00

03

05

1837

00

02

53

1836

00

07

16

1843

00

05

78

1899

00

04

35

1900

00

08

45

1914

00

00

91

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4739

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

SUTAHATA-I

RAJARAMPUR-102

1913

00

03

83

1912

00

06

42

1943

00

14

58

1936

00

14

72

1927

00

06

85

1934

00

00

20

1933

00

03

13

1932

00

02

51

852

00

00

98

2085/2395

00

00

20

2086

00

00

81

2090

00

08

96

2091/2397

00

00

40

2091

00

01

36

2089

00

02

77

2112

00

00

20

2088/2396

00

09

00

2088

00

00

34

2113

00

01

58

2115

00

05

90

2116

00

00

20

2114

00

02

30

2117

00

00

32

2122

00

00

37

2121

00

06

93

2120

00

01

18

2144

00

00

44

2145

00

08

87

2146

00

01

47

2147

00

00

20

2148

00

04

22

2149

00

01

95

2150

00

01

48

2153

00

00

63

2152

00

02

33

2151

00

00

43

2161

00

03

60

2159

00

03

97

2158

00

03

14

2162

00

00

20

2163

00

00

25

[F. No. R-11025(12)/1/2019-OR-I/E-29474]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 24 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का. आ. 1133

1133

1133

1133.—के"#ीय सरकार ने पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म2 उपयोग के अिधकार का अज+न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम2 इसके पS चात उ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उपधारा (1) के

अधीन जारी क गई भारत सरकार के पे ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंYालय क अिधसूचना सं8या का.आ. 234, दनांक

08 फ़रवरी 2019, भारत के राजपY सं8या 7, दनांक 10 फरवरी 2019 से 16 फरवरी 2019, , , , म2 कािशत क गई थी । इन

अिधसूचना से संलl अनुसूची म2 िविन>द? भूिम म2 झारखंड राTय म2 “हिदया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस6टQस परयोजना” िजला

4740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

देवघर म2 कnे तेल के परवहन हेतु इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार

के अज+न के अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी |

और उ राजपY अिधसूचना क ितयाँ जनता को दनांक 13 माच+ 2019 तक उपलtध करा दी गई थी,

और सOम ािधकारी ने उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन के"#ीय सरकार को रपोट+ दे दी है,

और के"#ीय सरकार ने, उ रपोट+ पर िवचार करने के पuात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलए अपेिOत है, उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार का अज+न करने का िविनS चय कया है;

अतः अब, के"#ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) ारा दत शिय का योग करते ए यह घोषणा

करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलl अनुसूची म2 िविन>द? भूिम म2 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के िलए उपयोग के अिधकार का अज+न

कया जाए;

और के"#ीय सरकार उ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) ारा दत शिय का योग करते ए, यह िनदvश देती है

क उ भूिम म2 उपयोग के अिधकार इस घोषणा के काशन क दनांक से के"#ीय सरकार म2 िनिहत होने के बजाए, सभी

िवलंगमो से मु होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड म2 िनिहत होगी;

पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंन अिधिनयम,1962 क धारा 10 के अधीन कसी भी Oितपूwत के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉपpरेशन िलिमटेड पूण+तया उतरदाई होगा और पाइपलाइन से संबि"धत कसी भी मामले पर के"#ीय सरकार के िवxy कोई

दावा या कानूनी काय+वाही नह` हो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसुची

अनुसुची

अनुसुची

अनुसुची

िजला :

िजला :

िजला :

िजला : देवघर

देवघर

देवघर

देवघर

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

राय : झारखंड

अंचल

अंचल

अंचल

अंचल

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

गाँव

सव,

सव,

सव,

सव, न-बर

न-बर

न-बर

न-बर

े

े

े

ेफल

फल

फल

फल

हे0टेयर

हे0टेयर

हे0टेयर

हे0टेयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

एयर

वग1 मीटर

वग1 मीटर

वग1 मीटर

वग1 मीटर

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

2)

2)

2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

देवघर

सरसा - 226

825

00

01

50

351

00

01

25

1208

00

06

09

1176

00

01

09

1175

00

00

96

918

00

06

73

942

00

00

78

1168

00

00

55

943

00

01

01

944

00

00

88

946

00

00

25

947

00

00

20

948

00

02

73

949

00

00

67

950

00

03

40

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4741

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

2)

2)

2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

देवघर

सरसा - 226

951

00

00

93

1042

00

02

37

1043

00

01

14

1045

00

01

11

1044

00

01

49

1046

00

03

86

1034

00

00

63

1033

00

03

31

1032

00

00

20

1031

00

00

51

1023

00

01

27

1022

00

01

28

1021

00

01

30

1020

00

01

93

1019

00

01

84

1409

00

00

30

1408

00

01

22

1407

00

01

19

1018

00

01

65

1008

00

05

23

देवघर

कुशमाहा - 222

890

00

05

78

893

00

00

20

892

00

08

38

853

00

00

71

858

00

05

17

859

00

00

77

860

00

01

78

952

00

00

20

833

00

01

76

934

00

00

59

935

00

01

10

824

00

02

50

825

00

02

05

983

00

00

20

826

00

02

09

822

00

00

68

4742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

देवघर

कुशमाहा - 222

827

00

00

20

798

00

05

37

796

00

01

86

781

00

00

20

797

00

01

52

800

00

00

83

931

00

01

72

780

00

02

26

779

00

05

68

753

00

00

64

778

00

00

62

751

00

02

59

754

00

01

30

755

00

05

83

748

00

02

24

750

00

07

24

728

00

02

01

देवघर

बंधा के"दुआ – 216

598

00

02

56

597

00

00

21

596

00

06

80

595

00

02

97

594

00

03

43

593

00

04

95

540

00

00

20

563

00

10

81

562

00

01

04

566

00

00

20

567

00

04

58

569

00

00

20

570

00

01

28

571

00

01

28

573

00

07

20

583

00

01

90

576

00

03

96

579

00

01

65

578

00

02

29

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4743

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

2)

2)

2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

देवघर

बंधा के"दुआ – 216

577

00

05

56

511

00

04

05

604

00

00

49

510

00

00

89

513

00

09

48

514

00

08

28

393

00

11

74

394

00

06

85

395

00

06

89

366

00

05

32

364

00

00

30

365

00

06

54

350

00

02

56

351

00

02

06

349

00

00

50

620

00

02

44

299

00

02

87

327

00

05

94

304

00

01

99

301

00

04

43

300

00

04

62

295

00

01

35

294

00

07

85

305

00

05

53

12

00

06

90

13

00

02

90

19

00

00

20

15

00

03

20

17

00

03

60

18

00

00

22

28

00

11

66

27

00

00

21

48

00

03

14

608

00

01

81

49

00

02

45

60

00

03

68

4744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 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)

देवघर

बंधा के"दुआ – 216

59

00

01

97

65

00

03

86

64

00

02

07

66

00

04

82

69

00

01

86

70

00

02

45

618

00

03

15

68

00

05

73

1

00

11

54

76

00

00

46

देवघर

गड़जोरा- 06

17

00

00

73

1176

00

00

64

1171

00

00

53

15

00

00

20

1170

00

02

94

1172

00

00

71

1177

00

01

38

16

00

00

96

1155

00

03

10

20

00

00

40

1150

00

00

77

55

00

01

16

66

00

24

65

54

00

09

64

1229

00

07

76

49

00

19

54

50

00

00

76

48

00

02

47

35

00

00

24

1228

00

10

84

36

00

11

60

37

00

00

20

39

00

01

02

38

00

01

06

25

00

03

67

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4745

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

2)

2)

2)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(6)

देवघर

केननकाठी- 06

23

00

01

94

मोहनपुर

हरकटा - 678

68

00

10

53

67

00

11

32

69

00

03

93

66

00

05

22

65

00

12

16

64

00

02

07

63

00

01

05

61

00

04

88

34

00

00

22

13

00

02

88

33

00

00

92

14

00

04

15

12

00

00

20

11

00

00

81

15

00

03

34

13/656

00

02

84

मोहनपुर

कुसमा टहा - 680

58

00

06

55

59

00

02

66

56

00

00

20

55

00

02

07

52

00

02

17

51

00

02

77

50

00

00

81

47

00

11

45

46

00

15

56

45

00

06

04

44

00

01

20

मोहनपुर

घोड़मारा - 422

250

00

13

51

मोहनपुर

मेदनी डीह - 681

493

00

04

77

528

00

01

42

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/21/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27764]

शा" तनु धर, अवर सिचव

4746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2019

S. O. 1133.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of the India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas S. O. No. 234 Dated 8th February, 2019, published in the Gazette of India No. 7 dated 10th February to 16th

February, 2019 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India, the

Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to

that notification for the purpose of laying “Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project” for the transportation of Crude Oil

in Deoghar District in the State of Jharkhand by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 13th March 2019.

And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the

Central Government;

And Whereas the central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government

hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central

Government, vest on the date publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act,

1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the

pipeline.

SCHEDULE

District : DEOGHAR State : JHARKHAND

Anchal

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Sarsa-226

825

00

01

50

351

00

01

25

1208

00

06

09

1176

00

01

09

1175

00

00

96

918

00

06

73

942

00

00

78

1168

00

00

55

943

00

01

01

944

00

00

88

946

00

00

25

947

00

00

20

948

00

02

73

949

00

00

67

950

00

03

40

951

00

00

93

1042

00

02

37

1043

00

01

14

1045

00

01

11

1044

00

01

49

1046

00

03

86

1034

00

00

63

1033

00

03

31

1032

00

00

20

1031

00

00

51

1023

00

01

27

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4747

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Sarsa-226

1022

00

01

28

1021

00

01

30

1020

00

01

93

1019

00

01

84

1409

00

00

30

1408

00

01

22

1407

00

01

19

1018

00

01

65

1008

00

05

23

Deoghar

Kusmaha

- 222

890

00

05

78

893

00

00

20

892

00

08

38

853

00

00

71

858

00

05

17

859

00

00

77

860

00

01

78

952

00

00

20

833

00

01

76

934

00

00

59

935

00

01

10

824

00

02

50

825

00

02

05

983

00

00

20

826

00

02

09

822

00

00

68

827

00

00

20

798

00

05

37

796

00

01

86

781

00

00

20

797

00

01

52

800

00

00

83

931

00

01

72

780

00

02

26

779

00

05

68

753

00

00

64

778

00

00

62

751

00

02

59

754

00

01

30

755

00

05

83

748

00

02

24

750

00

07

24

728

00

02

01

Deoghar

Bandh Kendua - 216

598

00

02

56

597

00

00

21

596

00

06

80

595

00

02

97

594

00

03

43

593

00

04

95

540

00

00

20

563

00

10

81

562

00

01

04

566

00

00

20

567

00

04

58

569

00

00

20

570

00

01

28

571

00

01

28

573

00

07

20

583

00

01

90

576

00

03

96

579

00

01

65

578

00

02

29

4748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Bandh Kendua - 216

577

00

05

56

511

00

04

05

604

00

00

49

510

00

00

89

513

00

09

48

514

00

08

28

393

00

11

74

394

00

06

85

395

00

06

89

366

00

05

32

364

00

00

30

365

00

06

54

350

00

02

56

351

00

02

06

349

00

00

50

620

00

02

44

299

00

02

87

327

00

05

94

304

00

01

99

301

00

04

43

300

00

04

62

295

00

01

35

294

00

07

85

305

00

05

53

12

00

06

90

13

00

02

90

19

00

00

20

15

00

03

20

17

00

03

60

18

00

00

22

28

00

11

66

27

00

00

21

48

00

03

14

608

00

01

81

49

00

02

45

60

00

03

68

59

00

01

97

65

00

03

86

64

00

02

07

66

00

04

82

69

00

01

86

70

00

02

45

618

00

03

15

68

00

05

73

1

00

11

54

76

00

00

46

Deoghar

Garjora

- 6

17

00

00

73

1176

00

00

64

1171

00

00

53

15

00

00

20

1170

00

02

94

1172

00

00

71

1177

00

01

38

16

00

00

96

1155

00

03

10

20

00

00

40

1150

00

00

77

55

00

01

16

66

00

24

65

54

00

09

64

1229

00

07

76

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4749

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Deoghar

Garjora

- 6

49

00

19

54

50

00

00

76

48

00

02

47

35

00

00

24

1228

00

10

84

36

00

11

60

37

00

00

20

39

00

01

02

38

00

01

06

25

00

03

67

Deoghar

Kenankathi - 7

23

00

01

94

Mohanpur

Harkata - 678

68

00

10

53

67

00

11

32

69

00

03

93

66

00

05

22

65

00

12

16

64

00

02

07

63

00

01

05

61

00

04

88

34

00

00

22

13

00

02

88

33

00

00

92

14

00

04

15

12

00

00

20

11

00

00

81

15

00

03

34

13/656

00

02

84

Mohanpur

Kusma Tilha - 680

58

00

06

55

59

00

02

66

56

00

00

20

55

00

02

07

52

00

02

17

51

00

02

77

50

00

00

81

47

00

11

45

46

00

15

56

45

00

06

04

44

00

01

20

Mohanpur

Ghormara - 422

250

00

13

51

Mohanpur

Mednidih - 681

493

00

04

77

528

00

01

42

[F. No. R-11025(11)/21/2018-OR-I/E-27764]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 27 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का.आ. 1134

1134

1134

1134.—के"#ीय सरकार, पे ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म2 उपयोग के अिधकार का अज+न)

अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म2, भारत सरकार पे ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस

मंYालय, क अिधसूचना का.आ. 237 दनांक 16 िसतंबर 2016 के ारा )ी सची"# कुमार िसलावत, उपिनदेशक उ~ोग को

भारत ओमान रफाइनरीज िलिमटेड (बीओआरएल) म€यदेश OेY म2 सOम ािधकारी के पद के दए गए ािधकार के

अिधपDय का अिधांत करते ये, अनुिवभागीय अिधकारी (राज6व), उ‚ैन (म€यदेश) जो उनके अपने काय+भार के साथ

भारत ओमान रफाइनरीज िलिमटेड से संबंिधत वािडनार (गुजरात) से बीना (म€य देश) तक क देश|ापी ूड पाइपलाइन

4750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

के िलए सOम ािधकारी के कृDय का िनव+हन करने के िलए उ अिधिनयम, के अधीन म€य देश राTय के राTय OेY के

भीतर ािधकृDय करती ह ।

यह अिधसूचना उस के जारी होने क तारीख से भावी होगी।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/5/2019-ओआर-I/ई-30412]

शा" तनु धर, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2019

S.O. 1134.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) and in supersession of authorization given to Mr. Sachindra Kumar

Silawat, Deputy Director – Industries as a Competent Authority of Bharat Oman Refineries Limited (BORL) for Madhya

Pradesh region through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India vide. S.O. 237 dated the 16th

September 2016 the Central Government hereby authorizes Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Ujjain (Madhya

Pradesh) to perform the functions of the Competent Authority, in addition to his own duties, under said Act, within the

territory of State of Madhya Pradesh for the cross country crude pipeline from Vadinar (Gujrat) to Bina (Madhya

Pradesh) of Bharat Oman Refineries Limited (BORL).

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/5/2019-OR-I/E-30412]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1135-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g Árhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe esa

dks;yk vfHkÁkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS;

vkSj js[kkad la[;k vkjoh;w,u@dsbZVh@lhch,@4@1] rkjh[k 18 vizSy] 2019 dk ftlesa mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds

C;kSjs dk fujh{k.k eq[; egkÁca/kd ¼[kkst ÁÒkx½] lsUVªy ekbu Iykfuax ,.M fMtkbu baLVhV;wV fyfeVsM] xksanokuk iSysl] dkads

jksM] jk¡ph ¼>kj[kaM½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k

vij eq[; bathfu;j &bZa/ku@mi eq[; bathfu;j &bZa/ku@mi eq[; bathfu;j &dks;yk] jktLFkku jkT; fo|qr mRiknu fuxe

fyfeVsM] jftLVªhd`r dk;kZy; vkSj eq[;ky;] fo|qr Hkou] tuiFk] T;ksfr uxj] t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ &302005 ;k ftyk

dysDVj] ftyk ljxqtk ¼NRrhll<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dk;syk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds

i'pkr mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk ÁnÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq, iwoksZDr vuqlwpha esa

of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS %

mijksDr mfYyf[kr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr &

¼i½

laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij fdlh vf/kdkj ds vtZu ij vk{ksi dj ldsxk(

vFkok

¼ii½ mDr vf/klwpuk dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dk;ZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k lEHkor% gksus okyh fdlh

{kfr ds fy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( vFkok

¼iii½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/k esa ;k mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk

vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh Ckkcr mixr

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4751

O;; dks minf’kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZ vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr

dj ldsxk;

bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa Ádk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj] vij eq[; bathfu;j &bZa/ku@mi eq[; bathfu;j

&bZa/ku@mi eq[; bathfu;j &dks;yk] jktLFkku jkT; fo|qr mRiknu fuxe fyfeVsM] jftLVªhd`r dk;kZy; vkSj eq[;ky;]

fo|qr Hkou] tuiFk] T;ksfr uxj] t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ &302005 dks lqiqnZ djsxk A

vuqlwph

dsars ,DlVsa’ku dks;yk Cykd

ftyk ljxqtk] jkT; NÙkhlx<+

[ js[kkad la[;k vkjoh;w,u@dsbZVh@lhch,@4@1] rkjh[k 18 vizSy] 2019 ]

¼d½ jktLo Òwfe dk fooj.k%

Ø-la-

xzke dk uke

xzke la-

iVokjh

lfdZy@

gYdk la-

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j esa

fVIif.k;ka

1.

dsars

62

25

mn;iqj

ljxqtk

4.212

Òkx

2.

cklsu

61

25

mn;iqj

1.059

Òkx

3.

pdsjh

122

25

mn;iqj

1.409

Òkx

4.

isjksfx;k

70

17

mn;iqj

11.165

Òkx

dqy%

17.845

¼d½ dqy jktLo Hkwfe : 17.845 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 44.095 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¼[k½ ou Òwfe dk fooj.k

Ø-

la-

Oku Hkwfe

dk Ádkj

ou

lfdZy

ou eaMy

vkSj ftyk

ifj{ks= @

rglhy

daikVZesaV la-

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j esa

fVIif.k;ka

1.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih-2003

19.706

Òkx

2.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2099

42.784

Òkx

3.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2104

234.960

Òkx

4.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2105

203.194

Òkx

5.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2106

154.543

Òkx

6.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2107

176.481

Òkx

7.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2108

92.484

Òkx

8.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2109

122.478

Òkx

9.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih 2110

43.827

Òkx

10.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2111

5.491

Òkx

11.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2124

70.959

Òkx

12.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2125

78.426

Òkx

13.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih 2126

342.321

iw.kZ

14.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2127

139.621

Òkx

15.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2128

1.122

Òkx

16.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2130

4.946

Òkx

17.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih 2069

0.152

Òkx

18.

lajf{kr ou

ljxqtk

ljxqtk

mn;iqj

ih -2112

8.660

Òkx

dqy%

1742.155

¼[k½ dqy ou Hkwfe : 1742.155 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 4304.865 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

dqy ;ksx (d+[k) =

17.845 gsDVj + 1742.155 gsDVj =1760.00 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 44.095 ,dM+ + 4304.865 ,dM+ =4348.960 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

4752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lhek &o.kZu%

3-6 : js[kk] fcUnq ^3^ xzke cklsu ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke pdsjh ds e/; esa fcanq ^6^ ij feyrh gS A

6-5 : js[kk] fcUnq ^6^ xzke pdsjh ds e/; ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke isjksfx;k ds e/; esa fcanq ^5^ ij feyrh gS A

5-2 : js[kk] fcUnq ^5^ xzke isjksfx;k ds e/; esa fcanq ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke isjksfx;k esa fcanq ^2^ ij feyrh gS A

2-3 : js[kk] fcUnq ^2^ xzke isjksfx;k ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cklsu esa fcanq ^3^ ij feyrh gS A

[Qk- la- 43015@8@2019&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

jke f’kjksef.k ljkst] mi lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1135.— 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 RVUN/KET/CBA/4/1, dated the 18th April, 2019 containing details of

the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager ( Exploration

Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at

the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or Additional Chief Engineer-Fuel/Deputy

Chief Engineer-Fuel/Deputy Chief Engineer-Coal, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Regd. Office and

H.O. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,Jaipur (Rajasthan) – 302005 or at the office of District Collector, District

Surguja (Chhattisgarh).

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 in the land described in the said Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may –

(i) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over the said land; or

(ii)

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

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

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

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

deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the land to show the expenditure incurred in respect

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

to the officer of the Additional Chief Engineer-Fuel/Deputy Chief Engineer-Fuel/Deputy Chief Engineer-Coal,

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Regd. Office and H.O. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,Jaipur

(Rajasthan) – 302005 within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

Kente Extension Coal Block

District Surguja, State Chhattisgarh

[ Plan bearing number RVUN/KET/CBA/4/1, dated the 18th April, 2019 ]

(A) Details of Revenue Land :

Sl. No.

Name of the Village

Village

No.

Patwari

Circle/

Halka No.

Tahsil

District

Area in hectares

Remarks

1.

Kente

62

25

Udaipur

Surguja

4.212

Part

2.

Basen

61

25

Udaipur

1.059

Part

3.

Chakeri

122

25

Udaipur

1.409

Part

4.

Parogiya

70

17

Udaipur

11.165

Part

Total :

17.845

(A) Total Revenue land : 17.845 hectares (approximately)

or 44.095 acres (approximately)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4753

(B) Details of Forest Land:

Sl.

No.

Type of

Forest

Forest Circle

Forest Division

and District

Range /

Tehsil

Compart-

ment no.

Area in

hectares

Remarks

1

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2003

19.706

Part

2

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2099

42.784

Part

3

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2104

234.960

Part

4

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2105

203.194

Part

5

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2106

154.543

Part

6

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2107

176.481

Part

7

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2108

92.484

Part

8

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2109

122.478

Part

9

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2110

43.827

Part

10

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2111

5.491

Part

11

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2124

70.959

Part

12

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2125

78.426

Part

13

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2126

342.321

Full

14

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2127

139.621

Part

15

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2128

1.122

Part

16

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2130

4.946

Part

17

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2069

0.152

Part

18

Protected

Forest

Surguja Circle,

Ambikapur

Surguja

Udaipur

P-2112

8.660

Part

Total :

1742.155

(B ) Total Forest Land : 1742.155 hectares (approximately)

or

4304.865 acres (approximately)

Grand Total (A+B): Revenue land + Forest Land =

17.845 hectares+1742.155 hectares =1760.00 hectares(approximately)

or 44.095 acres + 4304.865 acres = 4348.960 acres (approximately)

Boundary Description:

3-6 : Line starts from point ‘3’ in Basen village and meets at point ‘6’in the middle of the Chakeri village.

6-5: Line starts from point ‘6’ in the middle of the Chakeri village and meets at point ‘5’ in the middle of Parogia

village.

4754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5-2: Line starts from point ‘5’ in the middle of Parogia village and meets at point ‘2’ in Parogia village.

2-3:

Line starts from point ‘2’ in Parogia village and meets at point ‘3 ’ in Basen village.

[F. No. 43015/8/2019-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 26 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का.आ. . . . 1136

1136

1136

1136.—कोयला धारक OेY (अज+न और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम2 इसके

पS चात् उ\ त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपY, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-

खंड (ii), तारीख 13 अूबर, 2018 म2 कािशत भारत सरकार के कोयला मंYालय क अिधसूचना सं8 यांक का. आ. 1469,

तारीख 10 अूबर, 2018 के काशन पर उ\ त अिधसूचना से संल„ न अनुसूची म2 व…णत भूिम और ऐसी भूिम, (िजसे इसम2

इसके पS चात् उ\ त भूिम कहा गया है), म2 या उस पर के सभी अिधकार, उ\ त अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उप-धारा (1) के

अधीन, सभी िव लंगम से मु\ त होकर, आD यंितक Zप म2 के" #ीय सरकार म2 िनिहत हो गए है;

और, के"#ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है क स2 ल कोलफ†स िलिमटेड, दरभंगा हाउस, रांची-834 001,

झारखंड (िजसे इसम2 इसके पuात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन और शत‡ का िज"ह2 के"#ीय सरकार इस

िनिम अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है ।

अतः अब, के"#ीय सरकार, उ अिधिनयम क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द शिय का योग करते ए, यह

िनदेश देती है क इस कार िनिहत उ भूिम म2 या उस पर के सभी अिधकार के"#ीय सरकार म2 इस कार िनिहत बने रहने

के बजाए, तारीख 13 अूबर, 2018 से िन:िलिखत िनबंधन और शत‡ के अधीन रहते ए सरकारी कंपनी म2 िनिहत हो

जाएंगे, अथा+त:-

(1) सरकारी कंपनी उ अिधिनयम के उपबंध और अ"य सुसंगत िविधय के अधीन यथा अवधारत ितकर, tयाज,

नुकसािनय आद से संबंिधत और वैसी ही मद क बाबत् सभी संदाय करेगी ;

(2) सरकारी कंपनी ारा शत+ (1) के अधीन, संदेय रकम का अवधारण करने के योजन के िलए उ अिधिनयम क धारा

14 के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन कया जाएगा और उ अिधकरण और अिधकरण क सहायता करने के िलए

िनयु |िय के संबंध म2 उपगत सभी |य, उ सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन कए जाएंगे और इसी कार, िनिहत

उ भूिमय म2 या उस पर के अिधकार के िलए या उनके संबंध म2 अपील आद िविधक काय+वािहय क बाबत उपगत

सभी |य भी सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन कए जाएंगे ;

(3) सरकारी कंपनी, के"#ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय क ऐसे कसी अ"य |य के संबंध म2 Oितपूwत करेगी जो इस

कार िनिहत उ भूिम म2 या उस पर पूवp अिधकार के बारे म2 के"#ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय ारा या उनके

िवxy क"ह` काय+वािहय के संबंध म2 आवSयक हो ;

(4) सरकारी कंपनी के पास के"#ीय सरकार के पूव+ अनुमोदन के िबना, उ भूिम म2 इस कार िनिहत पूवp अिधकार को

कसी अ"य |ि को अंतरत करने क शि नह` होगी; और

(5) सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश और शत‡ का पालन करेगी, जो के"#ीय सरकार ारा, जब कभी आवSयक हो, उ भूिम के

िविश? OेY के िलए दये जाएं या अिधरोिपत कए जाएं।

[ फा. सं. 43015/15/2014-एलए एBड आईआर/खंड II]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4755

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1136.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,

number S.O. 1469, dated the 10th October, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),

dated the 13th October, 2018 issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all the rights in or over the

land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested

absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House,

Ranchi-834 001, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is willing to comply with such terms

and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that all the rights in or over the said land so vested, shall with effect from the 13th October,

2018, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government company, subject to the

following terms and conditions, namely:-

(1)

the Government company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages, etc. and the like,

as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant laws;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts payable

to the Central Government by the Government company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in

connection with such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal including all expenditure incurred in

respect of all legal proceedings like appeals etc. for or in connection with the rights in or over the said land, so

vested, shall also be borne by the Government company;

(3)

the Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure

that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials

regarding the aforesaid rights in or over the said land so vested;

(4)

the Government company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said land so vested, to any

other person without the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

the Government company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central

Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[F. No. 43015/ 15/ 2014 – LA & IR/Vol.II]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 26 जून, 2019

का

का

का

का.आ. 1137

. 1137

. 1137

. 1137.—के" #ीय सरकार को यह तीत होता है क, इससे उपाबy अनुसूची म2 वwणत परOेY क भूिम म2 से

कोयला अिभाd त कए जाने क संभावना है ;

अत:, उ\ त अनुसूची म2 व…णत OेY म2 अंतwव ट t यरे रेखांक सं8 या सी- 1(ई)III/एफआर/946-0419, तारीख 17

अैल, 2019 का िनरीOण, वे6 टन+ कोलफ †स िलिमटेड, भूिम और राज6 व िवभाग, कोल इ6 टेट, िसिवल लाई" स,

नागपुर - 440 001 (महारा ) के काया+लय म2 या मु8 य महाबंधक, खोज भाग, के" #ीय खान योजना और िडजाइन

सं6 थान िलिमटेड, गडवाना पैलेस, कांके रोड, रांची - 834 001 के काया+लय म2 या कोयला eनयYक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस

6 ीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 के काया+लय म2 या िजला कले\ टर, िजला नागपुर, महारा के काया+लय म2 कया जा सकता

है।

अत: अब, के" #ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक OेY (अज+न और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम2

इसके पS चात् उ\ त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उप-धारा (1) ारा दD त शि\ तय का योग करते ए, उ

अनुसूची म2 वwणत उस भूिम म2 कोयले का पूवvOण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ।

4756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

उपरो उिलिखत अनुसूची म2 वwणत भूिम म2 िहतबy कोई _ यि\ त, -

(i)

भूिम के संपूण+ या कसी भाग या उ भूिम म2 या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अज+न पर आOेप कर सकेगा ; या

(ii)

उ\ त अिधिनयम क धारा 4 क उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क गयी कसी काय+वाही से ई या होने वाली संभािवत

कसी Oित के िलए अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा ; अथवा

(iii)

उ\ त अिधिनयम क पूवvOण अनुcिd तय के भावहीन होने के संबंध म2 धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन या

खनन प‰े भावहीन होने के िलए उ\ त अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (4) के अधीन ितकर का दावा

कर सकेगा और उसे उ\ त अिधनयम क धारा 13 क उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म2 िविन>द ट मद क

बाबद् उपगत _ यय को उपदwशत करने के िलए पूवp\ त भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचY, चाट‡ और अ" य

द6 तावेज को परदD त कर सकेगा,

राजपY म2 इस अिधसूचना के काशन क तारीख से नt बे दन के भीतर, OेYीय महाबंधक, वे6 टन+ कोलफ †स िलिमटेड,

नागपुर OेY, डाकघर जरीपटका, तहसील नागपुर, िजला नागपुर, महारा या महाबंधक, वे6 टन+ कोलफ †स िलिमटेड,

भूिम और राज6 व िवभाग, कोल ई6 टेट, िसिवल लाई" स, नागपुर - 440 001 (महारा ) को भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

अनुसूची

भानेगांव ओपनका# ट

भानेगांव ओपनका# ट

भानेगांव ओपनका# ट

भानेगांव ओपनका# ट माईन (फेज

माईन (फेज

माईन (फेज

माईन (फेज - III)

)

)

)

नागपुर े

नागपुर े

नागपुर े

नागपुर े

िजला नागपुर

िजला नागपुर

िजला नागपुर

िजला नागपुर (महाराJ 

महाराJ 

महाराJ 

महाराJ )

(रेखांक सं8 या सी-1(ई)III/एफआर/946- 0419, तारीख 17 अैल, 2019)

सभी अिधकार :

भाग

भाग

भाग

भाग – I

म

सं.

-ाम का नाम

पटवारी

स>कल

सं8 या

तहसील

िजला

OेYफल ( हे\ टर म2 )

(लगभग)

कुल

OेYफल

टd पणी

िनजी

सरकारी

वन

1

भानेगांव

54

सावनेर

नागपुर

43.69

1.46

0.00

45.15

भाग

2

बीना

16ए

कामठी

नागपुर

166.04

30.36

6.70

203.10

भाग

कुल :-

209.73

31.82

6.70

248.25

-

कुल OेY :- 248.25 हे\ टर (लगभग)

या 613.426 एकड़ (लगभग)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4757

भाग

भाग

भाग

भाग - II

म

सं.

-ाम का नाम

पटवारी

स>कल

सं8 या

तहसील

िजला

OेYफल ( हे\ टर म2)

(लगभग)

कुल

OेYफल

टd पणी

िनजी

सरकारी

वन

1

भानेगांव

54

सावनेर

नागपुर

1.95

5.13

0.00

7.08

भाग

कुल

कुल

कुल

कुल :-

1.95

5.13

0.00

7.08

-

कुल OेY :- 7.08 हे\ टर (लगभग)

या 17.49 एकड़ (लगभग)

भाग –I + भाग - II = कुल OेY

248.25 हे\ टर + 7.08 हे\ टर = 255.33 हे\ टर (लगभग)

या

613.426 एकड़ + 17.49 एकड़ = 630.92 एकड़ (लगभग)

भाग

भाग

भाग

भाग – I

1. -ाम बीना म2 अwजत कए जाने वाले d लाट सं8 यांक : 1, 2, 3, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35/1, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44/अ-

44/ब, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52/1- 52/2, 70/अ/1- 70/अ/3-70/ब, 71/1- 71/क, 74/1- 74/3- 74/4,

75/1- 75/3, 76, 77/1- 77/3- 77/4, 78/अ- 78/ब, 84/1- 84/2- 84/3- 84/4/पैक/1- 84/4/पैक/2-

84/4/पैक/3, 85, 95, 96, 97/1- 97/2, 98, 99/1- 99/2- 99/3, 100, 101/अ/1- 101/अ/2- 101/ब, 102,

103, 104, 105/1- 105/2- 105/2/पैक- 105/3, 106, 107/1- 107/3, 108/1- 108/3, 109, 110, 111/1-

111/2, 112/1/अ- 112/1/ब- 112/1/क- 112/3- 112/5, 113, 114/1- 114/2- 114/3- 114/4/1- 114/4/2,

115, 116, 117/1- 117/3, 118/1- 118/3, 119/1- 119/3, 120, 121/1- 121/2, 123/1- 123/2, 124,

125/1- 125/2- 125/3, 126, 127/1- 127/3, 128/1- 128/3, 129, 130/1- 130/2- 130/3, 131, 132/1/1-

132/1/2- 132/1/3- 132/3- 132/4- 132/5, 191, 192, 193, 194, 35/2, 70/अ/2, 71/2, 72, 73, 74/2-

74/पैक, 75/2, 77/2, 107/2, 108/2, 112/2- 112/4, 117/2, 118/2, 119/2, 127/2, 128/2, 132/2, 36,

122, 190, सड़क, नाला, आबादी ।

2. -ाम भानेगांव म2 अwजत कए जाने वाले d लाट सं8 यांक : 74, 84/1- 84/2, 85/1, 86/1- 86/2- 86/3- 86/4, 87/1-

87/2- 87/3, 88, 89, 90/1/अ- 90/1/ब- 90/2/अ- 90/2/ब-, 91/1- 91/2, 92, 93/1- 93/2, 94/1/अ- 94/1/ब-

94/2- 94/3, 95/1- 95/1/अ- 95/2, 96/1- 96/2/अ- 96/2/ब- 96/3- 96/4- 96/5, 102/1- 102/2, सड़क ।

भाग

भाग

भाग

भाग – II

-ाम भानेगांव म2 अwजत कए जाने वाले d लाट सं8 यांक : 242, 243, सड़क, आबादी ।

सीमा वण+न :

भाग

भाग

भाग

भाग - I

क – ख : रेखा -ाम भानेगांव म2 िब" दु ‘क’ से भानेगांव-बीना माग+ के पिS चम कनारे से एवं d लाट सं8 या 74 के दिOण दशा

से आरंभ होती है और उD तर दशा म2 जाती है तथा d लाट सं8 या 74 क बाŠ सीमा से होती ई क‹ ची सड़क को

पार करती है तŒपS चात् रेखा उD तर-पूव+ दशा म2 d लाट सं8 यांक 86, 85/1 और 84 क बाŠ सीमा एवं भानेगांव

खुली खदान के िलये पूव+ म2 अिध-िहत भूिम क बाŠ सीमा से होती ई -ाम भानेगांव एवं -ाम बीना क

सिQ मिलत सीमा पर िब" दु ‘ख’ पर िमलती है ।

4758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ख – ग : रेखा िब" दु ‘ख’ से आरंभ होती है तथा -ाम बीना म2 वेश करती है एवं उD तर-पूव+ दशा म2 भानेगांव खुली खदान

के िलये पूव+ म2 अिध-िहत भूिम क बाŠ सीमा तथा d लाट सं8 यांक 130, 131, 132 और 126 क बाŠ सीमा से

होकर गुजरती है तŒपS चात् पादचारी माग+ को पार करती है और रेखा भानेगांव खुली खदान पंचने वाली क‹ ची

सड़क क पिS चम दशा से होती ई d लाट सं8 या 190 के समीप भानेगांव खुली खदान पंचने वाली क‹ ची सड़क

के पिS चिम छोर पर िब" दु 'ग' पर िमलती है।

ग - घ :

रेखा -ाम बीना म2 िब" दु ‘ग’ से आरंभ होती है एवं पूव+ दशा म2 भानेगांव खुली खदान के िलये पहले से अिध-िहत

भूिम क बाŠ सीमा एवं d लाट सं8 यांक 190, 192, 193, 3 और 2 क बाŠ सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और

क‹ ची सड़क को पार करती ई क‹ ची सड़क के पूवf कनारे से होती ई भानेगांव खुली खदान के िलये पूव+ म2

अिध-िहत भूिम क बाŠ सीमा के साथ-साथ जाती है और दिOण-पूव+ दशा म2 भानेगांव खुली खदान के िलये पूव+

म2 अिध-िहत भूिम क बाŠ सीमा एवं d लाट सं8 या 33 क बाŠ सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और िब" दु 'घ' पर

िमलती है ।

घ - ड. : रेखा िब" दु ‘घ’ से आरंभ होती है और दिOण-पूव+ दशा म2 क‹ ची सड़क को पार करती है तŒपS चात् रेखा एक अ" य

क‹ ची सड़क के पूवf बाŠ कनारे तथा भानेगांव खुली खदान के िलए पूव+ म2 अिध-िहत भूिम क बाŠ सीमा के

साथ-साथ होती ई जाती है और d लाट सं8 या 37 के समीप क‹ ची सड़क के संगम पर िब" दु 'ड.’ पर िमलती है ।

ड. – च : रेखा -ाम भानेगांव म2 िब" दु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ होती है और उD तर-पूव+ दशा म2 क‹ ची सड़क के पिS चिम कनारे,

भानेगांव खुली खदान के िलये पूव+ म2 अिध-िहत भूिम क सीमा एवं d लाट सं8 यांक 40, 29 और 28 क बाŠ

सीमा के साथ-साथ होती ई जाती है और क" हान नदी के पिuमी कनारे एवं बीना संगम मंदर के पास िब" दु 'च’

पर िमलती है ।

च – छ : रेखा क" हान नदी के पिS चमी कनारे एवं बीना संगम मंदर के पास िब" दु ‘च’ से आरंभ होती है और दिOण दशा

म2 d लाट सं8 यांक 28, 29, 40 और 41 क बाŠ सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और पिuमी दशा म2 d लाट सं8 या 41

क बाŠ सीमा से जाती है तŒपS चात् रेखा दिOण-पूव+ दशा म2 d लाट सं8 यांक 48, 47, 46, 45 और 44 क बाŠ

सीमा के साथ-साथ होती ई जाती है और पुन: क" हान नदी के पिuमी कनारे को छूती है तŒपS चात् रेखा

दिOण-पूव+ दशा म2 क" हान नदी के पिuमी कनारे तथा d लाट सं8 या 44 क बाŠ सीमा से होती ई जाती है

और नाला पार करती है, रेखा पुन: दिOण-पूव+ दशा म2 क" हान नदी के पिuमी कनारे तथा d लाट सं8 यांक 50

और 52 क बाŠ सीमा से होती ई क" हान नदी के पिS चिम कनारे पर िब" दु ‘छ’ पर िमलती है।

छ – ज : रेखा क" हान नदी के पिuमी कनारे पर िब" दु ‘छ’ से आरंभ होती है और पिS चम दशा म2 d लाट सं8 या 52 क

बाŠ सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और बीना गांवठान के दिOण-पूव+ कनारे को छूते ए उD तर-पिS चम दशा म2

बीना गांवठान क दिOणी सीमा से होती ई d लाट सं8 या 70 के पास िब" दु ‘ज’ पर िमलती है ।

ज – झ : रेखा िब" दु ‘ज’ से आरंभ होती है और दिOण दशा म2 d लाट सं8 यांक 70, 75 और 77 क बाŠ सीमा से होती ई

जाती है तŒपS चात् रेखा दिOण दशा म2 नाले के पूवf कनारे से होती ई जाती है और नाला पार करती है

तŒपS चात् रेखा पिS चम दशा म2 d लाट सं8 या 78ब क बाŠ सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और िब" दु ‘झ’ पर िमलती

है ।

झ – ञ : रेखा िब" दु ‘झ’ से आरंभ होती है और दिOण दशा म2 d लाट सं8 या 78 ब क बाŠ सीमा से होती ई जाती है और

नाला पार करती है बाद म2 रेखा फर से दिOण-पिS चम दशा म2 d लाट सं8 यांक 84 और 85 क बाŠ सीमा से

होती ई जाती है और कोलार नदी के उD तरी कनारे पर िब" दु ‘ञ’ पर िमलती है ।

ञ – ट : रेखा कोलार नदी के उD तरी कनारे पर िब" दु ‘ञ’ से आरंभ होती है और दिOण-पिS चम दशा म2 कोलार नदी के

उD तरी कनारे एवं d लाट सं8 यांक 85, 95 और 97 क बाŠ सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और -ाम बीना म2 कोलार

नदी के उD तरी कनारे पर िब" दु ‘ट’ पर िमलती है ।

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4759

ट – ठ :

रेखा -ाम बीना म2 कोलार नदी के उD तरी कनारे पर िब" दु ‘ट’ से आरंभ होती है और उD तर–पिS चम दशा म2

कोलार नदी के पिuमी कनारे एवं d लाट सं8 यांक 98, 99 और 101 ब क बाŠ सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और

-ाम बीना एवं -ाम भानेगांव क सिQ मिलत सीमा को पार करती है और -ाम भानेगांव म2 वेश करती है

तŒपS चात् रेखा पिS चम दशा म2 कोलार नदी क उD तरी सीमा एवं d लाट सं8 यांक 93 और 94 क बाŠ सीमा के

साथ-साथ होती ई जाती है और d लाट सं8 या 97 के पास कोलार नदी पर िब" दु ‘ठ’ पर िमलती है ।

ठ – ड : रेखा उरी दशा के पास कोलार नदी पर िब" दु ‘ठ’ से आरंभ होती है और उD तर दशा म2 d लाट सं8 या 94 क

बाŠ सीमा से होकर गुजरती है और -ाम भानेगांव म2 d लाट सं8 यांक 94 और 96 क सिQ मिलत सीमा पर िब" दु

‘ड’ पर िमलती है ।

ड - क : रेखा -ाम भानेगांव म2 d लाट सं8 यांक 94 और 96 क सिQ मिलत सीमा पर िब" दु ‘ड’ से आरंभ होती है और उD तर-

पिS चम दशा म2 d लाट सं8 यांक 96 और 102 क बाŠ सीमा से होती ई जाती है और भानेगांव-बीना माग+ के

दिOण कनारे को छूती है तŒपS चात् रेखा दिOण-पिS चम दशा क ओर जाती है और भानेगांव-बीना माग+ को

पार करती है और भानेगांव-बीना माग+ के पिS चिम कनारे से d लाट सं8 या 74 के दिOण दशा पर आरंिभक िब" दु

‘क’ पर समाd त होती है ।

भाग

भाग

भाग

भाग - II

ढ – ण : रेखा -ाम भानेगांव म2 िब" दु ‘ढ’ से आरंभ होती है और क" हान नदी के दिOणी कनारे एवं d लाट सं8 यांक 242 और

243 क बाŠ सीमा से होकर भानेगांव गांवठान को छूते ए जाती है और d लाट सं8 या 243 क उD तरी सीमा पर

िब" दु ‘ण’ पर िमलती है ।

ण – त : रेखा िब" दु ‘ण’ से आरंभ होती है और उD तर-पूव+ दशा म2 पुराने भानेगांव गांवठान क बाŠ सीमा एवं क" हान नदी

के दिOणी कनारे के साथ-साथ होती ई जाती है और पुराने भानेगांव गांवठान के उD तर-पूव+ कोने पर िब" दु ‘त’

पर िमलती है ।

त – थ : रेखा िब" दु ‘त’ से आरंभ होती है और दिOण-पिS चम दशा म2 पुराने भानेगांव गांवठान क दिOण-पूवf बाŠ सीमा

एवं भानेगांव खुली खदान के िलये अिध-िहत क गई भूिम क बाŠ सीमा के साथ-साथ होती ई जाती है और

क‹ ची सड़क के पूवf कनारे पर िब" दु ‘थ‘ पर िमलती है ।

थ – ढ : रेखा िब" दु ‘थ’ से आरंभ होती है और उD तर दशा म2 क‹ ची सड़क के पूवf कनारे तथा भानेगांव गांवठान एवं

d लाट सं8 या 242 क पिuमी बाŠ सीमा के साथ-साथ होती ई जाती है और क" हान नदी के दिOणी कनारे के

पास आरंिभक िब" दु ‘ढ‘ पर िमलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/10/2019-एलए एB ड आईआर]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S. O. 1137.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in

the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And Whereas, the plan bearing number C-1(E)III/FR/946- 0419, dated the 17th April, 2019, containing the

details of the areas described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields limited, Land

and 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 Limited , Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road,

Ranchi – 834 001 or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700001 or at the office of the

District Collector, District Nagpur-440 001 (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 in the lands described in the said Schedule.

Any persons interested in the land described in the above mentioned 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 caused or likely to be caused by any

4760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act ; or

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

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 to show the

expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clause (i) to clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section

13 of the said Act,

to the Office of the Area General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur Area, , Post Office Jaripatka, Tahsil

Nagpur, District Nagpur, Maharashtra or General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department,

Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001, Maharashtra within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of

this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Bhanegaon Opencast Mine (Phase III)

Nagpur Area

District Nagpur (Maharashtra)

[ Plan bearing number C-1(E)III/FR/946- 0419, dated the 17th April, 2019 ]

All Rights :

Part - I

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Area (in hectares)

(approximately)

Total

Remarks

Tenancy

Government

Forest

1. Bhanegaon

54

Saoner

Nagpur

43.69

1.46

0.00

45.15

Part

2.

Bina

16A

Kamptee

Nagpur

166.04

30.36

6.70

203.10

Part

Total :

209.73

31.82

6.70

248.25

Total area : 248.25 hectares (approximately)

or 613.426 acres (approximately)

Part - II

Sl.

No.

Name of

Village

Patwari

Circle

number

Tahsil

District

Area (in hectares)

(approximately)

Total

Rema-rks

Tenancy

Government

Forest

1

Bhanegaon

54

Saoner

Nagpur

1.95

5.13

0.00

7.08

Part

Total :

1.95

5.13

0.00

7.08

Total area : 7.08 hectares (approximately)

or 17.49 acres (approximately)

Part – I

+

Part – II = Total area

248.25 hectares

+

7.08 hectares = 255.33 hectares (approximately)

or 613.426 acres

+

17.49 acres = 630.92 acres(approximately)

Part – I

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bina: 1, 2, 3, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35/1, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44/A- 44/B, 45, 46, 47,

48, 49, 50, 51, 52/1- 52/2, 70/A/1- 70/A/3-70/B, 71/1- 71/C, 74/1- 74/3- 74/4, 75/1- 75/3, 76, 77/1- 77/3- 77/4,

78/A- 78/B, 84/1- 84/2- 84/3- 84/4/Paike/1- 84/4/Paike/2- 84/4/Paike/3, 85, 95, 96, 97/1- 97/2, 98, 99/1- 99/2-

99/3, 100, 101/A/1- 101/A/2- 101/B, 102, 103, 104, 105/1- 105/2- 105/2/Paike- 105/3, 106, 107/1- 107/3, 108/1-

108/3, 109, 110, 111/1- 111/2, 112/1/A- 112/1/B- 112/1/C- 112/3- 112/5, 113, 114/1- 114/2- 114/3- 114/4/1-

114/4/2, 115, 116, 117/1- 117/3, 118/1- 118/3, 119/1- 119/3, 120, 121/1- 121/2, 123/1- 123/2, 124, 125/1-

125/2- 125/3, 126, 127/1- 127/3, 128/1- 128/3, 129, 130/1- 130/2- 130/3, 131, 132/1/1- 132/1/2- 132/1/3- 132/3-

132/4- 132/5, 191, 192, 193, 194, 35/2, 70/A/2, 71/2, 72, 73, 74/2- 74/Paike, 75/2, 77/2, 107/2, 108/2, 112/2-

112/4, 117/2, 118/2, 119/2, 127/2, 128/2, 132/2, 36, 122, 190 Road, Nallah, Aabadi.

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bhanegaon : 74, 84/1- 84/2, 85/1, 86/1- 86/2- 86/3- 86/4, 87/1- 87/2-

87/3, 88, 89, 90/1/A- 90/1/B- 90/2/A- 90/2/B-, 91/1- 91/2, 92, 93/1- 93/2, 94/1/A- 94/1/B- 94/2- 94/3, 95/1-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4761

95/1/A- 95/2, 96/1- 96/2/A- 96/2/B- 96/3- 96/4- 96/5, 102/1- 102/2, Road.

Part - II

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Bhanegaon : 242, 243, Road, Aabadi.

Boundary description:

Part - I

A – B :

Line starts from Point ‘A’ in village Bhanegaon at the western side of Bhanegaon-Bina Road and on the

Southern Side of Khasra number 74, then passes towards North direction along the outer boundary of Khasra

number 74, crosses Kachha Road, then passes towards North-Eastern direction along the outer boundary of

Khasra numbers 86, 85/1 and 84, as well as along the outer boundary of land already acquired for Bhanegaon

Opencast Mine and meets at Point ‘B’ on the common village boundary of village Bhanegaon and village

Bina.

B – C :

Line starts from Point ‘B’ enters in village Bina, the passes towards North-Eastern direction along the outer

boundary of land already acquired for Bhanegaon Opencast Mine as well as outer boundary of Khasra

Numbers 130, 131, 132 and 126, then crosses Pandhan Road and travels along the Western side of mine

approach Kaccha (Pandhan) Road and meets at Point ‘C’ on the western side of mine approach Kaccha Road

near Plot number 190.

C – D :

Line starts from Point ‘C’ in village Bina, then passes towards East direction along the outer boundary of

land already acquired for Bhanegaon OC Mine as well as along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 190, 192,

193, 3 and 2, then crosses Kaccha Road and passes along the Eastern side of Kaccha Road as well as outer

boundary of land already acquired for Bhanegaon Opencast Mine and passes towards South-East direction

along the outer boundary of land already acquired for Bhanegaon Opencast Mine as well as outer boundary

of Plot number 33 and meets at Point ‘D’ at the North bank of Nallah.

D – E :

Line starts from Point ‘D’ and passes towards South-East direction crosses Kaccha Road and travels along

the Eastern side of the another Kaccha Road as well as along the boundary of land already acquired for

Bhanegaon Opencast Mine in the South direction and meets at Point ‘E’ at the Junction Point of the Kaccha

Roads near Plot number 37.

E – F :

Line starts from Point ‘E’ passes towards North-East direction first along the Western side of the Kaccha

Road as well as boundary of the land already acquired for Bhanegaon Opencast Mine then line passes

towards North direction along the outer boundary of land already acquired for Bhanegaon Opencast Mine as

well as along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 40, 29 and 28 and meets at Point ‘F’ on the Western Bank

of the Kanhan River.

F – G :

Line starts from Point ‘F’ at the Western Bank of the Kanhan River near Sangam Temple passes towards

South direction first along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 28, 29, 40 and 41 then passes towards Western

direction along the outer boundary of Khasra number 41, after that line passes towards South-East direction

along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 48, 47, 46, 45 and 44 and touches Western Bank of the Kanhan

River again, then line passes towards South-East direction along the Western Bank of the Kanhan River as

well as along the outer boundary of the Plot number 44, crosses Nallah again passes towards South-East

direction along the Western Bank of Kanhan River as well as along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 50

and 52 and meets at Point ‘G’ on the Western Bank of the Kanhan River.

G – H :

Line starts from Point ‘G’ on the Western Bank of Kanhan River passes towards West direction first along

the outer boundary of Plot number 52, touches South-East corner of Bina Gaothan passes towards North-

West direction along the Southern boundary of Bina Gaothan and meets at Point ‘H’ near Plot number 70.

H – I :

Line starts from Point ‘H’ travels along the Southern direction along the outer boundary of Plot Numbers 70,

75 and 77 then passes towards South direction along the East Bank of Nallah, crosses Nallah then travels

towards West direction along the outer boundary of Plot number 78/B and meets at Point ‘I’.

I – J :

Line starts from Point ‘I’ passes towards South direction along the outer boundary of Plot number 78/B

crosses Nallah and passes along the South direction along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 84 and 85 and

meets at Point ‘J’ on the North Bank of Kolar River.

J – K :

Line starts from Point ‘J’ passes towards South-West direction along the North boundary of the Kolar River

as well as along the outer boundary of Plot numbers 85, 95 and 97 and meets at Point ‘K’ in Village Bina on

the North Bank of the Kolar River.

K – L :

Line starts from Point ‘K’ on the North Bank of the Kolar River in village Bina travel towards North-West

direction along the North Bank of the Kolar River as well as outer boundary of Plot Numbers 98, 99 and

101/B, crosses common village boundary of village Bina and village Bhanegaon enters in Bhanegaon village

and passes towards West direction along the North boundary of Kolar River as well as along the outer

boundary of Plot numbers 93 and 94 and meets at Point ‘L’ on the North Bank of the Kolar River near Plot

Number 97.

4762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

L – M :

Line starts from Point ‘L’ on the North Bank of the Kolar River passes North direction along the outer

boundary of Plot number 94 and meets at Point ‘M’ at the common boundary of Plot Number 94 and Plot

number 96 in Bhanegaon village.

M – A :

Line starts from Point ‘M’ at the common boundary of Plot number 94 and Plot number 96 in Bhanegaon

village and passes towards North-West direction along with outer boundary of Plot numbers 96 and 102 and

touches Bhanegaon-Bina Road and passes towards South-West direction along with Southern side of

Bhanegaon-Bina Road and crosses the Road and meets at starting Point ‘A’ in village Bhanegaon at the

Western side of Bhanegaon-Bina Road and on the Southern side of Plot number 74.

Part – II

N – O :

Line starts from Point ‘N’ in village Bhanegaon travels along Southern boundary of Kanhan River as well as

outer boundary of Plot numbers 242 and 243 touches Bhanegaon Gaothan at Point ‘O’ on Northern boundary

of Plot number 243.

O – P :

Line starts from Point ‘O’ and travels towards North-East direction along the outer boundary of Old

Bhanegaon Gaothan and Southern Bank of Kanhan River and meets at Point ‘P’ on the North-East corner of

Old Bhanegaon Gaothan.

P – Q :

Line starts from Point ‘P’ and travels towards South-West direction along the East and South outer boundary

Old Bhanegaon Gaothan as well as along the outer boundary of land already acquired for Bhanegaon

Opencast Mine and meets at Point ‘Q’ on the East side of Kaccha Road.

Q – N :

Line starts from Point ‘Q’ and travels towards North direction along the Eastern side of Kaccha Road as well

as along the Western boundary of Bhanegaon Gaothan and Plot number 242 and meets at the starting Point

‘N’ on the Southern Bank of Kanhan River.

[F. No. 43015/10/2019-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ , Dy. Secy.

व# 

व# 

व# 

व#  मंालय

मंालय

मंालय

मंालय

नई द ली, 24 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1138

1138

1138

1138.—क2 # सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10 के

उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण म2, व6 Y मंYालय के अंतग+त आने वाले िनQ निलिखत काया+लय, िजसके 80% से अिधक कम+चारय

ने eहदी का काय+साधक cान ाd त कर िलया है, को अिधसूिचत करती है:

बुनकर सेवा क' K

बुनकर सेवा क' K

बुनकर सेवा क' K

बुनकर सेवा क' K, , , , िवकास आयु0 त

िवकास आयु0 त

िवकास आयु0 त

िवकास आयु0 त (हथकरघा) का काया1लय

(हथकरघा) का काया1लय

(हथकरघा) का काया1लय

(हथकरघा) का काया1लय,

इंदौर (मN य

इंदौर (मN य

इंदौर (मN य

इंदौर (मN य देश)

देश)

देश)

देश)- 452015

452015

452015

452015

[सं. ई-11016/1/2015-eहदी]

िनहार रंजन दाश, संयु\ त सिचव

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2019

S.O. 1138.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Official Langugae (Use for the offcial purpose of the

union) Rules, 1976, the Central Governemnt, hereby notifes the following office of the Ministry of Textiles, more than

80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:

Weavers Service Centre, O/o Development Commissioner (Handlooms),

Indore, Madhya Pradesh- 452015

[No. E-11016/1/2015-Hindi]

NIHAR RANJAN DASH, Jt. Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4763

म एवं रोजगार मं ालय

म एवं रोजगार मं ालय

म एवं रोजगार मं ालय

म एवं रोजगार मं ालय

नई दली, 17 जून, 2019

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1139

1139

1139

1139.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस मेनन और पाई मुख RED, भारतीय दुलभ पृ$वी िलिमटेड, उ ोग मंडल, केरल-, और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के

बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक

अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय, एनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 21/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को

09.04.19 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल- 42011/73/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Ernakulum, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Secretary ,Indian Rare Earth Employees Union, Udyogamandal, Kerala. and others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 09.04.19.

[No. L-42011/73/2017-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.V.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 22nd day of March, 2019)

ID 21/2017

Union

:

The General Secretary,

Indian Rare Earth Employees Union,

Udyogamandal,

Kerala-683 501.

By V.N.Sathisan

Management

:

The Head RED,

Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,

Udyogamandal,

Kerala-683 501

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 22.03.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court passed the following on the

same day,

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of India/Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-42011/73/2017-IR(DU)

dated 03.07.2017 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

2.

The dispute is:

4764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Having agreed to the terms and conditions of the settlement and while receiving the benefits extended by

the Management from time to time, including the promotions as per company transfer policy, the act of

the Union in raising this type of dispute is frivolous, vexations and uncalled for, hence, this case in fit for

reference”

3.

Both the Union and the Management entered appearance.

4.

Shri. V.N.Sathisan, General Secretary of the Union filed a Memo dated 11.03.2019 informing that the issues

raised in this dispute are settled between the Union and Management through a Memorandum of settlement dated 27th

September 2017 and hence the Union may be permitted to withdraw the dispute.

5.

Since the dispute is settled out of Court between parties the same is dismissed as withdrawn.

6.

Hence an award is passed dismissing the dispute as withdrawn. Memo dated 11.03.2019 filed by the Union will

form part of this award.

The award will came into force one month after it publication in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Assistant, transcribed and typed by him and passed by me on this 22nd day of March 2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Union

:

Memo dated 11.03.2019

Management

:

Nil

ID No. 21 of 2017

Union :

General Secretary, Indian Rare Earths Employees Union (CITU)

Udyogamandal, Kerala – 683 501.

Vs.

Management :

The Head RED, Indian Rare Earths Limited,

Udyogamandal, Kerala – 683 501.

MEMO FILED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE UNION

I am the General Secretary of Indian Rare Earths Employees Union (CITU) representing the Union in the above dispute.

It is respectfully submitted that the above dispute was settled between the Management and the Union. The

Memorandum of Settlement was entered between the parties on 27th September, 2017. Hence, in the light of the

settlement arrived between parties in the present dispute, the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to permit the Union to

withdraw the above dispute.

Dated this the 11th day of March, 2019.

V.N. SATHISAN, Representative of the Union

General Secretary

IRE Employees Union (CITU)

नई दली, 17 जून, 2019

का.

का.

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ.

आ. 1140

1140

1140

1140.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मैसस िनदेशक, स8ल िस8स 9रसच इं; टी=ूट, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और

उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय,

नागपुर, पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 05/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.06.19 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल- 42011/16/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4765

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour

Court Nagpur,, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director,

Central Citrus Research Institute, Nagpur and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 11.06.19.

[No. L-42011/16/2018-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/05/2018-19

Date: 21.05.2019

Party No.1

:

The Director,

Central Citrus Research Institute,

Amravati Road, Nagpur,

Nagpur – 440023.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Anusandhan Kendra Workers Union,

Plot No. 73, Aadivashi Laayour,

Kanchimet Naka No. 10,

Amravati Road, Nagpur – 440023.

AWARD

(Dated: 21st May, 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 Central Citrus Research Institute and their union,

Rashtriya Anusandhan Kendra Workers Union for adjudication, as per letter No.L-42011/16/2018 IR (DU) dated

28.03.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the contract workers of the establishment of Central Citrus Research Institute, Nagpur are

performing perennial nature of jobs of the same or similar kind at par with the workman directly

employed by the management of the said establishment? If yes, whether the demand of the union

concerned regarding payment of wages of equal pay for equal work and granting permanent status to the

contact workmen are legal and justified? If not, what relief to the contract workmen of the establishment

of Central Citrus Research Institute, Nagpur?’’

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due fixing the date on 23.05.2018. On that day, Shri Namdev Bhiwgade,

Secretary of the union, was present and filed an application for time to file statement of claim. On 18.09.2018,

Smt. Rajashree Waikar, advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of the union, but no statement of claim was filed. Nobody

has been appearing on behalf of the management from the beginning even after service of the notice(A.D received by this

Tribunal). On 04.02.2019, both parties were absent and a last chance was given to file the statement of claim, fixing the

date on 10.04.2019, but on that day also, both the parties were absent and no statement of claim was filed till date. It

shows that, parties are not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, case is closed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

4766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1141

1141

1141

1141.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मैसस महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 56/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11 .06.2019 को ा6

7ए थे ।

[सं. एल- 42011/193/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd, Nagpur and others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 11 .06.2019.

[No. L-42011/193/2017–IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/56/2017-18

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij Praakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer)

and contractor, Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-42011/193/2017 (IR (DU) dated 12.03.2018, with the following schedule:-

i.

Whether Shri Shankar Narayanji dhande can be considered as workmen, as defined under ID Act, in absence

of any supporting document produced by them?

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4767

ii.

If yes, whether their oral termination by the petty contractor working with GM, Forest Development

corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM) at National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC)

(principal employer) on 22.07.2016 was legal and justified? If not, what relief is these workmen being

represented by the Presidentk Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1142.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मैसस रबंध िनदेशक, एयर इंिडया सैAस एयरपोट सBवस ा. िलिमटेड ितCवनंतपुरम केरल-, और अय एवं उनके कमचारी

के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार

औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय, एनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 24/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय

सरकार को 07.05.19 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1142 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Ernakulum , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Managing Director, Air India Sats Airport Service Pvt. Ltd. Thiruvananthapuram & Others, and their workmen which

were received by the Central Government on 07.05.19.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.V.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 25th day of April, 2019)

ID 24/2014

Union

:

Shri. Mevalal.R,

TC.31/1757, Devi Nagar,

Vallakkadam,

Thiruvananthapuram-685 008.

By Adv. N.Nagaresh

Management

:

1. The Managing Director,

Air India Sats Airport Service Pvt. Ltd.,

4768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Janvilla Lane, Sasthamangalam P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

By Adv. R.Lakshmana Iyer

2. The HR-Executive,

Air India Sats Airport Service Pvt. Ltd.,

Janvilla Lane, Sasthamangalam P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

By Adv. R.Lakshmana Iyer

This case coming up for final hearing on 25.04.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court passed the following

on the same day.

AWARD

This is an industrial dispute raised by the workman under Section 2A (2) and (3) of Industrial Dispute Act,

1947.

1.

According to the workman he was illegally terminated by the Management 1 and 2. He was appointed as

Ramp/Cabin appearance Handyman by the Management on 01.06.2011. He joined a trade union and the same was not

well received by the Management. He attended a function during duty hours on 08.02.2014 with permission and

consumed some beer. On return to his duty the CISF official stopped him and took an undertaking to the effect that he

will not repeat the mistake in future. On the basis of the report by CISF he was terminated from service on 25.02.2013

without any domestic enquiry and show case notice. Hence he prayed that an award may be passed declaring his

termination illegal and holding that he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefit.

2.

Management 1 and 2 filed written statement stating that the termination of workman is fully in accordance with

his terms of appointment and is legal. The workman was appointed for a 3 year period. The Management clarified that

the incident alleged by the workman happened on 08.02.2013 and not on 08.02.2014. They also denied the averment that

the workman went out of the office during duty time with the permission of the Team Leader. Considering the

seriousness of the charge, the workman was kept under suspension vide order dated 11.02.2013, and later terminated his

service. No enquiry was conducted as the admission of guilt by the workman was unambiguous and clear.

3.

After completion of pleadings the matter was being posted for the evidence of the workman from 21.12.2015.

More than 18 opportunities were given to the workman spread over a period of 3 years to come forward and adduce

evidence. On 20.02.2019 the Counsel for the workman submitted that there is no response from the Workman. However

a final chance was given on 03.04.2019. The Counsel for the workman submitted that the workman is not responding to

his correspondence and hence he filed a memo relinquishing the vakalath of the workman.

4.

In view of the above there is no point in keeping the industrial dispute pending.

Hence a award is passed dismissing the claim of workman holding that there is no merit in the claim filed by

him.

The award will came into force one month after notification in the official Gazette.

Dictated to the Assistant, transcribed and typed by him and passed by me on this 25th day of April 2019.

V.VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for Workman

:

Nil

Witness for Management

:

Nil

Exhibits for Workman

:

Nil

Exhibits for Management

:

Nil

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4769

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1143.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मैसस मेनन और पाई मुख RED, भारतीय दुलभ पृ$ वी िलिमटेड, उ ोगमंडल, केरल,- और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के

बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक

अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय, एनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 26/2016) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को

17.06.19 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/97/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Ernakulum, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Deputy

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, Secunderabad and others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 17.06.19.

[No. L-42011/97/2016-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULUM

Present: Shri. V .Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc, LLM, Presiding Officer

(Monday the 10th day of June 2019/ 20th day of Jyaistha, 1941)

ID No. 26 of 2016

Union

:

The Regional President

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi

Employees Welfare Association

Regional Executive Committee

Kandiyoor, Mavelikkara

Alleppey – 690103.

In person

Managements

: 1.

The Deputy Commissioner

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi

Regional Office

1-1-10/3, S.P.Road

Secunderabad – 500003

2.

The Commissioner

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi

B-15, Institutional Area

Sector 62, NOIDA(U.P.)

Pin-201309

By M/s. Dhandapani Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 07.05.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 10.06.2019

passed the following.

4770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(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-42011/97/2016-

IR(DU) dated 15.09.2016 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

2. The dispute referred is;

“Whether the proposed action of the management of M/s. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi in re-fixing the

rates of wages of 14 Matrons in the state of Kerala at Rs.7500/- per month and their refusal to

implement the revised minimum rates of wages applicable to the Matrons, i.e., Rs.350/- per day

incurring them substantial monitory lose is fair and justifiable? If not what relief they are entitled to?”

3. According to the union, the management of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi vide letter No.1-35/NVS(HR)/Estd.II/2013-

14 dated 03.012.2013 proposed to re-fix the remuneration of Matrons at Rs.7500/- consolidated per month. Prior to the

said re-fixation, the Matrons were paid minimum wages fixed by the Labour Department of the concerned state

government vide their office letter no.1-136/NVS(HR)2010-11 dated 27.12.2010 and 1-35/NVS(HR)/2012-13/703

dated 21.05.2012. The minimum wages fixed by the Labour Department of the State Government was Rs.350/- per day

vide Kerala State Government Notification dated 2.3.2011. Accordingly the Matrons of Kerala Navodaya Vidyalaya

Samithi were paid the minimum wages at par with the employees in the state Government.

On re-fixing the honorarium at Rs.7500/- per month the Matrons ended up drawing less than what they were getting

earlier. This anomaly was brought to the notice of the managements through various letters.

4. As per the recruitment rules for the post of Matrons in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi the post of Matrons is Group

“C” and mode of appointment is on contract basis. Hence the Matrons appointed in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas’ of

Kerala are entitled for a minimum wage of Rs.350/- per day with effect from 01.04.2011. Hence the subsequent

reduction in wages to consolidated remuneration of Rs.7500/- per month is irregular, illegal and arbitrary.

5. The Assistant Commissioner (Estd-II), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi vide its communication no.2-7/2016-

NVS(Estd.III)/1345 dated 16.11.2016 directed on Deputy Commissioners to pay minimum wages for the post of Group

D, ECP and Matrons in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas on daily wage basis at Central Government/State Government

rate whichever is higher. However that decision was not implemented by regional officers. The wages of Matrons fixed

by the state government of Kerala on daily wage basis is Rs.600/- per day or Rs.16,200/- per month vide Government

of Kerala notification no.GO(P)No.28/2016/Fin. dated 26.02.2016. Further the monthly wages is revised as Rs.16,500/-

per month.

Hence the Matrons in Kerala region are entitled to a minimum wage of Rs.350/- per day with effect from

01.04.2011 and Rs.16,500/- per month with effect from 01.04.2016.

6. The managements 1 & 2 entered appearance but failed to file any counter inspite of giving many opportunities to

file the same.

7. On 04.12.2018 the matter was posted finally for written statement on the part of managements. There was no

representation on either side. Hence the matter was posted on 28.01.2019 for the written statement of the management.

There was no representation from either of the parties and no written statement was filed on behalf of the managements.

Hence the managements were called absent and set exparte. The matter is adjourned and posted for the evidence of the

union on 13.03.2019. There was no representation on 13.03.2019 for either of the parties. Hence the matter is finally

adjourned to 07.05.2019 for hearing the union . Even on 07.05.2019 there was no representation from the union as well

as from the management.

8. It is felt that neither the union nor the management is interested in pursuing the reference.

In the result an award is passed holding that there is no merit in the claim of the union that the 14 Matrons

working in the state of Kerala are entitled to the minimum rate of wages notified by the Government of Kerala.

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 10th day of June

2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the union

-

Nil

Witness for the Managements

-

Nil

Exhibits for the union

-

Nil

Exhibits for the Management

-

Nil

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4771

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1144

1144

1144

1144.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस बंधन कोयंबटूर मुCगन िमस, कोयंबटूर चेEई और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और

उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय, चेEई

के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 25/2016) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.04.2019 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court CGIT Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Management Coimbatore Murugain Mills, Coimbatore Chennai and others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 11.04.2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 25/2016

Friday, the 1st April, 2019

BETWEEN :

Sri N. Seelvaraj

S/o Natraya Gounder

24, Nehru Avenue

Maniakaranpalayam

Coimbatore-641006

…1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Management

Coimbatore Murugain Mills

Mettupalayam Road

Coimbatore-641043

…2nd Party/Management

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

:

Advocate M/s. P. Thirugnanasambantham

For the 2nd Party/Management

:

Advocate M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.

This an Application under 2A(2) of the ID Act. The Applicant challenges the order of his dismissal issued by

the Respondent claiming reinstatement and back wage. The Respondent files Counter Statement denying almost all the

Claims of the Applicant as not justified and sustainable in the eye of Law on the point of Limitation. The submission

advanced by both the parties, occasioned to peruse the entire record including the pleadings of the parties, the document

enclosed therein. Admittedly the Applicant was working under the Respondent Management. He was dismissed from

service 21.11.2011. The Applicant approached the Labour Machinery and raised its dispute only on 08.03.2015.

2.

Before going to the merit of the of the Appeal, the crux of the submission of the Counsels of both parties focus

on the maintainability of the Application on the point of limitation. While challenges the maintainability the Learned

Counsel for Respondent, drew attention on the provision of Law contemplated in the Act. and pressed into service the

4772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

judicial verdict of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP(MD) No4269/2017 dtd 11.4.17. in the case of Rsvi Kumar

vs The Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2017 LLR 704 and in WP(MD) No15552 of 2015 dtd

28.8.2015. in the case of The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation vs Presiding Officer Labour Court,

Tirunelveli

3.

Admitedly Section 2A(2) of the ID Act, is a beneficial provision inserted, in the Act by way of amendment,

providing a right in favour of a workman to approach the Labour Court or Tribunal directly.

Section 2A, Sub-Clause (2) of the Act reads:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in Section

10, any such workman as is specified in sub-

Section (1) may, make an application direct to the

Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the

Dispute referred to therein after the expiry of

Forty-five days from the date he has made the

application to the Conciliation Officer of the

dispute xx xx xx xx xx xx ’’.

Section 2A, Sub-Clause (3) reads:

“The application referred to in sub-section (2)

shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal

before the expiry of the three years from the date of

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)”.

4.

In a combined reading of both the provisions, it is understood that in order to avail the right under the amended

provision under the Sec2(A)2, of the Act, the petitioner to adhere strictly the mandatory provision with regard to the

period of Limitation. The petitioner to raise dispute before the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government, and

after expiry of 45 days can move the application before the Labour Court/ Tribunal before expiry of three years, when the

cause of action arises i.e. specifically the date of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or termination otherwise specified

under sub section (1).

5.

At the cost of repetition it would not be out of place to say that the Application raised dispute before the Labour

Machinery on 08.03.2015 which is almost 1172 days which is necessarily more than 3 years. The Applicant approaches

this Forum, vide his Application (ID 25 of 2016) vide dated 08.04.2016 which is also almost after one year, from the date

of his approach to Labour Machinery. Even though the Applicant tries on several grounds to bring its Application with in

the ambit of the limitation, he fails in every score. The copy of the order vide Application No. 120 of 2013 the CGIT

dated 13.05.2014 discloses the order of dismissal (dtd 21.12.10) of the petitioner was duly approved by the Tribunal.,

which necessarily cannot be a ground on the part of the Petitioner to calculate the period of limitation from the date of the

said order. It reveals that the Petitioner throughout slept over the matter and after elapse of the period of limitation

approaches the Labour Machinery and Tribunal.

6.

Attention was drawn on a certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer and Labour Commissioner (central)

Madurai, enabling the Petitioner to approach this Tribunal even much after of expiry of 45 days of the proceedings before

it. In Such circumstance, the Failure Report could have been sent to the appropriate Government which examining the

merit can send the reference to the Tribunal or Labour court for adjudication. The Conciliation Officer is under

obligation under the amended Act to see if the dispute was raised before him within the period of limitation that is 3

years from the date of dismissal. and after raising the dispute before the Labour Machinery, the Petitioner is at liberty to

exercise his right under the Act. Only after expiry of 45 days from date of such approach. He can file an Application

before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal that to before expiry of 3 years from the date of his dismissal from service.

The Conciliation officer cum Regional Labour Commissioner (central) Madurai, has hardly any scope to issue any such

certificate enabling the petitioner to approach the Industrial Tribunal on a wrong cause. The Petitioner cannot take any

advantage of any such wrong advice of the Labour Machinery.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4773

7.

In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, and in the light of the judicial decisions Honble High

Court of Madras in the case of Ravi Kumar (supra) it is held the Application is not maintainable sec 2A (2) of the I.D

Act.

The case in ID 25 of 2016 stands dismissed.

Issue copy of the Order to both parties and also copy.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

Dictated/transcribed by PA

Corrected and pronounced

in open court.

While parting with order, it is felt proper to issue a copy of the order to the Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Labour

Commission (Central), Madurai for future guidance.

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1145

1145

1145

1145.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म मेसस बंधन,

कोयंबटूर मुCगन िमस, कोयंबटूर चेEई और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के

बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय, चेEई दली के पंचाट

(संदभ सं2या. 24/2016) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11/04/2019 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019 –आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Lab our

Court CGIT Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Management ,Coimbatore Murugain Mills, Coimbatore Chennai & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 11/04/2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 24/2016

Friday, the 1st April, 2019

BETWEEN :

Sri A. Jeevagan,

S/o. Angusamy,

17/33, Maruthachala Thevar Nagar,

Appanaickenpalayam,

Vadamadurai,

Coimbatore-641017

…1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Management

Coimbatore Murugain Mills

Mettupalayam Road

Coimbatore-641043

…2nd Party/Management

4774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

:

Advocate M/s P. Thirugnanasambantham

For the 2nd Party/Management

:

Advocate M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.

This an Application under 2A(2) of the ID Act. The Applicant challenges the order of his dismissal issued by the

Respondent. It is emphasised that the Applicant was victimised because of his Union activities as General Secretary of

the Workers Union under the Kavai Mandala Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam ( in short the Union). A Domestic Enquiry

was initiated against him on wrong cause following dismissal. The Applicant claims reinstatement and back wages. The

Respondent entered appearance raising objection almost all the claims of the Applicant. The submission advanced by

both the parties, occasioned to peruse the entire record including the pleadings of the parties, the document enclosed

therein. Admittedly the Applicant was working under the Respondent Management. He was dismissed from service

21.11.2011. The Applicant approached the Labour Machinery and raised its dispute only on 08.03.2015.

2.

Before going to the merit of the Appeal, the crux of the submission of the Counsels of both parties focus on the

maintainability of the Application on the point of limitation. While challenges the maintainability the Learned Counsel

for Respondent, drew attention on the provision of Law contemplated in the Act. and pressed into service the judicial

verdict of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP(MD) No4269/2017 dtd 11.4.17. in the case of Rsvi Kumar vs The

Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2017 LLR 704 and in WP(MD) No15552 of 2015 dtd

28.8.2015. in the case of The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation vs Presiding Officer Labour Court,

Tirunelveli

3.

Admittedly Section 2A(2) of the ID Act, is a beneficial provision inserted, in the Act by way of amendment,

providing a right in favour of a workman to approach the Labour Court or Tribunal directly.

Section 2A, Sub-Clause (2) of the Act reads:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified

in sub-Section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for

adjudication of the Dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from

the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the dispute xx xx

xx xx xx xx “.

Section 2A, Sub-Clause (3) reads:

“The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of the three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)”.

4.

In a combined reading of both the provisions, it is understood that in order to avail the right under the amended

provision under the Sec2(A)2, of the Act, the petitioner to adhere strictly the mandatory provision with regard to the

period of Limitation. The petitioner to raise dispute before the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Gpvernment , and

after expiry of 45 days can move the application before the Labour Court/ Tribunal before expiry of three years, when the

cause of action arises i.e. specifically the date of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or termination otherwise specified

under sub section (1).

5.

At the cost of repetition it would not be out of place to say that the Applicant raised dispute before the Labour

Ministry on 08.03.2015 which is almost 1173 days which is necessarily more than 3 years. The Applicant approaches this

Forum, vide his Application (ID 24 of 2016) vide dated 08.04.2016 which is almost after one year, from the date of his

approach to Labour Machinery. Even though the Applicant tries on several grounds to bring its Application with in the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4775

ambit of the limitation, he fails in every score. The copy of the order in Application no. 106/13 the CGIT dated

13.05.2015 discloses the order of dismissal (dtd. 21.12.10) of the petitioner was duly approved by the Tribunal., which

necessarily cannot be a ground on the part of the Petitioner to calculate the period of limitation from the date of the said

order. It reveals that the Petitioner throughout slept over the matter and after elapse of the period of limitation approaches

the Labour Machinery and Tribunal

6.

Attention was drawn on a certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer and Labour Commissioner (central)

Madurai, enabling the Petitioner to approach this Tribunal even much after of expiry of 45 days of the proceedings before

it. In Such circumstance, the Failure Report could have been sent to the appropriate Government which examining the

merit can send the reference to the Tribunal or Labour court for adjudication. The Conciliation Officer is under

obligation under the amended Act to see if the dispute was raised before him within the period of limitation that is 3

years from the date of dismissal. and after raising the dispute before the Labour Machinery, the Petitioner is at liberty to

exercise his right under the Act. Only after expiry of 45 days from date of such approach. He can file an Application

before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal that to before expiry of 3 years from the date of his dismissal from service.

The Conciliation officer cum Regional Labour Commissioner (central) Madurai, has hardly any scope to issue any such

certificate enabling the petitioner to approach the Industrial Tribunal on a wrong cause. The Petitioner cannot take any

advantage of any such wrong advice of the Labour Machinery.

7.

In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, and in the light of the judicial decisions Honble High

Court of Madras in the case of Ravi Kumar (supra) it is held the Application is not maintainable sec 2A (2) of the I.D

Act.

The case in ID 24 of 2016 stands dismissed.

Issue copy of the Order to both parties and also copy.

Dictated/transcribed by PA

Corrected and pronounced in open court

While parting with order, it is felt proper to issue a copy of the order to the Conciliation Officer-cum-Regional

Labour Commission (Central), Madurai for future guidance.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1146

1146

1146

1146.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म मेसस

महाबंधक राFीय रासायिनक एंड फHटलाइजस, मुंबई, और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और

उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय मुंबई

के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 28/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 23/01/19 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/32/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers , Mumbai & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 23/01/19.

[No. L-42011/32/2017-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

4776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/28 of 2017

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF RASHTRIYA CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZERS

& M/S. AMEYA ENTERPRISES

1.

The General Manager [HR & Admn.)/CMD,

Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers,

Administrative Building, Chembur,

Mumbai – 400 074.

2.

M/s. Ameya Enterprises,

House No. 4, Shivmurat Chawl,

Kajiwadi, Andheri,

Mumbai – 400 099.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary,

General Employee’s Association

Tel. Rasayan Bhawan,

Tilak Road, Dadar,

Mumbai – 400 014.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

:

Absent

FOR THE WORKMEN

:

Absent

Mumbai, dated the 21th December, 2018.

AWARD

1.

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-42011/32/2017 – IR (DU) dated 02.06.2017. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd., Mumbai in not

considering the date of birth of the following 4 workmen as per the Birth Certificate and School Leaving

Certificate issued by the Competent authority for the purpose of retiring them from service as contract workmen

presently employed through M/s. Ameya Enterprises, is just & proper ? ”

2.

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

3.

On going through Roznama it appears that the notices were served to both parties. However, the union has not

filed statement of claim since long. Union remained absent. Therefore there is no statement of claim to substantiate the

claim under reference.

4.

For want of evidence the reference is liable to be rejected with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Reference is rejected for want of evidence.

Date : 21.12.2018

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4777

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1147

1147

1147

1147.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण सरकार मेसस

महाबंधक

)

एचआर

(

, मैसस भारत अथ मूवस िलिमटेड, यू िथIपसं, बJगलोर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के

संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण

एवं 1म यायालय बJगलोर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 57/2012) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.03.2019 को

ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/110/2012 –आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2012) 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 General

Manager (HR), M/s Bharath Earth Movers Ltd,New Tippasandra, Bangalore & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11.03.2019.

[No. L-42011/110/2012 -IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED

: 27th FEB 2019

PRESENT :Justice Smt.Rathnakala

Presiding Officer

C.R No. 57/2012

I Party

II Party

Sh. G. Vasudeva,

S/o Late Shri G. Gopalachar,

No.14, 1st Cross, Chinnappa Layout,

Near Kokila Tent,

Banashankari 3rd Stage,

Bangalore – 560 085.

The General Manager (HR),

M/s Bharath Earth Movers Ltd,

Bangalore Complex,

New Tippasandra,

Bangalore – 560 073.

Advocate for I Party: Advocate for II Party:

Mr. S.B. Mukkannappa Mr. N.S. Narasimha Swamy

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-42011/110/2012-IR(DU) dated 07.12.2012 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947

referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of the General Manager – HR Bharat Earth Movers Limited,

Bangalore-560075 is justified in imposing the punishment of ‘Dismissal from Service’ w.e.f. 24/07/2007

upon Shri G. Vasudeva, S/o Late G. Gopalachar? If not, What relief the said workman is entitled to?”

4778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Both parties have appeared before the Court and prosecuted their case.

1.

Facts not in dispute between the parties is, the 1st party workman joined the 2 party as welder ‘B’ on

03. 07.1981: he was awarded periodic promotions: at the relevant time i.e., 2005-2006 he was in the grade Welder ‘C’.

He was issued two Charge Sheets by this Disciplinary Authority dated 10.02.2010 and 19.12.2016: Common trial was

held in respect of these charge sheets. The allegation was about 53 days of unauthorised absence from July 2005 to Jan

2006 (charge sheet dated 10.06.2010): unauthorised absence of 133 days from Jan to Dec 2006 (vide charge sheet

dated 19.02.2006).

2.

The workman participated in the Enquiry: The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the workman

was absent for 186 days for the period July 2005 to Dec 2006 without leave or permission, there by the charge under

clause 21.20 stood proved thus he was found guilty of charges.

3.

The workman submitted his remarks to the enquiry report. The management as a mark of punishment

terminated him from service under clause from 22.2 (III) of the certified standing order with terminal benefits: parallelly

an application under section 33(II)(B) seeking approval of the Disciplinary action taken was also filed before the State

Industrial Tribunal Bangalore. After contest said application came to be allowed, (coincidentally said order is passed by

me sitting as a Presiding officer Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore).

4.

Now, the 1st party has invoked sec 11 A of the ID act for (brevity ‘the act’) before this Tribunal.

5.

The workman contends before this Tribunal that he is a Physically handicap person with 70% Physical

Disability since 2000 he is suffering from mental depression/Bipolar affective disorder. He was treated at Agadi Hospital

Bangalore: During his illness he was not in a position to perform his normal duties: though he requested 2nd party to

provide any alternate work which he can manage, it was not heeded, hence he was forced to remain absent. The 2nd

party is covered under the persons with disability (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act

1985. 2nd party was bound to consider his case for change of cadre under sec 47 of the disabilities Act. On 20.07.2007,

he filed an application before the state commissioner for person with disabilities and sought for a direction to the 2nd

party. He had requested the 2nd party to keep the enquiry proceedings in abeyance till disposal of his dispute before The

State Commissioner for persons with disabilities. On 24.07.2007 the Commissioner wrote a letter to the 2nd party to

continue his service and not to dismiss him. Even after receiving the said letter on 25.07.2007, the 2ndparty dismissed

him from service, on 25.07.2007, closing shift of the day, vide office order dated 24.07.2007. They had not issued the

order nor exhibited in the notice board. The State Industrial Tribunal accorded sanction to the application filed by the

management without prejudice to him to workout remedy u/s 11 A of the Act. He has served the 2nd party over 25

years, the punishment order is severe and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct this age he is not eligible for

alternate planning. He is unemployed and seeks for reinstatement to original post into service and continuity of service

with consequential benefits.

6.

I have gone through the evidentiary material placed before the Enquiry Officer during domestic enquiry. The 1st

party had not denied his unauthorised absence on the alleged dates. Infact his own documents i.e., the xerox copy of the

certificate issued by the Agadi Hospital Bangalore dated 15.03.2006 confirmed that he is under treatment for bipolar

affective disorder since 2000. His depression has not come to full control, due to depression he takes leave without

information for few days.

7.

The allegation of unauthorised absence was as follows:

July 2005 - 3 days: 28th to 30th

Aug 2005 - 6 days: 5th, 8th, 10th, 25th, 27th, 28th, 31st

Sept 2005 - 10 days: 1st, 15th to 19th, 23rd to 26th

Oct 2005 -13 days: 1st to 9th 19th to 23rd

Nov 2005 - 11 days: 8th ,14th, 16th to 19th, 21 th , 23rd, 25th , 28th

Dec 2005 - 5 days: 3rd, 18th, 21st, 23rd, 29th

Jan 2006 - 6 days 5th ,16th , 20th, 21st , 23rd,, 25th

8.

The Xerox copies of the Medical certificates produced before the Enquiry officer is not a substantial evidence.

It cannot be a defence to the charge of unauthorised absence on the above days Clause 21.20 of certified standing order

governing the service rules of the company contemplates ‘Habitual absence without leave or without permission or

absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days’ is a misconduct punishable under clause 22 .

9.

He has improved his case before this court claiming Mental disability at 70%. Manifestly, he has taken the

certificate on 17.05.2007, after closure of the Enquiry proceedings. That raises a serious question with regard to his

suitability to work in any of the of the post alternate to the one he was doing as a Welder. He is silent about the final

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4779

outcome of his petition before the commissioner for persons with Disabilities. The Commissioner, had issued an interim

order by quoting Section 47 of the persons of the disabilities Act which reads :

“No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquires a disability during his

service.

Provided that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be

shifted to some other post with the post with the same pay scale and service benefits.

Provided further that, if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any he may be kept on a super numery

post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier.”

10.

As such he did not develop any physical disability during his tenure with the 2nd party. He is harping upon his

mental illness as a defence for his unauthorised absence but without any tangible evidence. It is not as if, it was his 1st

misconduct, he is habitual, the punishment order quotes his previous misconducts of unauthorised absence, in 1990

loitering while on duty, unauthorised absence during Mar to Nov 2000. On all these occasions he was warned: for the

unauthorised absence from Feb to Dec 2003, as a measure of punishment his salary was reduced by 2 stages for 1 year

in wage group D. Again in respect of unauthorised absence of 260 days Feb 2004 to Mar 2005, he was demoted from

Group D to Group C with cumulative effect. This order was also passed in Oct 2005. Finally, for the charges of

unauthorised absence of 186 days during July 2005 to Dec 2006, he is removed from service which is not stigmatic for

his future employment. He has received his terminal benefits.

11.

The Tribunal while examining his prayer for relief under section 11 A under ID Act cannot over look of the

financial implication of accommodating such habituals in the running Factory. However, he is already superannuated

and the question of reinstatement is not in the forefront. The Enquiry report is based on the factuality’s which is not

controverted, the explanation offered for the absenteeism regarding his mental ailment is unsatisfactory. Thus I find no

reason to interfere with the punishment order.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 27th February, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1148

1148

1148

1148.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय

सरकार मेसस एयरपोट अथॉ9रटी ऑफ इंिडया, इंिडया गांधी टBमनल- III, पालम, नई दली और अय एवं उनके कमचारी

के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार

औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय-1, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 89/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय

सरकार को 20/05/2019 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 89/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Lab our

Court-1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Airport Authority of India,India Gandhi Terminal-III, Palam, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 20/05/2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

4780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT NO. 1, NEW DELHI

ID No. 89/2013

Shri Sultan Singh S/o. Shri Harnam Singh,

C/o. Engineering General Karamchari Lal Jhanda Union,

M-714-15, Mangolpuri,

Delhi -110083.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

1.

M/s. Three D Integrated Solution Ltd.

609-611, JMD Pacific Square Behind 32nd Miles Stone,

NH-8, Sector 15,

Gurgaon (Haryana).

2.

M/s Airport Authority of India,

India Gandhi Terminal-III,

Palam, New Delhi.

… Management/Respondent

AWARD

This is a claim directly filed by the workman/claimant Sarajuddin Ali under Section 2(A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with the averments that he has been working as Senior Technician

with the Management since 21/5/2010 and his last drawn wages were Rs.11,825/- per month. He had been working

with honesty and sincerity. The duty place of the workman was at IGI Airport Terminal-III. It is pleaded that the

workman had met with an accident on 12/9/2011 while he was returning from duty and his left leg got fractured. He

remained under medical treatment from 13/9/2011 to 15/11/2011. The workman informed about the same to the

Management. It is also pleaded that on 16/11/2011 when the workman went to resume his duty alongwith medical

fitness certificate, his Officer Incharge asked him to come on next date as his new entry pass was not issued. Despite

various visits, the Management failed to issue entry pass to the workman upto 4/6/2012 and the Officer incharge of the

Management refused to take him on duty and orally informed that he has been removed from the record of the company.

Demand notice dated 4/6/2012 was sent to the Management through registered post but to no avail. Termination of the

claimant from service on 4/6/2012 is illegal, unjust and against the provisions of law. The claimant is still unemployed

since the date of his termination. The claimant had approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. Prayer has been

made for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and consequential benefits.

2.

The Management No.1 contested the claim petition by filing written statement. While denying the allegations

of the claimant, it has been alleged that the workman started absenting from duties without any intimation or permission

w.e.f. 13/9/2011. Therefore, the Management issued a letter dated 17/9/2011, informing him about his absence from

duties w.e.f. 13/9/011 and advising him to report for duty but he did not report for duty. Another letter dated 24/9/2011

was issued to him, advising him to report for duty within 10 days, failing which it will be inferred that he was no longer

interested to work with the Management. It is also alleged that at no point of time Management ever refused duties to the

workman. It has been denied that the workman ever informed the Management about meeting with an accident on

12/9/2011 or about undergoing medical treatment w.e.f. 13/9/2011 to 15/11/2011 or that he reported for duties on

16/11/2011. Entire story propounded by the claimant is false and fabricated. It is further alleged that having absented

from duties continuously w.e.f. 13/9/2011 without any intimation, the workman/claimant voluntarily abandoned his

service and his continuous unauthorized absence from duty constituted a gross misconduct. Prayer has been made for

dismissal of the claim petition.

3.

Management no.2 Airport Authority of India did not appear despite service of notice and hence case was

proceeded ex-parte against it vide order dated 30/8/2013.

4

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30/8/2013 :-

(i)

Whether claimant abandoned his service with M/s Three D Integrated Solutions Ltd.? If yes, its effect ?

(ii)

Whether termination of service, if any, of the claimant amounts to retrenchment ?

(iii)

Whether provisions of Industrial law were violated when services of the claimant were terminated by

M/s Three D Integrated Solutions Ltd.?

(iv)

Whether claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the service of M/s Three D Integrated

Solutions Ltd.?

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4781

5.

In order to prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW1 & tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and

relied on documents Ex.WW/1 to Ex.WW1/8. On the other hand, the Management No.1 examined two witnesses

namely Shri R.K. Srivastava, Deputy General Manager (HR) and Shri Rajeev Shokeen, Deputy Manager (HR), who

filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW1/A and Ex.MW2/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex.MW1/1

(letter dated 11/1/2012) and Ex.MW1/2 (letter dated 18/1/2012).

6-

I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the workman./claimant and Shri K.K. Tyagi vice Shri Alok Bhasin,

A/R for Management No.1. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 to 4 :-

7-

All these issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common

discussion.

8-

I may mention that affidavit Ex.WW1/A filed by the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim

petition. He has filed on record copy of the demand notice dated 4/6/2012 (Ex.WW1/1) sent to Management No.1 and its

postal receipt as Ex.WW1/2; copy of reply thereto given by Management No.1 as Ex.WW1/3, copy of rejoinder sent by

claimant to the Management No.1 as Ex.WW1/4 and its postal receipt as Ex.WW1/5; copies of medical certificates

(dated 13/9/2011 and 15/11/2011) of the claimant as Ex.WW1/6 & Ex.WW1/7 and copy of the statement of claim made

by the claimant before Labour Office as Ex.WW1/8. Perusal of these documents clearly proves relationship of

employer-employee between the Management No.1 and the claimant herein and that the claimant falls within the

definition of “workman” as provided under Section 2(S) of the Act.

9-

From the evidence adduced on record it stands proved that claimant/workman was engaged as Senior

Technician on 21st May, 2010 and his entry pass was valid upto 19/12/2011. Case of the claimant is that on 12/9/2011

the workman while returning from duty had met with an accident, as a result of which his left leg got fractured; he

remained under medical treatment from 13/9/2011 to 15/11/2011 and informed about the same to the Management.

When on 16/11/2011 he went to resume his duty alongwith medical fitness certificate, his Officer Incharge asked him to

come on next date as his new entry pass was not issued. Despite various visits, the Management failed to issue entry pass

to him and on 4/6/2012 the Officer incharge of the Management refused to take him on duty & orally informed that he

has been removed from the record of the company. On the contrary, the Management has taken a plea that the

workman had started absenting from duties without any intimation or permission w.e.f. 13/9/2011 and therefore, the

Management issued letters dated 17/9/2011 and 24/9/2011 (Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2), informing him about his

absence from duties w.e.f. 13/9/011 and advising him to report for duty but he did not report for duty. However, MW2

has admitted that on 12/9/2011 on his way back from duty the workman had met with an accident at Bahadurgarh Bus

stop. Though this witness of the Management showed his ignorance whether the workman was under treatment from

13/9/2011 to 15/11/2011, however he conceded that later on he came to know about the medical treatment of the

workman and that the workman had submitted his medical fitness certificate to the Management. He also admitted that

the workman was not allowed to join duties even after submitting his medical fitness certificate. This belies the version

of the Management that the workman absented from duty without any intimation or permission w.e.f. 13/9/2011. Even if

it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the claimant who had met with an accident, had not immediately informed

the Management about his injury and medical treatment, in that eventuality also Management was under moral and legal

obligation to allow the claimant to resume duty on 16/11/2011 when he had gone to attend his duty alongwith medical

fitness certificate. It is fairly settled that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties

so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the case, it can

be safely inferred that the claimant/workman had no intention whatsoever to abandon the job. Perusal of the record

shows that the Management has not filed on record any acknowledgement/service report of warning letters Ex.MW1/1

and Ex.MW1/2 allegedly sent to the claimant/workman. Moreover these letters do not bear any reference number of the

office of the Management. Even MW2 Shri Rajeev Shokeen has admitted that the Management has got no proof to show

that the letter dated 17/9/2011 (Ex.MW1/1) was received by the workman. Even these letters were not shown/put to the

claimant in his cross examination for the purposes of confrontation. As such, these letters are of no help to the case of

the Management. The claimant has also filed on record his demand notice dated 4/6/2012 and its postal receipt as

Ex.WW1/1 & Ex.WW1/2 respectively, from which also it can be safely inferred that the claimant had no intention to

abandon the job. In these facts and circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the Management has

failed to prove that it was the claimant who abandoned his service voluntarily.

10)

Now the question arises for consideration is whether the dismissal/termination of the claimant from services

w.e.f. 4/6/2012 amounts to retrenchment and same is in violation of the provisions of the Act.

11)

Admittedly the claimant worked regularly under Management No.1 as Senior Technician from 21/5/2010 till

12/9/2011 when he is stated to have met with an accident on his way back to his house. I have already held above that

the Management has failed to prove that it was the claimant had abandoned his service voluntarily. The claimant has

pleaded and testified that his termination from service on 16/11/2011 and 4/6/2012 is illegal, unjust and against the law

of land. MW2 Rajeev Shokeen – witness of the Management has admitted that no charge sheet was issued to the

workman nor any enquiry was conducted against him. It is fairly settled that if the termination of an employee is based

on no inquiry, no charge-sheet and not by way of punishment, then it becomes a case of illegal retrenchment. As such,

4782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

this Tribunal is of the considered view that action of the Management in disengaging/terminating the services of the

claimant herein w.e.f. 4/6/2012 amounts to retrenchment.

12-

I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to

retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

“25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a) The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the

period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of

the notice;

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen

days’ average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from

giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that any retrenchment compensation was

paid to the claimant by the Management. There is also nothing on record to show that any notice or notice pay was given

by the Management prior to termination of the claimant herein. As such, the Management has violated the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act.

13)

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 Bank to be illegal and void under the law.

14)

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 w.e.f. 4/6/2012 is held to be illegal and void.

15)

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. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the

employment of the Management since 21/5/2010. There is no show cause notice or charge-sheet issued to the

claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the workman is of perennial and regular nature which fact

can be inferred from the contents of letter Ex.MW1/2 wherein it has been stated that in case of non receipt of

reply/response from the workman, the Management will depute another person in his place. The claimant has pleaded

and testified that he is totally unemployed since his termination i.e. 04/6/2012. Management has not led any evidence to

show that the workman/ claimant is gainfully employed since after his termination/disengagement from service.

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 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.”

17-

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,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4783

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).

18-

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.

19-

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.”

20.

Yet in another latest case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd.,

Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal

termination and reinstatement held as under :-

“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the

statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,

then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such

cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere

with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different

opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay

the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,

the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a

premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman

his dues in the form of full back wages.”

A similar view has been taken in the case of Delhi Jal Board Vs. Vimal Kumar (decided on 5-4-2018)

MANU/de/1322/2018 wherein service of a casual driver was terminated without any notice or payment of one month’s

salary in lieu of such notice. The Industrial Tribunal answering the reference held the action of the management to be

illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by observing

as under :-

“In view of the above discussion, I am unable to discern any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award,

dated 29th May, 2003, of the Labour Court, to the extent that it holds the termination of the services of the

respondent, by the petitioner, to be illegal and unlawful. I am entirely in agreement with the finding, of the

Labour Court, that the services of the respondent were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act and

that, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In view of the fact that

going by the age of the respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, he would, today,

be only 50 years of age, and also in view of the fact that the termination of his services as SCM Driver was not

on account of any deficiency or shortcoming detected in the manner of discharge by the respondent, of his duties

as such, I am of the opinion, that the facts of the present case, do not warrant any interference with the direction,

of the Labour Court, to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with the benefit of continuity of

service. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith.

4784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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…..”

21-

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.1. Award is passed accordingly against Management No.1.

Date : 13.05.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1149

1149

1149

1149.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय

सरकार मेसस महािनदेशक (िनमाण), सीपीडLयूडी, नई दली और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय-1, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 174/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 20/05/2019

को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/80/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 174/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Lab our

Court-1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director General (Works),CPWD, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 20/05/2019.

[No. L-42011/80/2015-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, NEW DELHI

ID No. 174/2015

Shri Nepal Singh ,

S/o.Shri Kewal,

Through General Secretary,

All India Central PWD Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)

Gali No.13, Balbir Nagar Extn. Shahdara,

Delhi 110032.

… Workman/Claimant

Versus

1.

The Director General (Works),

CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi 110001.

2.

The Superintending Engineer,

Coord. Electrical Circle, CPWD,

East Block, RK Puram,

New Delhi 110022.

… Management/Respondent

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4785

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by Appropriate Government vide letter

No.L-42011/80/2015-IR(DU) dated 28.08.2015 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 the employee Shri Nepal Singh is entitled to the period of Muster Roll service being considered for

pensionary benefits and whether the workman has right to being considered for promotion with effect from

30.01.2009? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect ?’

2.

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Nepal Singh filed his statement of claim, with the averments

that he was appointed on Muster Roll w.e.f. 15/7/1978 and was regularized in service on 20/5/1982 as Beldar; he was

promoted as Asstt.Carpenter w.e.f.19/1/1989. Assistant category of employees working in CPWD was merged with

main category vide order dated 7/5/1997. The Management had granted selection grade to the workman w.e.f.19/1/1997

on completion of 8 years’ regular service in the skilled category but he was not paid arrears of 5th Pay Commission for

th3e period from 1/1/2006 to 31/8/2008. It is pleaded that the workman had passed trade test for the post of “Work

Assistant” in the year 2002 & had secured 56 marks. Other workmen who had obtained lesser marks have already been

promoted to the post of “Work Assistant” which is a severe discrimination and amounts to unfair labour practice. It is

also pleaded that the workman had to be given pay grade of Rs.2800/- w.e.f.1/9/2008. For that purpose, the workman had

given his representation dated 15/5/2013 to the Management but his request was declined by the Management vide its

letter dated 28/5/2013. Thereafter the claimant through the Union vide letter dated 12/6/2013 clarified the position to the

Management but to no avail. It is further pleaded that other workers namely Ravi Kumar & Ram Sewak, Plumber/s

working in other Divisions of CPWD who had obtained lesser marks in the Test, had also filed their cases against the

management for promoting to the post of Work Assistant w.e.f. 30/1/2009. The claimant/workman superannuated from

the post of Carpenter on 31/3/2015 but he has not been granted due benefits. The workman has prayed for passing an

Award :-

i)

for counting his muster roll service for the purpose of pensionery benefits.

ii)

for payment of arrears in accordance with 5th Pay commission Report for the period from 1/1/2006 to

31/8/2009 on account of selection grade.

iii)

for grant of benefits of 3rd MACP w.e.f.1/9/2008.

iv)

for promotion to the workman to the post of Work Assistant w.ef.30/1/2009 –the date of promotion of

junior workman.

3.

Management resisted the claim of the Workman, by filing written statement wherein it has been stated that the

claimant worked on muster roll from 15/7/1078 to 19/5/1982, for which period he is not entitled to gratuity. Services of

the claimant were regularized on 20/5/1982. The Management has already given him pensionery benefit for rendering

service from 20/5/1982 to 31/3/2015 and had already been paid retirement gratuity i.e.16.5 times as per rules. The

competent authority had granted 3rd MACP approval in favour of the claimant vide letter dated 2/1/2014. It has been

averred that benefits of 5th Pay commission report as well as 3rd MACP have already been given to the claimants as per

rules. Case of the claimant for promotion has already been considered as per rules.

4-

The claimant filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case as set up in the statement of claim and denied the

allegations of the Management.

5-

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 1/8/2016 :-

`(i) Whether workman is entitled for payment of grauity ?

(ii) As in terms of reference.

6-

In support of his case, the claimant examined himself as WW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit

Ex.WW1/A and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/7.

5-

On the other hand, the Management examined Shri Devi Shankiar, Executive Engineer (Construction Division)

as MW1 who tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/8.

6-

I have heard Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, A/R for the claimant and Shri Y.K.Dubey, A/R for the Management

and have also gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 :-

7-

During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the claimant fairly conceded that the matter regarding payment

of gratuity and pensionery benefits to the claimant for muster-roll period is pending before ALC, Delhi/Competent

Authority and as such, he did not press this issue any more. In view of this, there is no need to give any findings on this

issue.

4786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No.2 :-

8-

Learned A/R for the claimant submitted that although the claimant/workman who had secured 56 marks in the

trade test for the post of “Work Assistant” conducted in the year 2002, was not given promotion, however other

workmen who had obtained lesser marks were promoted to the post of “Work Assistant” which action of the

Management is not only discriminatory but also amounts to unfair labour practice.

9-

Per contra, learned A/R for the Management argued that as per recruitment rule/policy of the Management

w.e.f.30/7/1978 to January, 2008, promotion to the post of “Work Assistant” was made on merit basis but the claimant

was not covered for promotion at that time against existing vacancies due to the fact that he had obtained lesser marks

compared to other workers who were promoted to the post of “Work Assistant”. However, the recruitment rule/policy

for promotion to the post of “Work Assistant” was made on seniority basis, under which also the claimant was not

covered due to his lower seniority compared to other workers who had even got lesser marks than the claimant Nepal

Singh in the Trade Test. It is submitted that there has been no discrimination against the claimant rather the promotion

has been done as per recruitment rules/policy.

10-

It is fairly sett led that in service, there could be only one norm for conferment of promotion of persons

belonging to the same cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior. Any

deviation from this principle will have demoralizing effect in service apart from this being contrary to Article 16(1) of

the Constitution.

11-

Testimony of WW1 Nepal Singh/claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. From the

pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the Management had conducted Trade Test

for promotion to the post of “Work Assistant” in the year 2002 and in that test, the workman/claimant had appeared &

was declared successful as he had obtained 56 marks in the competitive departmental trade test. At that time, criteria for

promotion to the post of “Work Assistant” was on the basis of merit in the Trade Test. This fact is also evident from the

gazette notification dated 30/7/1978 (Ex.WW1/2) issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Works & Housing. Recital of

the notification Ex.WW1/2 (dated 30/7/1978) shows that Central Public Works Department (Subordinate Offices) Work

Assistants and Road Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1970 (in short “Recruitment Rules) which were made by the

President under rule making power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, were amended by

the President on 30/7/1978. It is also undisputed fact that upto January, 2008, promotions to the post of “Work

Assistant” were made on sole criteria of marks secured in competitive departmental trade test. However, a circular dated

15/2/2008 (Ex.WW1/3) was issued by the Management wherein it was detailed that candidates who have qualified the

trade test, would be appointed to the post of Work Assistant on the basis of their seniority, instead of their rank in the

test. On the strength of aforesaid circular, the Management promoted various persons who even obtained lesser marks

than the claimant/workman herein, to the post of “Work Assistant”. It would not be out of place to mention here that

circular dated 15/2/2008 (Ex.WW1/3) whereby it was ordered by the Management that candidates/officials who have

qualified the departmental competitive trade test, would be appointed to the post of Work Assistant on the basis of their

seniority, is simply an administrative order and same can not acquire the status of “Recruitment Rules”, inasmuch as

same was not issued pursuant to any notification issued by the Government, thereby amending the prevailing

Recruitment Rules. It is a matter of record that subsequently, another circular dated 15/5/2009 (Ex.MW1/3) was issued

by the Management, wherein it was reiterated that sole criteria for appointment to the post of “Work Assistant” shall be

merit in the competitive departmental trade test. It seems that vide circular Ex.MW1/3 (dated 15/5/2009), the

Management attempted to rectify its mistake crept vide circular dated 15/2/2008 (Ex.WW1/3). Needless to mention here,

during the intervening period from 15/2/2008 to 14/5/2009, various officials/persons were promoted to the post of “Work

Assistant” simply on the criteria of seniority. Although the claimant/workman superannuated from service on 31st

March, 2015, however the Management did not given him promotion to the post of “Work Assistant”, after he was

successful in departmental competitive trade test in 2002 and had secured 56 marks and even after issuance of circular

Ex.MW1/3 whereby again it was emphasized that sole criteria for appointment to the post of “Work Assistant” shall be

merit in the competitive departmental trade test. In my considered view, action of the Management in promoting those

officials/persons to the post of Work Assistant, who had obtained lesser marks in competitive department trade test than

that of the claimant herein, was neither legal nor justified, inasmuch as the Management should have taken into

consideration their merit in the said Trade Test and criteria for promotion on the basis of seniority was not as per

Recruitment Rules. Consequently, the claimant was also entitled to be promoted to the post of “Work Assistant”.

12-

Now the question arises for consideration as to from which date the claimant/workman is entitled to be

promoted. The claimant/workman has filed on record copies of the Award dated 19/2/2013 (Ex.WW1/7) passed by

learned Predecessor of this Tribunal in ID case No.65/2012, whereby the workman Ravi Kumar, Plumber working in

CPWD has been directed to be promoted to the post of Work Assistant w.e.f.30/1/2009. He has also filed on record a

copy of the reply/information dated 23/12/2010 (Ex.MW1/W-1) furnished under RTI Act by the office of CPWD which

shows that the officials at Sl.No.23 to 41 who had obtained marks between 50 to 56 marks in the departmental

competitive trade test, were promoted to the post of Work Assistant w.e.f. 30/1/2009. Once the persons/officials who

got less marks in the Trade Test than that of the claimant were promoted to the post of Work Assistant w.e.f. 30/1/2009,

workman/claimant was also entitled to be promoted as such w.e.f. 30/1/2009.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4787

Relief :-

13.

As a sequel to my discussion herein above, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the Management

discriminated against the claimant/workman when the officials juniors to him were promoted to the post of Work

Assistant w.e.f. 30/1/2009 and as a corollary it is held that the workman/claimant was also entitled to be promoted to the

post of “Work Assistant” w.e.f. 30/1/2009 with all consequential/monetary benefits till his superannuation on 31/3/2015.

Award is passed accordingly in favour of the workman/claimant.

Dated : 15.05.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA , Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1150

1150

1150

1150.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस अिखल भारतीय आयुBवNान सं;थान, नई दली और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और

उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय-1,

नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 72/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 20/05/2019 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/166/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Lab our

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The All

India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delh & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central

Government on 20/05/2019.

[No. L-42012/166/2019-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, NEW DELHI

ID No.72/2017

Shri Dinesh Kumar,

S/o. Shri Chajju Ram,

R/o. H.No.411, Shahpur Jat,

New Delhi 110049.

…Workman

Versus

M/s. All India Institute of Medical Sciences,

Ansari Road,

New Delhi.

…Management

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter

No.L-42012/166/2019/IR(DU) dated 24.03.2017 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:-

4788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of AIIMS in terminating the services of the workman Shri Dinesh

Kumar s/o. Chajju Ram is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect and

what relief is he entitled to ?’’

2.

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant/workman Dinesh Kumar filed his statement of claim with the

averments that he had been working as hospital attendant in AIIMS since 1984 as daily wage worker and worked as such

with best of his capacity and enthusiasm till September, 2013. It is pleaded that in between in 2012 he became seriously

ill and even his daughter also suffered serious illness with abdominal diseases and as such he could not attend to his

duties and remained absent from his workplace due to his illness but he kept informing the Competent Authority about

his absence from duty. When his health got improved a bit, he went back to his workplace to join duty on 7/9/2013 and

worked there till 24/9/2013. However, on 25/9/2013 when he reached his workplace, he was handed over a termination

letter by the Management and was told to sign a paper. The workmen being not very much educated, signed the same

and then he was told to leave the workplace. Thereafter he approached several Officers for restoration of his job at

AIIMS but to no avail. Ultimately he approached the ALC on 2/7/2015 to get justice but conciliation proceedings

yielded no result due to non cooperative behavior and conduct of the Management. Prayer has been made for his

reinstatement into service with direction to the Management to pay minimum wages with PF, gratuity etc. and all other

statutory benefits with retrospective effect.

3-

Perusal of the record shows that in response to the notice issued to the Management, one Shri B.P.Gupta,. A/R

for the Management appeared before this Tribunal on 13/6/2017 and thereafter the Management opted not to participate

in the proceedings. Even no reply/written statement was filed on behalf of the Management despite the fact that matter

was adjourned time and again. Ultimately, the matter was proceeded ex-parte against the Management vide order dated

4/4/2018.

4-

In order to prove his case, the claimant examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A alongwith

documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8. He deposed that contents of his affidavit are correct.

5-

Testimony of the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. He has filed on record

various documents viz. Ex.WW1/1 – copy of reference order date3d 24/3/2018 as Ex.WW1/1; copy of declaration given

to the Management/AIIMS regarding his home town as Ex.WW1/2; copies of pay slips issued to him by AIIMS as

Ex.WW1/3 (colly.); copy of termination letter dated 25/9/2013 as Ex.WW1/4; medical papers regarding his own illness

as Ex.WW1/5 (colly.) and regarding illness of his daughter Jyoti as Ex.WW1/6 (colly.); copies of letters dated 9/10/2013

and 17/10/2014 (as Ex.WW1/7 colly.) which Shri Mahender Singh Mahra, the then Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha)

and Shri Gulshan Rai Virmani, the then Addl.Private Secretary to Minister of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India

had sent to the Medical Supdt., AIIMS regarding reinstatement of his services, and certificate regarding failure of

Conciliation report as Ex.WW1/8. Testimony of the claimant has gone unrebutted and unassailed.

6-

Perusal of failure of conciliation report Ex.WW1/8 shows that as against the representation/industrial dispute

dated 2/7/2015 raised by the claimant/workman herein, the Management had filed its reply, stating that

“The workman has been in the habit of absenting himself from duty frequently, without seeking prior

permission or prior sanction of the leave from the competent authority. He absented himself unauthorisedly in

various spell. He was issued several explanation letters and was advised to report for duties besides calling

upon to explain as to why action as deemed fit should not be taken against him on account of his unauthorised

absence from duty. He was also advised that in case he was sick he should submit the medical certificate from

the GDMO (EHS) or civil surgeon. His frequent absence caused dislocation of work. He was working as

Hospital Attendant having temporary status and failed to maintain devotion to duty and therefore, has been

terminated from service vide letter dated 29.5.2013 under the provisions of clause 7 of the Casual Labourer

(Grant of Temporary Status and Regulation) Scheme, 1993.”

7-

From the testimony of the claimant as well as documents filed on record especially the documents Ex.WW/2 to

Ex.WW/4, it is manifest that the claimant had been working with the Management as Hospital Attendant since 1984 and

he was being paid wages/pay & allowances in a fixed pay-scale and he was granted annual increments to his basic pay

and accordingly, dearness allowance & other allowances used to be paid to him. In February, 2013 he was getting basic

pay of Rs.7270/- with grade pay of Rs.1300/- and his gross pay/salary was Rs.17455/- per month. This shows that the

claimant had been working uninterruptedly as a regular employee of the Management, though according to the

Management he was serving as temporary employee. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the claimant herein falls

within the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(S) of the Act. In this regard, reference can be made to the

decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of

“workman” has observed as under :-

“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/

contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for

deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The

definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4789

person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which

it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole

time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages

or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract

basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person

would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. As such, there exists

relationship of Employer-employee between the Management inasmuch the claimant worked under the Management

from 1984 till 24/9/2013.

8-

It is evident from document Ex.WW1/4 (termination letter dated 25/9/2013) that the services of the claimant

herein were terminated forthwith in pursuance of clause 7 of the Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and

Regularization) Scheme, 1993 and it was provided that the claimant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the

amount of his pay plus allowance for a period of one months in lieu of the notice. In this letter Ex.WW1/4, no reason

has been specified by the Management for termination of services of the claimant, excepting that his status was that of a

temporary employee. However, in the conciliation proceedings, the Management had taken a plea about unauthorized

absence of the claimant/workman which is so apparent and elucidated above from document Ex.,WW1/8. The

claimant has filed on record medical papers (Ex. WW1/5 and Ex.WW1/6 – colly.) regarding illness & treatment of

himself and his daughter Jyoti at AIIMS Hospital from 12/10/2011 to 15/7/2013 and onwards, These documents

substantiate the version of the claimant that he was unable to attend his duties due to ill-health of himself and his

daughter Jyoti (who was aged 16 years in the year 2012). Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the

claimant/workman was absent from duty unauthorisedly prior to the period when his services were terminated by the

Management, in that eventuality also, it was incumbent upon the Management to issue call back notice to the claimant so

as to enquire about his absence from duty or to hold an inquiry against him for absenting himself from duty, inasmuch as

the claimant had been working with the Management for the last about 28 years prior to termination of his services.

Even after termination, the claimant got issued letters Ex.WW1/7 from which it cannot be inferred that the claimant had

any intention to relinquish or abandon his services. The version of the claimant/workman that he remained absent from

his workplace in the year 2012 but he kept informing the Authority about his absence/leave, has gone unassailed and

unrebutted. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that any call back notice was issued to the

claimant/workman or that domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman prior to his termination. It emerges that

the Management has dismissed the workman not in good faith but in the colourable exercise of its rights and same is

unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) of the Act read with item 5 of the Fifth Scheme thereof. In these

circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the action of the Management in terminating the services of

the workman/claimant was illegal and unjustified.

9-

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 continuously worked

with the Management from 1984 till 24/9/2013, has gone unrebutted. The job of the workman as Hospital Attendant is

considered to be of perennial and regular nature. However, the workman/claimant has neither pleaded nor testified that

he is unemployed or has got no source of livelihood and as such, to my mind, the workman herein is not entitled to any

back wages. It is fairly settled that for claiming back wages, onus is upon the claimant to plead and prove that he is not

gainfully employed.

10-

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.”

11-

A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.

Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of

4790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

12.

In the 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.”

13-

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, inasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se illegal. Award

is passed accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management.

Date : 13.5.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1151

1151

1151

1151.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

सरकार सरकार मेसस महाबंधक, होटल कॉपOरेशन ऑफ इंिडया, आईजीआई एयरपोट, नई दली और अय एवं उनके

कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार

औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय-1, नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 82/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केीय

सरकार को 20.05.2019 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2015) 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 General

Manager, Hotel Corporation of India, IGI Airport, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 20.05.2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4791

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1:

NEW DELHI

ID No. 82/2015

Shri Bhagwan Dass

S/o. late Shri Chunni Lal,

working as Loader with M/s. Chefair (a unit of

Hotel Corporation of India Ltd.)

As represented by

Delhi Labour Union,

Agarwal Bhawan, GT Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi 54.

… Workman

Versus

The Management of Hotel Corporation of India,

Through its General Manager,

IGI Airport,

Gurgaon Road,

New Delhi 110037.

…Management

AWARD

This award shall decide a claim petition directly filed by the claimant/workman under Section 2-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for his reinstatement into service with continuity of service and full back

wages alongwith all consequential benefits as well as cost of litigation.

2.

Admitted facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition and the written statement filed on

record are that the workman joined into the employment of Management on 1/12/1977 as a Loader and his services were

terminated in March, 1988. The workman/claimant raised an Industrial Dispute (bearing ID No.169/90) and the Labour

Court passed an Award holding termination of his services to be illegal and the Management moved Hon’ble High Court

by filing CWP No. 1052/2003 and in the proceedings matter was amicably settled. As such, the Management reinstated

the workman in service in the year 2003 and he continued to work with the Management for about 10 years. He attained

the age of 58 years as on 30.4.2014.

3.

It is pleaded by the workman/claimant that his services were illegally discontinued/ terminated w.e.f. 1.5.2014

vide letter dated 17.4.2014 inasmuch as the workman was simply working on casual basis and there is no question of

retirement age of casual employee. His termination has been made without issuance of any memo, charge sheet and

without issuance of any notice or notice pay or service compensation. As such, his termination is in violation of principle

of natural justice as well as Section 25-F, G and H of the Act read with rule 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. Demand notice

dated 15.5.2014 was issued to the Management but to no avail. It is pleaded that the workman is unemployed since the

date of his illegal termination w.e.f. 1/05/2014.

3.

The statement of claim has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary

objections that the claimant has not approached the Tribunal with clear hands. It is alleged that as per clause 94 of the

Hotel Corporation of India Employees’ Service Regulations, the age of retirement of the employees has been rolled back

to the age of 58 years from existing age of 60 years. The change in policy of the age of superannuation and the age of

retirement was in compliance of the Cabinet decision and directives from the Govt. of India vide letter dated 23.10.2013

and the said decision was intimated to the employees of the Management through staff notice dated 31.1.2014 as well as

administrative notice dated 11.2.2014. It is also alleged that service of the claimant were discontinued w.e.f. 1.5.2014 as

he attained the age of 58 years on 30.4.2014. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition with exemplary

costs.

4.

Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the claimant whereby he 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 14.1.2016 :-

i)

Whether termination of the workman by the management is illegal and in violation of provisions of

Section 25-F,G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

ii)

Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections ?

iii)

Relief.

5.

The workman /claimant examined himself as WW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.WW1/A

& relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/17.

4792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6.

On the other hand, the Management examined one Shri Arvind Kumar Shahi, Senior0 Asstt. Manager

(Personnel) who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3.

7.

I have heard Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, A/R for the claimants and Shri S.P.Das, A/R for the Management. I have

also gone through the records carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 to 3 :-

8.

All these issues are taken up together as the same can be disposed of together by common discussion.

9.

The testimony of the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. It is undisputed fact that

the claimant was working under the Management on the post of Loader as casual/temporary employee and he worked

w.e.f.1/12/1977 and his services were disengaged w.e.f.1/5/2014 as he attained the age of 58 years as on 30/4/2014. As

such he was a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. It is fairly settled that there is no distinction in

industrial law between a permanent employee and a temporary employee and so long as the person is employed to do

any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, he is a workman

under the I.D.Act and will get the benefits of that Act. Reference in this respect may be made to the decision of our own

High Court in the case of Delhi Cantonment Board Vs. CGIT and others, (2006) III LLJ 752 Delhi. As such, it is

held that the claimant was the workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act and the claim petition is

maintainable before this Tribunal.

10.

Perusal of the record shows that the Management vide staff notice dated 31st January/3rd February, 2014

(Ex.MW1/1) had informed and notified its all employees that w.e.f.1st March, 2014, the age of retirement of 60 years as

currently applicable to all the employees of the Company shall be rolled back to 58 years and accordingly, Regulation

No.94(1) of HCJ Employees’ Service Regulation in respect of age of retirement stands amended to 58 years after

1/3/2014. MW1 Arvind Kumar has clarified in the cross examination that though no notice was given to the workman

separately, however general notice was displayed on the Notice Board under Section 9-A of the ID Act. He admitted

that rules as per document Ex.MW1/2 are applicable to the permanent employees of the Management. There are no

service regulations qua casual/daily wage workers including the workman. There is also no specific regulation or office

order showing the age of retirement of the workman/claimant. He denied the suggestion that Management terminated the

services of the workman by adopting unfair labour practice, by hire and fire policy and in utter haste.

11.

Now, short question arises for consideration is whether roll back of the age of retirement of its workers,

particularly the claimant/workman herein, by the Management from 60 years to 58 years amounts to change in the

conditions of Service in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, for which notice is required to be

given to the workmen likely to be affected. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 9-A of the Act requires an

employer to give notice in respect of any of the matters, as specified in Fourth Schedule, if the workmen is likely to be

effected by such change. It is worthwhile to mention here that the object of Service Rules and Certified Standing have

different objects in regulating the service conditions of the employees, whereas the object of Section 9-A of the ID Act is

that the employee/s should not be condemned prior to hearing their stand. It is a right of an employee that he be heard

before affecting any of his rights adversely on the basis of principle of natural justice. To my mind, change in

superannuation/retirement age is a part of service conditions of an employee and reduction in superannuation age is

effect adverse to the interest of workmen. It is clearly mentioned in Section 9-A of the Act that before changing either of

the things as envisaged in the Fourth Schedule, prior notice must be given to the employee.

12.

Issue involved in the present case is the same as arose in the case of Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. Vs. State of

Orissa & others, 2018 LLR 1093, wherein grievance of the Trade Union before the Tribunal was that withdrawal of the

age of superannuation i.e. restoration of the age from 60 years to 58 years, amounts to contravention of clause 8 of the

Fourth Schedule, hence employer was bound to give prior notice which employer cannot escape. Therefore, action of the

employer was bad in law and liable to be set aside which was eventually upheld by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High

Court. The appeal preferred by the establishment M/s Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was

dismissed and it was observed by their Lordships that:-

“20. Undoubtedly, it is a cardinal principle of law that beneficial law should be construed liberally. The

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is one of the welfare legislation which intends to provide and protect the benefits

of the employees. Hence, it shall be interpreted in a liberal and broad manner so that maximum benefits could

reach to the employees. Any attempt to do strict interpretation would undermine the intention of the legislature.

In a catena of cases, this Court has held that the welfare legislation shall be interpreted in a liberal way. ….

25. No doubt, the enhancement of the superannuation age was temporary in nature in order to achieve certain

objections and also it is not deniable that yet employees would be governed by the Service Rules and the

Certified Standing Orders which were not amended. However, if we allow the plea of appellant-Company then

it would defeat the object of legislature because legislature could never have intended that employees would be

condemned without giving them right of reasonable hearing. Naturally every employee is under the expectation

that before reducing his superannuation age, he would be given a proper chance to be heard. Right to work is a

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4793

vital right of every employees and it should not be taken away without giving reasonable opportunity of being

heard, otherwise it would be an act of violation of the constitutional mandate of law….

27. To sum up, we are of the view that at the very moment when the order of enhancement of superannuation of

the employees came into force though temporary in nature, it would amount to privilege to employees since it is

a special right granted to them. Hence, any unilateral withdrawal of such privilege amounts to

contravention of Section 9-A of the Act and such act of the employer is bad in the eyes of law.

13.

Having regard to the ratio of above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions of Section 9-A of the

Act, it was incumbent upon the Management herein to give separate notice to the workman, prior to effecting change of

superannuation age of its workers from 60 to 58 years as it intended to affect their valuable right to work. Though it has

come in the evidence of MW1- Arvind Kumar Shahi, formal/general notice under Section 9-A of the Act was displayed

on the notice board regarding reduction of the superannuation age of the workers, however, he has conceded that the

notice was not personally or separately served upon workman/claimant. In such circumstances, it can not said that there

is compliance of the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act in respect of review/reduction of superannuation age of the

workers. This action of the Management being in contravention of Section 9-A of the Act can not be sustained in the

eyes of law and liable to be set aside. Consequently it is held that impugned termination/disengagement of services of

the claimant/workman by the Management w.e.f. 1.4.2014 is arbitrary, unjust and illegal.

14.

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. The claimant has pleaded and testified that his services

were terminated by the Management without giving any notice, notice pay or service compensation and hence same is in

violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. The claimant has also pleaded and testified that he is totally

unemployed since the day of his illegal termination i.e. w.e.f.1/5/2014. The Management has not adduced any evidence

to show that the workman/ claimant is gainfully employed. Even MW1 has admitted that the Management does not have

any evidence or material to show that workman is gainfully employed elsewhere after 3.4.2014. It is worthwhile to

mention here that the claimant/workman was supposed to superannuate on 30.4.2016 at the age of 60 years, had his

services were not terminated w.e.f.1/5/2014 due to reduction of age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years. As such,

question of reinstatement of the claimant into service does not arise at this stage. In the peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled to get full back wages for the period

from 1.5.2014 to 30/4/2016 with all consequential benefits. Award is passed accordingly against Management.

Date : 8.5.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA , Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1152

1152

1152

1152.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस महाबंधक, भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, यवतमाल (एम. एस.) दली और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के

संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण

एवं 1म यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 06/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.06.2019 को

ा6 7आ था ।

[सं. एल-40011/07/2015–आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court Nagpur , as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Yavatmal (M.S.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 11 .06.2019.

[No. L-40011/07/2015-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

4794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/06/2015-16

Date: 25.03.2019

Party No.1

:

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

BSNL complex, Dhamangaon Road,

Yavatmal (M.S.) – 445001.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The Secretary,

BSNL Labour & Contract Labour Union (CITU),

Flat No. 29, Nagar Parishad,

Sulbhewar Market, Lokhandi Pool,

Godam File, Yavatmal (M.S.) – 445001.

AWARD

(Dated: 25th March, 2019)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between

the employers, in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their union, BSNL Labour &

Contract Labour Union (CITU), for adjudication, as per letter No.L-40011/07/2015 IR (DU) dated 20.05.2015, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s S. R. Prasad/BSNL in terminating from the service of

workmen w.e.f. 02.05.2014 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Section 25 F of ID Act, 1947? If yes, to

what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. The petitioner/union (in short “Party No. 2”) filed statement of

claim and the management (in short “Party No. 1”) filed their written statement. Respectively. On 07.02.1919, Party No.

2 filed an application to withdraw the reference, which is marked as I.A. No. 1. In support/identification, Secretary of the

union/Party No. 2, Shri Vishnu R. Wankhede filed photocopy of his I.D. At that time, nobody appeared on behalf of the

Party No. 1. So, application I.A. No. 1 is allowed. Reference is treated as withdrawn. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1153

1153

1153

1153.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस कलकPा टेलीफोन, कोलकाता, और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के

बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय कोलकाता के पंचाट

(संदभ सं2या. 04/2007) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 25.05.19 को ा6 7आ था।

[सं. एल-40011/13/2006-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Calcutta

Telephones , Kolkata & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 25.05.19.

[No. L- L40011/13/2006-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4795

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 04 of 2007

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Calcutta Telephone

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra,Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. Sushil Kumar Karmakar, learned counsel

On behalf of the Workmen

: Mr. Madhusudan Dutta, learned counsel

Dated: 15th May, 2019.

Industry: Telephone.

AWARD

Consequent upon refusal of Shri Amit Kumar Sarkhel, Shri Naba Kumar Hazra, Shri Salil Kumar Das, Shri

Abhijit Bhattacharjee, Shri Monoranjan Ghosh nd Shri Bidhan Chandra Nandy by the management of Calcutta

Telephones for continuous appointment, a dispute arose which has been referred by the Central Government to this

Tribunal for adjudication vide Order No.L-40011/13/2006-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2007 in the following terms:

“Whether the demand of Shri Amit Kumar Sarkhel, Shri Naba Kumar Hazra, Shri Salil Kumar Das, Shri

Abhijit Bhattacharjee, shri Monoranjan Ghosh and Shri Bidhan Chandra Nandy for continuous appointment

under the management of BSNL, Kolkata is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the above workmen are

entitled and from which date(s)?”

2.

After receipt of reference notices were issued to the parties to file their respective pleadings whereupon the

above named six workmen filed their statement of claim pleading therein that they were appointed as casual labourers in

the year 1991 and since the initial dates of their appointment, they have been doing the jobs of perennial nature which are

necessary for carrying out day-to-day function of the authority and are normally done by permanent workmen. It is also

stated that in normal course of business they used to sign attendance register kept in the office and wages were paid to

them through ACG-17 vouchers on the basis of attendance recorded in the register. The attendance register and ACG-17

vouchers were kept in the custody of Sub-divisional Officer (Phones). The services of the above workmen are utilized by

the department for giving service to the public for which they are required to work and perform the road patrolling duty

as Helper to the Lineman in outdoor duties. They also discharge duty of Peon/Bearer/Driver etc. According to ACG-17

scheme and the general practice followed by the department, the casual labouers who had completed 240 days of work in

a year, would be absorbed as permanent workmen. In departmental correspondence between A.E, Staff and Senior A.E.,

Phones the names of casual labourers who had been working on muster roll and also under ACG-17 scheme were also

sent to the A.E., Staff, Calcutta Telephones for recruitment and they were assured by the concerned authority that they

would be absorbed on the basis of aforesaid list. The workmen concerned made several written representation before the

authority concerned for their regularization in service. Though the authorities admitted their claim to be bona fide but did

nothing with a motive to harass them, whereas similar other casual labourers who were engaged much later than the

concerned workmen and who has much lesser number of working days were given the status of daily rated mazdoor and

thereafter permanent absorption, but the concerned workmen inspite of having seniority and rendering service for many

years, were not favoured with the benefit of status of daily rated mazdoor and were not absorbed permanently. Thus

action of the management in not regularizing their services is alleged by these workmen to be illegal, mala fide and

unjustified.

3.

The management of Calcutta Telephones filed its written statement pleading inter alia that the reference is not

maintainable since Shri Amit Kumar Sarkhel has no legal or representative character to espouse the cause or grievance of

other employees. The concerned workmen were engaged as casual workers on contract basis. Gate passes were issued to

them keeping in view of the exigency of work, but it is denied that the jobs which they were doing were of perennial in

nature. The nature of their job was routine job. There was no attendance register for casual workers. Wages were paid on

ACG-17 form prescribed by the Central Government which known as vouchers. The concerned workman did not work

for 240 days. The plea of the workmen concerned that they have been working continuously and without any break are

incorrect and without any basis, therefore, there is no question of their absorption. There was no scheme in the name of

ACG-17. It is a prescribed form for payment of remuneration for engagement of casual workers for accounting purposes

only. The permanent absorption depends upon permanent or regular posts and in absence thereof there is no scope for

absorption as against regular vacancies.

4796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4.

On behalf of the workmen concerned WW-01, Shri Abhijit Bhattacherjee and on behalf of the management

MW-01, Shri Tapas Kumar Ray and MW-02, shri Navendu Samanta have been examined. Apart from this, some

documentary evidences have also been filed by both the parties, which shall be referred at the relevant place.

5.

The management of Calcutta Telephones at the very outset has challenged the maintainability of reference on

the ground that the dispute in question is not an industrial dispute and the workman, Shri Amit Kumar Sarkhel has no

representative character to espouse the cause of other workmen.

6.

Taking up the point of maintainability of the reference first, it is undisputed fact that the six casual workmen

have filed a combined statement of claim and they are jointly contesting this case. Admittedly their case has not been

espoused by any union. A dispute may initially be an individual dispute, but it may become an industrial dispute, if it is

espoused by a union. When cause of the workmen is not espoused by any union, the question arises whether the

workmen who are party to the case can themselves form a group so as to convert their individual dispute into the

industrial dispute?

7.

In The Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, Bombay, 1961-II-LLJ 436 the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has held that

“In each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute,

the test is whether at the date of reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the union of workmen of

the employer against whom the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen”

In above case law at the material point of time the establishment of The “Hindu” had besides the aggrieved workman,

only nine employees, out of them seven sere serving at the administrative side and two were journalists. The aggrieved

workman and one more were members of Bombay Union of Journalists, the second was not a member of the union. The

union was a trade union, membership of which was open to all persons who were dependant for their livelihood upon the

practice of journalism etc. Thus including the aggrieved workman, there were only three working journalists. One of

them had raised the dispute. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court if out of the remaining two journalists one had

supported the cause of aggrieved workman, it would be an industrial dispute. Thus according to the above case law even

one workman out of the two was considered to be appreciable number of workmen which shows that it is not the number

of workmen but the representative character of the group of workmen which is material to convert an individual dispute

into industrial dispute.

8.

In Workmen v. Dharmpal Prem Chand, AIR 1966 SC 182 Hon’ble the Apex Court held

-

that notwithstanding the width of the words used in Section 2(k) of the Act of 1947 a dispute raised by an

individual workman cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his union or in the

absence of a union by a number of workmen;

-

that the union may validly raise a dispute though it may be a minority union of the workmen employed in

the establishment;

-

that if there was no union of workmen in an establishment, a group of employees can raise the dispute

which become an industrial dispute, even though it is a dispute relating to an individual workman and

lastly

-

that where the workmen of an establishment have no union of their own and some of them have joined

union of another establishment belonging to the same industry, if such a union takes up the cause of the

workman working in an establishment which has no union of its own, the dispute would become an

industrial dispute if such a union claimed a representative character in a way that it its support would

make the dispute an industrial dispute.

9.

Discussing the principles of law propounded in Bombay Union of Journalists (supra) and Workmen of M/s.

Dharmpal Prem Chand (supra) the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Fifth

Industrial Tribunal & Ors., 1980 LAB. I.C. 92 has further elaborated the representative character of union or the group

of workmen. In this case 12 out of 18 car drivers had raised the dispute supported by the union, but the question involved

in this case was whether the 18 car drivers should be taken to be the total number of workmen for the purpose of

considering whether a substantial number of workmen had raised the dispute? The Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that

as soon as it is held that the drivers form a distinct category and are in a position to affect the industry, the total number

of workmen should be the total number of such workmen forming the particular class or category, the drivers. The Court

treated the 12 car drivers who had raised the dispute to form a substantial part of total number of 18 drivers. The Hon’ble

Court also endorsed the test laid down in its earlier decision in Mitsubishi Sholi Kaisha Ltd. v. The Tenth Industrial

Tribunal of West Bengal, (1972) 76 Cal WN 753 as to whether the group of workmen are in such a position as to affect

or impede the smooth operation of the company by raising a dispute, if yes, then it is an industrial dispute.

10.

Now coming to the facts of the present case, the six workmen who have raised the present dispute were

appointed as casual workers. WW-s01, Shri Abhijit Bhattacherjee has stated in his cross-examination that none of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4797

workmen including him belong to any workmen union. There are 24 to 25 workers in the unit where he is working, doing

the same nature of job as he is doing. Thus applying the ratio laid down in above case law of M/s. Rekitt & Colman

(supra) these 24 to 25 persons working in the unit and doing the same nature of job, should be taken to be the total

number of workmen for the purpose of considering whether a substantial or appreciable number of workmen have raised

the dispute. The dispute under reference has been raised by approximately 1/4th of the total number of workmen. Hence

by no stretch of imagination, these six workmen who have raised the present dispute can acquire the representative

character of the total number of workmen. There is nothing on record to show that these six casual workmen can affect or

impede the smooth functioning of the establishment. Therefore, their individual dispute cannot be converted into an

industrial dispute and resultantly the reference is not maintainable for the above reason.

11.

As this Tribunal has no jurisdiction for want of a valid reference, finding on factual merit of the case is not

required.

12.

An Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1154

1154

1154

1154.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस कमांQडग ऑफसर, िडफस िसSयो9रटी कोर TIस ऑल, बरमल, ओिडशा और एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संबं,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय भुवनेUर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 23/2013) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 27/02/19 को ा6 7आ

था।

[सं. एल-14012/08/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1154.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2013, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Commanding Officer, Defence Security Corps Troops All, Badmal, Odisha & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 27/02/2019.

[No. L-14012/08/2012-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR.

I..D Case No.23 of 2013

Date of passing of award 05.02.2019

Present: Sri B.C.Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

Between :

1.

The Commanding Officer,

Defence Security Corps Troops AII,

Ordnance Factory,Badmal,

Odisha-767770.

2.

The General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

At/P.O./Dist.Badmal,

Odisha-767770.

… Ist. Party Management

Versus

Sri Paleswar Barik,

S/o. Sri Magan Barik,

Vill: Bhadra (Nua Basti),P.O.Badamal,

4798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Gandapatrapali),P.S. Saintala,

Dist. Bolangir.Odisha.

…2nd Party Workman.

Appearance::

For the Ist Party Management - None

For the 2nd Party workman - Self

AWARD

This award is directed against the Industrial Dispute referred by the Government of India Ministry of Labour

vide its order No.L.14012/08/2012-IR(DU) dated 21.2.2003 in exercise of its authority conferred by clause(d) of sub-

section (1) and sub section(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(14 of 1947) for its adjudication and the

term and schedule of the reference is :-

(1) ‘‘Whether the action on the part of the mgt of GM,Ordnance Factory, Badmal in not re-engaging Shri Paleswar

Barik As Safai Wala and not considering him for regularisation in the post of Sweeper/Safai Wala is legal and

justified’? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to’’ ?

2.

The case of the 2nd Party Workman, who has raised the dispute before the Labour Machinery is that he was

appointed as a Sweeper on Casual basis under the Ist Party Management in the year 1992 and he worked as such till the

year 2002. He was retrenched from service without following the due procedure as laid down in the Industrial Disputes

Act. Three other persons namely Chaitan Tali, Linga Seth and Sashi Barik were given appointments subsequently over

looking his claim. Though, he applied for a job of Sweeper in the year 2001,204,2005, the above named persons were

given preference and principles of first come and last go as well as provisions of Section 25(h) were violated while

inducting the above three persons. Hence the dispute.

3.

On being noticed the Ist. Party Management appeared and filed its written statement denying the allegations

in toto. It is the stand of the1st Party /Management that the disputant was never engaged directly by the Ist Part

Management. His service as a Sweeper might be hired by the Contractors who were entrusted the cleaning job on

tender basis. There was no employer and employee relationship between the workman and the Management and as such

question did not arise for his retrenchment or removal from service. Hence, prayer has been made for rejection of l the

claim statement. It may be mentioned here that after filing the written statement the Management did not take any step

during hearing of the case as a result he was set exparte and the matter was heard exparte.

4.

The sole point for determination is whether the 1st Pary Management terminated the service of the 2nd party

workman without following the procedure as laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act.

5.

In order to substantiate his clam the 2nd party workman has examined himself as W.W. No.1 and filed

documents like the Copy of the Complaint dated.27.12.2011. Copy of letter dated.20.4.2010, Copy of the Letter

dated.30.5.2010, copy of temporary pass for Civilians, copy of experience certificate, copy of temporary pass and

experience certificates which are marked as Exts.1 to 5, Exts.5/1 to 5/8 respectively, copy of caste certificate, copy of

School leaving certificate issued from the School., Copy of Certificate issued by the O.I.C. Laxmisagar P.S.. copy of

workman’s representation and copy of complaint of workman to LEO(C) Titlagarh which are marked as Exts.6 to 10

respectively.

6.

In his uncontroverted and unchallenged testimony advanced in the form of sworn affidavit the disputant

workman has repeated the verson pleaded in his statement of claim. According to him he was employed in the year

1992 and his service was terminated long back. Some other persons were engaged through service provider from time

to time though he had a preference right for such engagement. He has also testified that the Management committed

illegality by refusing employment to him either directly or indirectly. In support of his assertions he has filed the

experience certificates allegedly given by some officers of the Ist Party Management. No other document or credible

oral evince has been adduced to establish that he was ever given appointment by the 1st Party Management and he was

its employee. Law is well settled that the initial burden lies on the 2nd party workman to establish the relationship of

employer and employee between the parties. In order to establish the violation of provisions of Section 25(f) the

applicant workman has to establish that he was an employee of the Ist Party Management,(ii) he worked for more than

240 days continuously in a calendar year preceding to his retrenchment/disengagement. There was no compliance of

the provisions of Section.25(f) of the Act. Neither the pleadings in the statement of claim nor the assertions in the

sworn affidavit filed towards examination in chief of the applicant workman reveals the date and month of his

joining in the Ist Party Management or the date, month and year of his retrenchment. There is no specific assertion in

his testimony to suggest that he worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year preceding to his

retrenchment/termination. Not a single scrap of paper except Xerox copies of some certificates issued individually

by some persons allegedly working in the Ist Party Management have been filed. But, they are not authenticate

documents to lead a conclusion that the disputant was working as a Sweeper in the Ist Party establishment. No

appointment letter or termination letter is filed to show that the disputant workman was given appointment by the

Ist Party Management either temporarily or causally. Similarly there is no document to show that the Management

had ever retrenched the disputant from service. Not a single scrap of paper is also filed to establish that wages was

paid to the disputant by the 1st Party Management.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4799

7.

When the initial burden to show that the 2nd party is a workman of the Ist Party Management is not

discharged by the workman, the Management can not be said to have violated any provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act by giving appointment to some freshers after inviting applications from willing candidates. On the other hand it is

emerging from the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence of the workman that he and others were applicants

for certain posts in the first party Management. Those three persons were given appointment on account of their

selection. In that view of the matter the workman has also failed to show that provisions of Section25(g) and 25(h)

were violated when fresh recruitees were engaged by the Ist Party Management. Thus, there is no absolute material or

credible evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the General Manager Ordnance Factory has violated the provisions

of I.D. Act by refusing re-engagement to the disputant workman. Similarly, he has not committed any illegality for

not taking any steps to regularise the service of workman. Hence, the statement of claim stands rejected being found

devoid of any merit.

The reference is answered accordingly.

B.C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1155

1155

1155

1155.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस सीईओ और बंध िनदेशक, बजाज आिलयांज लाइफ इंVयोरस कंपनी िलिमटेड, यरवदा, पुणे, महाराF और एवं उनके

कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार

औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय भुवनेUर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 86/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय

सरकार को 27/02/19 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 86/2017, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Lab our

Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The CEO

and Managing Director, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd , Yerawada, Pune, Maharastra & Others, and their workmen

which were received by the Central Government on 27/02/2019.

[No. L- 42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,BHUBANESWAR.

Industrial Dispute Case No.86 of 2017

Date of passing of Award 05.02.2019

Present: Shri B.C.Rath,LL.B., Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar.

Between:

1.

Tarun Chugh,

CEO and Managing Director,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,

GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada,

Pune, Maharastra, Pin-411006.

2.

Ruben Selvadoray,

Chief Human Resource Officer,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,

GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada,

Pune,Maharastra,Pin-411006.

3.

Prabir Ranjan Prusty,

Regional Head,

4800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,

2nd. Floor, Subhra Plaza,O.T. Road,

Above Axis Bank, Balasore-756001.

…First Party- Management

Versus

Shri Saroj Kumar Panda, aged about 47 years,

S/o Sri Brundaban Panda,

At/P.O.Avana, District-Balasore,

Odisha.756051.

…2nd. Party Workman

Appearances:-

For the First Party Management : None

For the 2nd. Party workman : Self

AWARD

This award arises out of the Statement of Claim presented by Sri Soroj Kumar Panda resorting to the

provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(hereinafter referred to as the Act.).

2.

The case of the applicant as revealed from his statement of claim is that he was appointed on 9.5.2006 as the

Branch Accountant in the Management Company of Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. and joined at branch

office of the Company at Balasore on 5.6.2006. He was discharging his duty with all diligence and sincerity and in

recognisation of his outstanding performance he was promoted to the post of Senior Divisional Accountant in Grade LIA

with effect from 1.4.2009. Though he was promoted and re-designated as Senior Divisional Accountant, he was

discharging the same duty like Branch Accountant. According to him his designation as Senior Divisional Accountant

was again re-designated as Business Supporting Officer with effect from 1.8.2014. He was transferred from Finance

Department to Sales Administration with effect from 1.1.2015. Though he was designated as Business Supporting

Officer , he was not discharging the duty of the Managerial person. Rather he was a workman of the Bajaj Alliance Life

Insurance Company as defined U/s.2 sub clause(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is his claim that he was issued with

commendation letter by his superior for his outstanding work. Inspite of his such performance he was terminated from

service with effect from 25.7.2017 on vague reasons of departmental restructure though, his Juniors were allowed to

continue in service. The authorised signatory of the termination letter had also informed him that a claim amount of

Rs.1,07,787/- was transferred to his account towards full and final

settlement. It is his stand that the amount was

not adequate for the amount to which he was entitled to U/s.25(f) of the Act. Further, the principle of “ last come last

go” was violated while terminating his service. No permission as contemplated U/s.25(n) of the Act was taken while

terminating his service. Having been worked for more than 11 years continuously in the organisation of the Management

he was entitled to get retrenchment compensation and other benefits as prescribed U/s.25(f) of the Act. Thus, his

termination being a violation of provisions of Section 25(f), 25(g) and 25(n) of the Act is illegal and unsustainable in

the eye of law. Therefore, the action of the Management in terminating his service is illegal and unjustified. Hence prayer

has been made by the workman for his reinstatement with all back wages and other service benefits.

3.

Inspite of notice neither the Management Company nor the officers who are impleaded as parties appeared

as a result of which they have been set exparte. Hence the case was heard exparte.

4.

To substantiate his claim the applicant workman has examined himself as WW No.1 and relied upon the

documents like the copy of the termination Letter dated.25.7.2017, copy of the certificate issued by the Regional Labour

Commissioner(Central),Bhubaneswar, copy of appointment letter dated.9.5.2006, Copy of letter dated.27.6.2009,copy of

letter dated.28.7.2014 and copy of letter dated.27.4.1017 which are marked as Ext.1 to Ext.6 respectively.

5.

Keeping in view the pleadings and evidence advanced by the workman in exparte, the points for consideration

are :-“(1) Whether the applicant was a workman of the Ist. Party Management,(2) Whether his dis-engagement from

service by the Management was in violation of the provisions of Section 25(f)(g) and (n) of the Act and thereby it is

illegal and unjustified and (3) What relief the disputant is entitled to ?”

6.

In his uncontroverted and unchallenged oral testimony the applicant has reproduced the pleadings advanced in

his claim statement. There is nothing substantial in his evidence advanced in the form of Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. to

disbelieve his verson. According to him he was initially appointed as a Branch Accountant and posted in the office of

the Ist. Party Management at Balasore on 5.6.2006. Though, he was promoted to the post as Senior Divisional

Accountant and later re-designated as Business Supporting Officer, he was not discharging any managerial or

supervising work. He was a workman of the Management Company as defined under Section.2 sub clause (s) of the

Act. His service was terminated with effect from 25.7.2017 though, some other workmen who joined subsequent to him

are retained in their service. It is his further claim that the amount transferred to his account by the Management

Company at the time of retrenchment of his service was not adequate to meet the amount to which he was entitled under

Section 25(f) of the Act. Besides, no permission was taken from the appropriate Government while terminating his

service as the Company had more than 300 employees. More over the documents filed by him more particularly the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4801

contents of Exts.1 and 3,Exts.4 and 5 lend support to his uncontroverted testimony. Be that as it may, the termination of

the applicant is illegal and unjustified.

The pleadings and evidence further reveal that the workman raised a dispute before the Labour Machinery and

no conciliation proceeding could be initiated before the Labour Machinery due to apathy of the Management. As such a

certificate as required under Section 2-A sub clause(2) sub clause(3) of the Act is found to have been issued by the

Labour Machinery in favour of the applicant. It can not be over sighted that the disputant has specifically claimed that

his juniors were allowed to continue in service whereas he was retrenched/terminated on a reason of re-structural of

the Management organisation. In the above back drop it is a fit case where the applicant is entitled to be reinstated with

back wages and other service benefits and any amount paid to him at the time of his termination is to be adjusted

against his arrears to which he is entitled in the event of reinstatement. Hence, the Ist. Party Management Bajaj

Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., is directed to reinstate the applicant workman within two months of the notification of

the award and to pay the back wages of the applicant as mentioned above failing which the applicant is entitled to interest

@ 6.5% per annum on the arrears towards back wages and such interest is to be calculated from the date of the award.

Steps be taken for notification of the award in accordance to law.

B.C.RATH, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1156

1156

1156

1156.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस रिज;8ार, िवUेUरैया राFीय ौ ोिगक सं;थान, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या.34/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10/05/2019 को ा6

7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/106/2016 -आईआर-(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Registrar,

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 10.05.2019.

[No. L-42011/106/2016-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/34/2018-19

Date: 22.04.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Registrar,

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology,

Nagpur – 440010.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Director,

Spick & span Services,

32, Mama Road, Zenda Chowk,

Dharmpeth, Nagpur – 440010.

Party No.1(c)

:

The Proprietor,

Chambal Security Services,

72, Zone-I, MP Nagar,

Bhopal (M.P.) – 462011.

4802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Nagpur General Labour Union,

C/o CITU Office, 306 Shaniwari,

Com. A.K. Gopalan Bhawan,

Nagpur – 440018.

AWARD

(Dated: 22nd 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 Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology

(Principal Employer) and their Contractors and their union, Nagpur General Labour Union for adjudication, as per letter

No.L-42011/106/2016 IR (DU) dated 20.08.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of management of Visvesvaraya Institute of Technology, Nagpur (VNIT) (Principal

Employer) and their Contractors M/s Spic and span Services, Nagpur & Chambal Security Services,

Bhopal in terminating the services of Sh. Haridas Meshram & 29 others (Listed), who were working in

jobs of sweeping and cleaning for several years till the end of contract on 30.01.2016, is fair, just and

legal? If not so, to what benefits the workmen are entitled to and to what extent? 2. Whether the

management of VNIT and its contractors have committed unfair labour practice as prescribed under

5(a), (b) & (d) of the 5fthe Schedule of the ID Act, 1947 by terminating the services of contract labor? If

so, to what benefits the workmen are entitled to and to what extent?

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due fixing the date on 25.10.2018. On that day, Shri Gaurav Singh

Sengar, advocate filed Memo of appearance for the management, but the petitioner was absent. On 07.12.2018, Shri

Shrikant Deo and Gaurav Singh Sengar, advocates filed vakalatnama for the management, but on that day also, petitioner

was absent. Thereafter this Tribunal fixed dates to file statement of claim on 01.02.2019, 09.04.2019 and 18.04.2019.

Acknowledgement for service of notice to the union is on record.

3.

Advocate for the management filed an application for dismissal of the reference on 09.04.2019, which is marked

as I.A. No. I and a pursis on 22.04.2019 i.e. I.A. No. II, in which they prayed for closing of the reference. On perusal of

the record, it appears that, union as well as petitioners (which names are mentioned in the reference) is not interested to

proceed with this reference. So, application I.A. No. I and the pursis, I.A. No. II are allowed. Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1157

1157

1157

1157.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस सब िडवीजनल इंजीिनयर (इलेिS8कल), भारत संचार िनगम िलिमटेड, यवतमाल (एम. एस .) और अय एवं उनके

कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार

औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 58/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय

सरकार को 11/06/2019 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-40012/92/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Sub

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4803

Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Yavatmal (M.S.) & Others, and their workmen which

were received by the Central Government on 11 /06/2019.

[No. L-40012/92/2014-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/58/2014-15

Date: 17.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Sub Divisional Engineer (Electrical),

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

T.E. Building, 2nd Floor, Post Office Square,

Yavatmal (M.S.) – 445001.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Contractor,

M/s Bohara Enterprises,

Ansari Waard,

Gondia – 441601.

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Bhimrao Raghoji Uike,

Ward No. 2, Mukuban, Tehsil- Zarijamni,

Yavatmal (M.S.) – 445001.

AWARD

(Dated: 17th May, 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 The Sub Divisional Engineer (Electrical) (Principal

Employer) and their Contractor and their workman, Shri Bhimrao R. Uike for adjudication, as per letter No.L-

40012/92/2014 IR (DU) dated 19.01.2015, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Yavatmal and M/s Bohara Enterprises, Gondia,

Contractor in terminating the services of the applicant, is fair, just or legal? If not, to what relief is

entitled to the concerned workman to?’’

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due fixing the date on 21.07.2015. On that day, both the parties were

absent. On 04.03.2016, the workman himself was present and orally requested for time to file statement of claim and to

engage advocate, but thereafter he did not turn up, even management was also absent. On 22.06.2018, an order was

passed to issue fresh notice to both parties fixing the date on 17.08.2018. On 17.08.2018, Shri Zaki Athar Hanif Khan

filed authorization on behalf of the management, but nobody was present on behalf of the workman. Thereafter, nobody

has been appearing from either side. It shows that, service of notice dated 17.08.2018 may be presumed. It also shows

that, parties are not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, case is closed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1158

1158

1158

1158.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

सरकार मेसस महाबंधक, बीएसएनएल, दूरसंचार िजला, प9टयाला (पंजाब) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के

संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण

4804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

एवं 1म यायालय चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 290/2013, 291/2013, 292/2013, 293/2013) को कािशत करती

है जो केीय सरकार को 20/05/2019 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल- L-40011/49/2013- आईआर (डीयू),

L-40011/48/2013- आईआर (डीयू),

L-40011/50/2013- आईआर (डीयू),

L- 40011/51/2013 – आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O.1158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 290/2013, 291/2013, 292/2013, 293/2013) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Lab our Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to The General Manager, BSNL, Telecom District, Patiala (Punjab) & Others, and their workmen

which were received by the Central Government on 20/05/2019.

[No. L-40011/49/2013- IR (DU),

L-40011/48/2013- IR (DU),

L-40011/50/2013- IR (DU),

L-40011/51/2013- 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

1.

ID No.290/2013

Sh. Gurcharan Singh S/o Sh. Lachman Singh, C/o Dharam Pal Angrish, President Punjab Trade Union Federation,

139-A, Model Town, Samrala Road Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana(Pb.)

2.

ID No.291/2013

Sh. Gurmeet Singh S/o Hardyal Singh, C/o Dharam Pal Angrish, President Punjab Trade Union Federation, 139-A,

Model Town, Samrala Road Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana(Pb.)

3.

ID No.292/2013

Sh. Rajwinder Singh S/o Sh. Karam Singh, C/o Dharam Pal Angrish, President Punjab Trade Union Federation, 139-A,

Model Town, Samrala Road Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana(Pb.)

4.

ID No.293/2013

Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Charan Singh, C/o Dharam Pal Angrish, President Punjab Trade Union Federation, 139-A,

Model Town, Samrala Road Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana(Pb.)

All registered on 18.09.2013

…Workmen

Versus

1.

The General Manager, BSNL, Telecom District, Patiala(Punjab).

2.

The Divisional Engineer, Telephone, BSNL, Mandi Gobindgarh.

3.

The SDOP, BSNL, Mandi Gobindgarh.

4.

M/s Ramesh Kumar Mittal, Quiet Office No.2,

Ground Floor, Sector 35-a, Chandigarh.

…Respondents

AWARD

Passed on: 03.06.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40011/49/2013-IR(DU), L-40011/48/2013-ID(DU), L-40011/50/2013-

IR(DU), L-40011/51/2013-IR(DU) Dated 04.09.2013/06.09.2013, 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

disputes separately for each workmen related to the Department of BSNL for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4805

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Patiala in terminating the services of

Sh. Gurcharan Singh, (Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Sh. Rajwinder Singh, Sh. Balbir Singh) w.e.f. 16.10.2012, who was

engaged by General Manager, BSNL, Patiala through contractor M/s Ramesh Kumar Mittal is just, valid and

legal? To what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?”

1.

Since the all above mentioned references related to same set of claim petitions, written statements, oral and

documentary evidences of either parties are common hence, they are decided by common judgment.

2.

Both the parties were served with notices. The workmen/claimants filed their statement of claim separately with

the averment that they were appointed by the management as workers w.e.f. 05.01.2002 since then, they were performing

their duties sincerely till 16.10.2012 when management terminated their services using unfair labour practice illegally,

arbitrary and without any proper enquiry, notice of compensation against the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen were drawing lastly emoluments Rs.3,300/- per month besides other legally prescribed

previllages and benefits. The workmen had been forced to remain unemployed and they were out of employment due to

highhandedness of the management and have not been gainfully employed. The respondent-management has violated the

provisions of Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and they are entitled for reinstatement in service with

full back wages and continuity of service.

3.

Respondent/defendant no.1 to 3 have filed its written statements separately dated 20.08.2014 alleging therein

that the workmen have neither engaged by the BSNL nor any wages were paid directly to them. As such, there was no

relationship of master and servant as the BSNL entering into contract for getting the work done through contractors

according to which the contractor may have engaged the labour for the performance of the job under the contract.

Workmen had not been engaged since 05.01.2001 and they have not been paid the emoluments of Rs.3,300/- per month

as claimed by the workmen. If the workmen were engaged by the contractor, management has no service record in

respect of such person engaged by the contractor. Moreover, the contractor has already been impleaded as one of the

party therefore, he would be in a better position to explain the engagement of the workmen. It is also alleged that Ramesh

Kumar Mittal was initially engaged for the maintenance of the work against NIT 2010-2011 for one year which was valid

upto 26.07.2012 and after the expiry of this contract, another tender was invited which was awarded in favour of Vichitra

Construction Pvt. Ltd. from 16.10.2012. The copy of C.A. M/s Ramesh Kumar Mittal and M/s Vichitra Construction Pvt.

Ltd. and payment made to them by BSNL as per the C.A. on the basis of number of labours engaged under the Contract

Agreement which are attached as Annexure M1 to M5. Management has no relation with the workmen as such, the

question of giving notice or granting any compensation does not arise. The workmen are not entitled for reinstatement

into service with back wages as claimed by them in claim petition. The workmen have not placed on record any evidence

to show that they were engaged by the respondent as per the Recruitment Rules and paid any wages to him. Respondent-

management has not violated any provision of Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, as BSNL used to

getting the petty job done through contractors who have to obtained permission from the labour department to engage the

labours. Thus, there is no role of management nor the management has violated any provision of CLRA Act. It is prayed

that claim statement of the workmen are liable to be rejected and reference may be answered in negative.

4.

Respondent No.4 contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal did not participate in proceeding before the Tribunal hence,

proceeded ex parte.

5.

In support of his case, the workmen Gurcharan Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Rajwinder Singh and Balbir Singh

appeared in the witness-box and tendered their evidence by way of separate affidavits. They have stated that they did not

move any application to BSNL for getting appointment. They were paid salary by SDO but they have no record. They

have accepted that R.K. Mittal was the contractor. They have filed RTI information obtained vide application dated

23.07.2018(6 documents).

6.

In support of the facts alleged in the written statement, respondent-management has submitted the affidavits of

witness Sh. Amrit Singh Malhotra, SDE, Mandi Gobindgarh, separately as Ex.R1 along with documents Ex.M1 to M5,

reiterating the same facts in each affidavit. During the course of cross-examination, this witness has accepted that he has

no record regarding the contractors who worked from 2011-12. He has accepted that R.K. Mittal was the contractor since

27.06.2012 to 16.10.2012. According to this witness there was monthly contract for the said period which are not in his

possession. This witness has accepted that department had not obtained any licence for engaging labours through

contractors. This witness has denied the suggestion that it is incorrect to say that workmen were appointed by the

management since 05.01.2001 and their services were illegally terminated.

7.

I have heard the oral arguments as well as written argument of Sh. Dharam Pal Angrish AR of the workmen and

oral arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the management and perused the record carefully.

4806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8.

Learned counsel of the workmen has submitted that they have joined the respondent-management on 05.01.2001

as workers and served in this capacity till their termination on 16.10.2012. It is also submitted that workmen were

performing their duties directly under the management and name of workmen were transferred on the role of the

contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal in order to avoid the liability arising under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also

submitted that the alleged contractor was not a licenced contractor as such, respondent-management who was not

registered for employment of labour through contractor had taken services against the provisions of Contract

Labour(Abolution & Regulation) Act, 1970. Learned counsel of the workmen has vehemently argued that services of the

workmen were taken in utter violation of the Contract Labour(Abolution & Regulation) Act, 1970 and by legal

implication workmen will be deemed to be the employees of respondent-management for all purposes. Learned counsel

of the workmen has also contended that services of the workmen were terminated in utter violation of Section 25-F of the

ID Act, 1947, without giving any notice, and one month salary in lieu of notice. Learned counsel has placed reliance of

the cases of Dharangadhara Chemicals Works Ltd. Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957, Supreme Court page 264, Ram

Singh and others Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and Oths., Civil Appeal No.3166/2002, decided on 07.11.2003 and

in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Oths.(2007) 1, Supreme Court cases, page 630, which deals

with the relationship between employer and employee/master and servant and forum for deciding nature of employment

of workman with establishment and contractors. Law propounded in these rulings deals with settled position of law that it

is the Tribunal which is competent forum to ascertain the nature of contract/agreement entered into between management

and contractor by lifting the veils and dealing behind it to ascertain nature of contract/agreement.

9.

Per contra, learned counsel of the management vehemently argued that claimants are neither workmen nor

appointed by the respondent-management for the work of management as workers from 05.01.2001. It is also contended

that there was no relationship of employer and employee/master and servant between the workmen and management as

such, respondent-management has no liability towards the workmen. Learned counsel further argued that being the

employees of the contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal, if any liability occurs it is workmen/claimants and contractor under

whom he served during their employment period who are also party in the case although, he has not contested the case.

Learned counsel of the management has also submitted that workmen has utterly failed to submit any document in order

to prove direct relationship with management before the contract entered into between the management and contractor

Ramesh Kumar Mittal as such, petition is liable to be dismissed.

10.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of

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 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 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 Mehgajibhai Gavda

(2012) 1 SCC 47. There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid case. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air India Limited

in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, two well recognised tests to find out whether the labours are the contract

employees of the principal employer are:-

1) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of contractor and

2) Whether the principal employer controls and supervise the work of the employees?

The facts regarding the payment of salary by the management before the engagement of the contractor Ramesh

Kumar Mittal has not been stated in the claim petition of the workman. In fact, claim petition is totally silent regarding

the payment of wages, salary, letter of appointment or anything likewise by the respondent-management from 05.01.2001

upto 16.10.2012. Similarly, workmen have not mentioned anything regarding the mode of payments of wages, salaries

etc. in their affidavits. Thus, the basic feature for holding the relationship of employer and employee is totally lacking not

in the pleading but also in the evidence oral or documentary submitted by the workmen. In this connection, learned

counsel for the workmen has contended that payment of salary was subject to the control and supervision of the

management and virtually it was paid by the management as is alleged by the witnesses during the course of cross-

examination by the management-counsel. I am not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel of the workmen as

nothing has been mentioned in pleading/claim petition as well as affidavits submitted by the witnesses in support of their

claim petition. It is also pertinent to mention that nothing is on record in the form of documentary evidence that the

workmen were directly paid by the management throughout their employment.

11.

Contrary to this, learned counsel of the management has drawn my attention towards the photocopy of the

judgment dated 24.12.2010 regarding claim petition no.65/63 of 2009, Labour Enforcement Officer(C) Chandigarh

Vs. M/s Ramesh Kumar Mittal and argued that this is a decision rendered by Regional Labour Commissioner in which

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4807

it is specifically mentioned that these workmen has stated on oath that they have not received dues as detected by the

LEO(C) from the contractor. It is also observed that the JTO and SDO namely Sukhwinder Singh and Hardev Singh has

certified the payment made by the contractor M/s Ramesh Kumar Mittal to the concerned workers on the payment

receipt. According to the learned counsel of the management by this judgment, it is clear that the payment of wages

sanctioned were made by the contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal regarding which Labour Enforcement Officer,

Chandigarh 3rd has filed the claim petition. Learned counsel of the management has drawn my attention towards the

documents relating to the details of EPF contribution in respect of workmen engaged by the contractor Ramesh Kumar

Mittal in which name of workmen Gurcharan Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Rajwinder Singh and Balbir Singh have been

mentioned along with cheque number and contribution of employer and employee as well. Learned counsel also argued

that the photocopy of the cheque attached with the file is a proof that these workmen were paid salary by the contractor

Ramesh Kumar Mittal through cheques for the year 2012 amounting Rs.3,300/- per month. Similarly, documents related

to contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal regarding the payment for the period 01.03.2012 to 31.03.2012, 01.09.2012 to

31.05.2012, 01.06.2012 to 30.06.2012 reveals that it is a contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal who had send the invoice

regarding the payments to the SDOP Mandi Gobindgarh for the total amount payable to him for the work done. There is

nothing on record to confront these documentary evidence which fortifies the facts alleged by the management in its

written statement as well as witness Amrik Singh SDO, Mangi Gobindgarh in his affidavit and cross-examination that it

was contractor Ramesh Kumar who used to pay the wages of the workmen after taking it from the management and

accordingly EPF are also deposited by the contractor. Thus on this issue, safely it can be inferred that there is nothing on

record to prove the factum of payment of salary by the management as is alleged by the workmen in their claims as well

as affidavits submitted as evidence by them.

12.

Secondly, so far as, the question of controls and supervision is concerned. Claimants have stated that they worked

under the supervision and control of the management. But there is nothing on record in the form of oral or documentary

evidence which reveals that workmen were working under the control and supervision of the official of the management.

In fact this fact is neither pleaded specifically in the claim petition nor in evidence as to who was the person of the

management controlling the work of the claimants. The apex court in the case of International Airport Authority of

India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union [209 (13) SCC374] has held as follows:-

“If the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the

directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct

employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to regulate employment is

with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.

The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is

assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be

assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the

contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides whether the employee

will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends

the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the

principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor.”

13.

Learned counsel of the workman placing reliance in the case of Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. The Secretary,

Municipal Employees’ Union & Ors., has submitted that the alleged contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal has not valid

licence to supply the labours/workers to the management and the management has got no registration to that effect also.

Question remains to be seen whether the alleged contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal was a duly licenced contractor under

the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Respondent-management has not placed on record any

document to prove that he was duly licenced contractor to supply the workman/claimant as well as other workmen to the

respondent-management. Learned counsel of the management has drawn my attention towards documents Ex.M1 to M5

proved by the witness of the management namely Amrik Singh Malhotra SDE. These are copies of agreements entered

into between the management and different contractors including Ramesh Kumar Mittal. M1 is initial agreement entered

into between the management as well as Jagtar Singh contractor w.e.f. 01.04.2001, M2 is a agreement entered on

02.03.2003 between management and Ramesh Kumar Mittal for the year 2003 to 2004. The terms and conditions

enumerated in the agreement reveals that labours engaged for the work by contractor is purely contractor’s own

responsibility and labour will not have any claim on the BSNL and the BSNL will not be responsible for any accident or

any idleness of the labour. Similarly, regarding the payment it is enumerated that payment of running bills will be made

within 15 days of the working days of handling over the bill to this office subject to the verification of the authorities.

The remaining agreements entered into between the management and contractor have same terms and conditions

regarding the payment to the contractor. Last agreement which is on record relating to management and Ramesh Kumar

Mittal pertains to the year 2010-2011 and subsequently management has entered an agreement with Ms/ Vichitra

Construction Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 19.09.2012 to 18.09.2013 with same terms and conditions which is enumerated in the earlier

agreements between the management and contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal. Thus, on the basis of these agreements, it is

4808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

very clear that Ramesh Kumar Mittal was nowhere in existence at the time of termination of the workmen dated

16.10.2012. In this connection, learned counsel of the workmen has contended that since the expiry of the alleged

contract between the management and Ramesh Kumar Mittal and new contract entered into between the management and

Vichitra Construction Pvt. Ltd. come into existence the intervening period between these two agreements was of more

than 3 months and workmen were directly under the control of the management regarding the work and duties assigned

to them. I am not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel that the workmen rendered their services for 4

months directly under the management because contracts between the management and contractors took some time in

writing before coming into existence. Moreover, if it is presumed that workmen had rendered their services for 4 months

directly under the management even then 240 days period for preceding year with the management could not be justified.

It appears from the evidence on record that after the completion of period of agreement with contractor Ramesh Kumar

Mittal, new contractor Vichitra Construction did not assign work to these workmen resulting the present dispute between

workmen & establishment of BSNL.

14.

Learned counsel of the claimants have vehemently contended that the alleged contract with contractor R.K. Mittal

and subsequent contractor are shame and camouflage just to avoid the liability of management-BSNL arising under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention towards the case of Steel

Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Water Front, relating to Appeal(Civil) 6009-6010 of 2010, decided on

30.08.2001 and contended that in the light of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, workman should be treated

as an employee of the respondent-management. Going through the judgment of Hon’ble apex court, it is clear that

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a workman shall be so deemed when he is hired in or in connection with the work

of an establishment through a contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. According to Hon’ble

Supreme Court where: workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor he merely

acts as agent so there will be master and servant relationship between principal employer and the workman but where: a

workman is hired in or in connection with the work of establishment by a contractor either because he has undertaken to

produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplied workmen for any work of the establishment a

question might arise whether the contract is a mere camouflage as is held in case of Hussainbhai Calicuts vs. Alath

Factory Thozhilali, AIR 1410, 1978 SCR (3) 1073 decided on 28.07.1978 and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation

Ltd and Anr. Vs. Shramik Sena and Ors. Appeal(Civil) 1854 of 1998, decided on 04.08.1999, if the answer is in the

affirmative, the workman will be in fact an employee of the principal employer but if the answer is in the negative, the

workman will be a contract labour. Section (2)(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines contractor in relation to

an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere

supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour

for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. Thus, according to the observation of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court where a workman is hired by the contractor for putting the work he has undertaken for the establishment

will not be deemed to be employee of the establishment. Learned counsel of the management argued that the copies of

contracts filed by the management regarding the different contractors namely R.K. Mittal are important in which

specially the work assigned to the contractor is mentioned and to that extent, it is also subscribed that contractor will

abide by all the labour laws and BSNL has no responsibility for any dispute arising out of the contract of labour laws. It

is also mentioned that the labours engaged by the contractor for execution of the work is purely the responsibility of the

contractor and they will not have any claim on the BSNL for their permanent absorption as such, BSNL will not be

responsible for any idleness of the labours. The learned counsel of the management argues as per volume of facts

mentioned in the agreement entered between the BSNL and contractor clarify that management has nothing to do

regarding any dispute and liability whatsoever regarding the breach of conditions of the Labour Laws towards workmen.

Learned counsel of the management also contended that all the payments according to the terms and conditions of the

contract had been made to the contractor who had paid to the concerned labours as is evident from the cheque issued by

the contractor R.K. Mital towards the claimants copies of which are already on record. In fact, there is nothing on record

to prove that workmen were ever paid by the BSNL directly or their PF and other emoluments have been paid by the

BSNL. Rather judgment dated 24.12.2010 regarding claim petition no.65/63 of 2009, Labour Enforcement Officer(C)

Chandigarh Vs. M/s Ramesh Kumar Mittal, PF is deducted by contractor R.K. Mittal for transmitting to the PF

authority. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion, that oral arguments advanced by

the learned counsel of the workmen has no force and in given facts and evidence on record, it cannot be observed that the

alleged contract with the contractor R.K. Mital was shame and camouflage in order to avoid the liabilities arising out

under the labour law towards the workmen.

15.

Learned counsel of the workmen would also submit that employer has not complied the relevant provisions of

the Contract Labour((Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, resulting the breach of condition of the Contract Labour Act

and it will be deemed that workmen were the employees of the BSNL. It is pertinent to mention that workmen have

neither pleaded anything regarding this argument in the claim petition of the workmen nor any evidence is produce by

the workmen that there was prohibition against employment of contract labour in the respondent-establishment. It is

contended by the learned counsel of the workmen that respondent-management has contravene the provisions of the

CLRA Act by engaging contractor who is not a licenced contractors and thus, the breach comes within the definition of

Section 9 of the CLR Act. According to the learned counsel of the workmen, the contract labour cannot be recognized as

a valid contract labour at all. Learned counsel of the management has contended that Section 10 of the Act makes it clear

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4809

that the employment of contact labour, the licencing system is necessary to regulate the very system sought to be licenced

and the licencing does not create any privilege in favour of the workmen as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Indian Mica and Micanite Industries Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and ors. 1971 AIR 1182, SCR 319 decided on

02.04.1971. The question arises that whether the engagement of contractor becomes frivolous in the eye of law because

the contractor has failed to produce the prescribed licence. In this connection, learned counsel of the management has

drawn my attention towards the judgments of The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gian Singh and Others Vs.

Senior Regional Manager(1991)99 PLR-1 the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Steel

Authority of India Ltd. ILR 1991 Karnagaka page 3679, 1992(1), in which it is held that the contractor undertakes to

give a particular result to the principal employer. It is not a concern of the principal employer as to the number of

workmen who may be employed by the contractor. The number may very depending upon the availability of the work

and the time within which the work has to be completed. Conclusively, it is held by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble

Karnataka High Court, discussing the catena of cases of different Hon’ble High Court that the failure of contractor to

obtain a licence by itself cannot result creating any direct relationship of employer and employee between the

establishment and the contract labour. Such a consequences cannot be read into the Act in the absence of any specific

provision in the Act warranting such a result. Conclusively it is held that if any contravention is committed by the

establishment of the contractor for the non-compliance of the provisions of the CLRA Act, the only consequences would

be that they would be subject to the penalties as found in chapter 5th and so far as the work force are concerned there

would be no relationship between the workmen and establishment. Thus, it is very much clear that if management has

failed to get regular registration under Section 7 or contractors failed to take licence under Section 12 of the Act it does

not create any privilege to any contract labour. The learned counsel of the management has contended that there is

nothing on record to prove that management-contractor R.K. Mittal have engaged more than 20 workmen at relevant

time hence, question of taking licence under the relevant section of the ID Act became irrelevant. Same is the position

with the management for non-registration under Section 7 of the Act. In fact, there is actually no warrant to deem a direct

relationship of employer and employee between the employer and contract labour.

16.

Thus, on the basis of the above discussion I am of the opinion that in the absence of notification issued under

Section 10 of the Act abolishing contract labour in the establishment of the respondent-management there was no bar to

employ such a labour contract through independent contractor and consequently such labour has no right to claim that

they had become the employee of the management of BSNL. To my mind after complying the principle of lifting of veil

the existence of relationship of workmen and employer is not surfaced to observe that alleged contracts were shame and

camouflage. Having regard to the discussion mentioned above, I am of the view that workmen have measurably failed to

prove that they were engaged by the General Manager, BSNL Patiala through contractor R.K. Mittal and are illegally

terminated by management of BSNL.

17.

Now the last question which is incidental to the main issue is whether claimants are entitled to any relief. This

fact is proved beyond doubt that they were initially engaged by contractor R.K. Mittal and has worked upto their alleged

termination with the same contractor. Unfortunately contractor R.K. Mittal has not participated in proceeding before the

Tribunal and even has not submitted his written statement to the effect of the circumstances of retrenchment/termination

of the workmen. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mahender

Prasad Jakhmola and Oths., 2019 LLR Page 515, while discussing the nature of agreement entered into principal-

employer and contractor and its consequences has held that if contract is neither shame nor camouflage the workman is

not entitled for any relief. This is on record that agreement of the contractor R.K. Mittal come to an end in the year 2011-

2012 and subsequent contract was entered into between respondent-management and Vichitra Construction for the year

2012-2013. Hence, if the workman was not employed by subsequent contractor Vichitra Construction as such, then

neither the management nor the contractor R.K. Mital could be attributed for any default as such, I am of the opinion that

workman is not entitled for any relief and claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

18. The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication as

required under Section 17 of the Act.

19.

Copy of the award be kept in ID No.291/2013 titled as Gurmeet Singh Vs. The General Manager, BSNL,

Telecom District, Patiala(Punjab), ID No.292/2013 titled as Rajwinder Singh Vs. The General Manager, BSNL, Telecom

District, Patiala(Punjab) and ID No.293/2013 titled as Balbir Singh Vs. The General Manager, BSNL, Telecom District,

Patiala(Punjab).

A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

4810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1159

1159

1159

1159.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस समूह के महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 55/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11/06/2019 को ा6 7ए

थे।

[सं. एल-42011/192/201 –आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager of the Group, National Thermal Power Company Limited, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11 /06/2019.

[No. L-42011/192/2017-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/55/2017-18

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij praakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer)

and contractor, Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-42011/192/2017 (IR (DU) dated 21.03.2018, with the following schedule:-

i.

Whether Smt. Parbatbai Madhukarji Dongre and 3 others (details as annexed) can be considered as

workmen, as defined under ID Act, in absence of any supporting document produced by them?

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4811

ii.

If yes, whether their oral termination by the petty contractor working with GM, Forest Development

corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM) at National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC)

(principal employer) on 22.07.2016 was legal and justified? If not, what relief is these workmen being

represented by the Presidentk Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1160

1160

1160

1160.— औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस समूह के महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 54/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11 /06/2019 को ा6 7ए

थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/191/2017 –आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager of the Group, National Thermal Power Company Limited, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11 /06/2019.

[No. L-42011/191/2017-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/54/2017-18

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

4812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij praakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer)

and contractor, Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-42011/191/2017 (IR (DU) dated 21.03.2018, with the following schedule:-

i.

Whether shri Pramod Uttam Hirekhan and 6 others (details as annexed) can be considered as workmen, as

defined under ID Act, in absence of any supporting document produced by them?

ii.

If yes, whether their oral termination by the petty contractor working with GM, Forest Development

corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM) at National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC)

(principal employer) on 22.07.2016 was legal and justified? If not, what relief is these workmen being

represented by the Presidentk Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1161

1161

1161

1161.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस समूह के महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 40/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11 /06/2019 को ा6 7ए

थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/125/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager of the Group, National Thermal Power Company Limited, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11 /06/2019.

[No. L-42011/125/2017-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4813

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/40/2017-18

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of Shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer)

and contractor, Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-42011/125/2017 IR (DU) dated 12.01.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether termination of the services of seven contract workers namely (1) Shri Rajendra Maroti Patole

(2) Shri Vilas Shrikrishna Wanjari (3) Shri Waman Ramesh Shende (4) Shri Natwarlal Sewakram

Shende (5) Shri Shamrao Hiraman Uikey (6) Shri Subhash Damaji Hatwar & (7) Shri Raju Pensalji Pise

w.e.f. 28.12.2015 orally and without compliance of Section 25_F of the ID Act, 1947 by contractor namely

IVRCL Ltd. of NTPC Mouda Distt. Nagpur is legal and justified? If not, to what relief to these contract

workmen are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

4814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1162

1162

1162

1162.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस समूह के महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 22/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.06.2019 को ा6 7ए

थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/05/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager of the Group, National Thermal Power Company Limited, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.

[No. L-42011/05/2018-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/22/2018-19

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of Shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer)

and contractor, Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-42011/05/2018 IR (DU) dated 25.04.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of management of National Thermal Power Corporation, Ltd. (Principal

Employer)and iragavarapu Venkata Reddy construction Ltd. (Contractor) in terminating the services of

Smt. Sushma Surendra Aswale, who had worked as construction labour from 27.10.2015 till oral

termination on 06.02.2016, is fair, just & legal? If not, what relief the workwoman is entitled to?”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4815

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1163

1163

1163

1163.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मैसस समूह के महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 17/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.06.2019 को ा6 7ए

थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/04/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager of the Group, National Thermal Power Company Limited, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.

[No. L-42011/04/2018-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/17/2018-19

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of Shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

4816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer)

and contractor, Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-42011/04/2018-IR (DU) dated 24.04.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of management of National Thermal Power Corporation, Mouda, Distt. Nagpur

(Principal Employer) & Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Limited (IVRCL) (Contractor) in

terminating the services of the workmen Shri Kailash Prasad & Shri Satendra Kumar (who worked as

construction labour from 01.10.2015 to 08.11.2016 when the workmen were orally terminated) are just,

fair & legal ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1164

1164

1164

1164.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस समूह के महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 14/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.06.2019 को ा6 7ए

थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/193/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager of the Group, National Thermal Power Company Limited, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.

[No. L-42011/193/2017-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/14/2018-19

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4817

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of Shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer)

and contractor, Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-42011/193/2017-IR (DU) dated 16.04.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether Shri Shankar Narayanji Dhande can be considered as workmen, as defined under ID Act, in

absence of any supporting document produced by them? 2). If yeas, whether their oral termination by the

petty contractor working with GM, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM) at

National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) (principal employer) on 22.07.2016 was legal and

justified? If not, what relief are these workmen being represented by the President, Mouda Vij Prakalp

Mazdoor Sangh, entitled to?’’

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1165

1165

1165

1165.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस समूह के महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या 13/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11.06.2019 को ा6 7ए

थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/06/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

4818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager of the Group, National Thermal Power Company Limited, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11 .06.2019.

[No. L-42011/06/2018-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/13/2018-19

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij Praakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of Shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer)

and contractor, Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-42011/06/2018 IR (DU) dated 12.04.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. (Principal Employer)

& Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Limited, (Contractor) in terminating the services of Shri

Nikesh Manohar Akhare, who had worked as construction worker in the establishment of Principal

employer from 02.07.2012 till the alleged termination on 15.04.2017, is just, fair & legal? If not, to what

relief the workmen is entitled to?’’

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4819

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1166

1166

1166

1166.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मैसस समूह के महाबंधक, नेशनल थमल पावर कंपनी िलिमटेड, नागपुर और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब,

िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म

यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 12/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 11 .06.2019 को ा6 7ए

थे ।

[सं. एल-42011/11/2018-आईआर-(डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General

Manager of the Group, National Thermal Power Company Limited, Nagpur & Others, and their workmen which were

received by the Central Government on 11.06.2019.

[No. L-42011/11/2018-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/12/2018-19

Date: 28.05.2019

Party No.1(a)

:

The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.,

Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Party No.1(b)

:

The Managing Director/General Manager,

Iaragavaraapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd.,

N.T.P.C. Mouda, Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441104.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The President,

Mouda Vij Praakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of Shri Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road, Kanhan,

Tah. Parseoni, Distt. Nagpur,

Nagpur – 441404.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th May, 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 National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.(Principal employer) and contractor,

Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. and their union, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh for adjudication, as

per letter No.L-42011/11/2018 IR (DU) dated 13.04.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Mouda, Distt.

Nagpur and Iragavarapu Venkata Reddy Construction Ltd. Limited, Contractor in termination the

services of Shri Surendra Harishchandra Aswale, Shri Rajendra Chango Bhoyar & Shri Janardhan

4820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chango Bhoyar (who worked as construction labour from 26.10.2015 to 12.11.2016 when the workmen

were orally terminated) are just, fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?’’

2.

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due, but no authority was filed by either party. Both the parties filed

their respective authority letter, but union did not file statement of claim and contractor did not file their authority letter.

Management filed an application, which is supported with affidavit, which is marked as I.A. I and prayed to dismiss the

reference. Presently nobody appeared on behalf of the union nor did they pray for any adjournment. It shows that,

petitioner/union is not interested to proceed further with this reference. So, application filed by the management I.A. No.

I is allowed. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1167

1167

1167

1167.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस, ए.बी. पॉल एंड कंपनी मुंबई एवं उनके कमचारी और अय के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और उनके कमकार. के

बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय, न. 2 मुंबई के पंचाट

(संदभ सं. CGIT-2/1 of 2012) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 12.02.2019 को ा6 7आ था ।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT-2/1 of 2012) 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 A.B.

Paul & Co. Mumbai and their workmen & Others, which was received by the Central Government on 12.2.2019..

[No. L-42025/03/2009-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

Appln.(Ref) No. CGIT-2/1 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. A.B. PAUL & CO. AND THE BOMBAY

CUSTOM HOUSE AGENTS ASSOCIATION

1. Mr. Kenneth Paul,

The Properietor of M/S. A.B. Paul & Co.

Custom House Agent No. (11/543),

Vikas Building, 4th Fl., Room No.403,

11, Bank Street, Fort,

Mumbai – 400 023.

2. The Bombay Custom House

Agents Association, 73/74,

Mittal Tower, ‘C’ Wing, 7th Fl.,

Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4821

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Mr. Shankar Sadashiv Chavan,

Room No.12, Shiv Shambo Sadan,

T.P. Road, Bhandup [W],

Mumbai – 400 078.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

:

(1) Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate

(2) Absent

FOR THE WORKMEN

:

Mr. Mohan Kumar, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 14th January, 2019.

AWARD

1.

This is a reference filed under Section 2-A sub section (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of the

amendment in the Act No. 24 of 2010.

2.

The concerned workman has filed statement of claim Ex.2 contending therein that he was working with

respondent No.1 employer as Custom Clerk since last 23 years. His last salary for the month of April ’11 was Rs.7469/-.

3.

According to the concerned workman, his salary was not increase as per Memorandum of Settlement made by

the employers association wherein respondent No.1 is the member of the said Memorandum of Settlement which is

applicable to all the employees including the concerned workman who was working as Sr. Clerk with respondent No.1

and did job of clearing and forwarding work at Mumbai Docks JNPT at Nava Sheva. Respondent No.2, Bombay Custom

House Agents Association is representing the employers including respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 employer is the

member of respondent No.2 association and liable to pay the basic pay and DA & other allowances and benefits on the

basis of said Memorandum of Settlement which is applicable to all the employers of the Custom House Agents including

respondent no.1. The last Memorandum of Settlement is duly executed on 29.4.08 for the period from 1.4.08 to 31.3.13.

4.

According to the concerned workman the applicant completed more than 10 years and he is in 6th category as a

Sr. Clerk entitled to pay scale of Rs.2690-65-3015-80-3415-90-3865-100-4365 with DA as per CPI 1198 along with

FDA and other special additional allowances & benefits. He has not received the arrears of salary, DA and other benefits

on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement from 1990 till date.

5.

According to the concerned workman the respondent No.1 started harassing him to leave the employment.

Respondent no.1 informed him by letter dt. 29.2.09 that from 1.3.09 the sundry expenses which is required for clearing

and forwarding charges of dock & custom area is to be provided 20% less. After the deduction of 20% sundry expenses

the clearing & forwarding work became difficult. After deducting 20% expenses the respondent No.1 further started

deducting 20% from the gross salary of the concerned workman. The concerned workman refused to accept the salary

after deduction but the respondent no.1 deducted 20% of salary without any reason. The respondent no.1 thereafter with

a view to terminate the employment of the concerned workman purportedly and personally asked the concerned

workman on 28.4.11 to start work at Sahar Airport Cargo. He was not provided IA pass for work at Sahar Airport Cargo.

Without IA pass the entry is prohibited but respondent no.1 asked the concerned workman to attend the Sahar Airport

Cargo. The concerned workman was asked to do the work of peon in place of one Shri Ankul Poal who was working as

a Peon. When the concerned workman tried to convince the respondent to issue the permanent IA pass, his services

came to be orally terminated and he was asked not to come for work at Mumbai w.e.f. 1.5.11. His salary for the month

of April ’11 was not given to him on the ground that custom pass was returned to respondent no.1. As such the

respondent no.1 did not allow him to join his duties. Respondent no.1 refused to provide work and also did not give the

pending salary for the month of April ’11.

6.

It is then case of the concerned workman that his services came to be orally terminated illegally. He is therefore

asking for reinstatement with back wages and other benefits w.e.f. 2.5.11.

7.

According to the concerned workman he raised the dispute before ALC demanding reinstatement with back

wages and other benefits with continuity of service as well as arrears of back salary, DA and other benefits. Conciliation

failed and the ALC submitted failure report dt. 31.10.12. Hence this reference.

8.

Respondent No.1 filed written statement Ex.10 and resisted the claim contending therein that the services of the

concerned workman are / were not terminated at any time by the employer but the workman himself remained absent

from his duties w.e.f. 1.5.11 though he was asked to resume his duties vide letters of the company as well as letters of the

4822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

advocate and also before ALC. The concerned workman continued to remain absent and chose not to resume the duties.

As such there is no question of any termination of his services and thereby reinstating him with full back wages and

continuity of service etc.

9.

It is also contended by the respondent no.1 that it is not signatory to the alleged settlement nor the workman is

the member of Transport & Dock Workers’ Union with whom the settlement is signed by respondent No.2. Therefore

the said settlement is not ipso-facto applicable to respondent No.1 employer or his employees.

10.

It is then case of the respondent No.1 that the concerned workman vide his letter dt. 10.8.09 had resigned from

the services of the company on his own. He was not in employment for 2 months. After 2 months he requested once

again to take him in the employment. At that time company considered his request sympathetically and took him in the

employment.

11.

According to the Respondent No.1 by letter dt. 29.9.09 it was informed that since the business is down by 80%

the cost is required to be cut down and therefore no sundry expenses will be paid to BPT towards clearing of export

expenses. Even the submission of the concerned workman as regards the reduction in salary is incorrect. With this it is

reiterated by respondent no. 1 that there is no question of offering employment in BPT or JNPT as there is hardly any

work at BPT or JNPT. It has thus sought dismissal of reference.

12.

Following issues are framed at Ex.12. I reproduce the Issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to

follow:

Sr. No.

Issue

Findings

1

Whether the management has illegally terminated the services of the workman ?

No

2.

Whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages as prayed

for ?

No

3.

Whether the workman is entitled to the arrears in pay difference as per the bipartite

agreement ?

No

4.

What relief the workman is entitled to ?

No

5.

What order ?

As per final order

Reasons

Issue No.1 & 2.

13.

So far contention go, it is the contention of the employer management that infact the services of the applicant /

concerned workman were not terminated at any time, but he himself remained absent from duties from 1.5.11 and though

he was asked to resume his duties vide letters of the company and letters of the advocate. He continued to remain absent

and chose not to resume the duties. In this context if we see the evidence of the concerned workman he claims that the

respondent no.1 employer asked him to start work at Sahar Airport Cargo wherein for 23 years he never worked. In his

examination in chief he went on to say that at Sahar Airport Cargo 3 permanent employees were already working and one

peon namely Ankual Poal was working at Sahar Airport Cargo and respondent no.1 employer asked him to report at

Mumbai office in his place and as such he had been asked to do the work of peon. It appears therefore from the evidence

of the concerned workman that he did not report for duty at Sahar Airport Cargo since he claimed that respondent no.1

management demoted him and purposely asked to work at Sahar Airport Cargo. The fact remains that he did not report

for duty at Sahar Airport Cargo and visited Mumbai office where he was not provided the work since he was asked to

work at Sahar Airport Cargo.

14.

Even then the concerned workman claims that he was not allowed to join duties despite he was ready and

willing for joining duties.

15.

In this respect, vide Ex.28 it appears that the concerned workman was given letter informing him that he

remained absent without permission since 1.5.11. Inspite of such long unauthorized absence on work, he did not take

care to report for the work and therefore he was called upon to report for work immediately failing which it would be

deemed that he had abandoned the service from the company. It is clear from Ex.28 that he was asked to report for work

immediately but he did not. On the contrary it appears that he replied the said letter vide Ex.29 mentioning therein that

the employer started giving work to him at Sahar Airport Cargo where he had never worked and therefore he had

reported at the work place to resume his duties and that he was told not to come to the office and sit at home. It appears

therefore that the concerned workman reported at the work place but he did not resume work at cargo at Sahar airport

mentioning therein that he did not work at Sahar Airport Cargo during the period of his service tenure. It appears

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4823

therefore that he himself was not willing to work at Sahar Airport Cargo and refused the management’s proposal on the

ground that he should be posted at JNPT work only and that his salary should be increased. It is in that circumstances it

appears that when the dispute was raised before Labour commissioner on the fact, he stated that the workman demanded

that his salary should be increased and he should be posted at JNPT work only. Therefore the dispute itself is not

deemed fit for adjudication.

15.

Even then the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the concerned workman should not

have been asked to go to new place of work when infact he did not work there and therefore the refusal of the

management to continue him to give work at the same place where he was working itself amount to oral termination.

16.

It is not possible to accept the view propounded by the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman / applicant

in view of the fact that he was asked to resume the duties vide letter dt. 20.7.11 of the company and even he was sent

notice dt. 22.8.11 informing that the concerned workman Mr. Shankar Sadashiv Chavan is not reporting for duty without

permission since 1.5.11 and inspite of these letters the workman did not report for work. It is the look out of the

company where the workman should be asked to work. It is in the circumstances submission of the Learned Counsel for

the management is that due to exigency of work the concerned workman was asked to work at their airport office, near

airport for which no airport entry pass is required but the concerned workman did not report for work. It is in that

circumstances again it will have to be said that there was no reason for the concerned workman not to report for duty at

airport office of the company on the ground that no airport permit was issued to him. The fact remains that the

concerned workman on his own remained absent for work without reporting for work and therefore the contention of the

management that services never came to be terminated appears legal and proper.

17.

It will have to be said therefore that the services of the concerned workman have not been terminated by the

management since he himself remained absent and did not report for work. When there is no termination of service of

the concerned workman by the management there is no question of his reinstatement with full back wages as prayed for.

Issue No. 1 & 2 are therefore answered accordingly as indicated against each of them in terms of above observations.

Issue No.3.

18.

So far this issue is concerned, the concerned workman claims that there was Memorandum of settlement

which is applicable to all the employers of the Custom House Agents including respondent No.1 in respect of basic pay

and DA and other allowances and benefits etc. and therefore he being the senior clerk and completed 10 years of service

is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.2690-65-3015-80-3415-90-3865-100-4365 with DA along with FDA and other

additional allowances & other benefits. Since he has not received the arrears of salary, DA & other benefits on the basis

of Memorandum of settlement from 1990 till date he is entitled to arrears in pay differences as per bipartite agreement.

19.

On going through the Memorandum of settlement it appears that it was Memorandum of settlement u/s. 12 (3)

of I.D. Act during conciliation proceedings in the matter of industrial dispute raised by the workman represented through

Transport & Dock Workers Union against Custom House Agents, Bombay represented throughout Bombay Custom

House Agents Association. Witness examined on behalf of the concerned workman namely Wilson Johnson himself

admitted in his cross examination that he was working with Proprietor of M/S. A.B. Paul & Co. as a Custom Clerk but he

has not been given benefit of the said agreement in between Bombay Custom House Agents Association and Transport &

Dock Workers Union.

20.

Precisely, therefore it is the case of the management that respondent No.1, M/S. A.B. Paul & Co. is not the

member of Bombay Custom House Agents Association and as such the agreement is not binding and not applicable to

them. It is in that circumstances it appears that Wilson Johnson who was also working with respondent No.1 was not

given the benefit of the said agreement. As such the applicant is not also entitled to claim the arrears in pay difference as

per the said agreement. This issue is also answered accordingly in the negative.

Issue No.4 & 5.

21.

In view of my findings to the above issues, the concerned workman / applicant is not entitled to any relief as

claimed. The reference is liable to be rejected with no order as to costs. Hence order.

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 14.01.2019

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

4824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 17 जून, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ.

का.आ. 1168

1168

1168

1168.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार

मेसस किमXर, दिYणी दली नगर िनगम, नई दली और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं+ के संब, िनयोजक. और

उनके कमकार. के बीच अनुबंध म िन/द0 औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म यायालय-1 नई

दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं2या. 166/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 03/06/2019 को ा6 7ए थे ।

[सं. एल-42012/117/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2019

S.O. 1168 .— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166/2015) 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

Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delh & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 03/06/2019.

[No. L-42012/117/2015-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 NEW DELHI

ID No. 166/2015

Shri Sharat Chander S/o. Shri Sukh Chand,

e/o. RZ -104, Roshan Garden,

Najafgarh,

New Delhi -110043

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Commissioner,

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

9th Floor, Civil Centre,

Minto Road,

New Delhi 110002.

… Management/Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made by the Appropriate Government vide its letter

No. L-42012/117/2015-IR(DU) dated 20.7.2015 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 the services of the workman Shri Shrat Chander s./o., Sukh Chand has been terminated illegally

and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is the workman entitled and what directions are

necessary in this respect ?’’

2.

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he worked

on the post of Chowkidar in various schools under the Management w.e.f. 11/2/1993 and his services were illegally

terminated on 15/6/1994 and he was reinstated/re-engaged w.e.f. 5/11/2012 during the conciliation proceedings pending

before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),New Delhi but again his services were illegally terminated

w.e.f.1/12/2014 by the Management. He sent a demand letter/notice dated 20/3/2015 and approached the Conciliation

Officer but to no avail. It is pleaded that the workman is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination w.e.f.

1/12/2014. He has prayed for reinstatement into service with full back wages and continuity of services alongwith

consequential benefits.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4825

3.

The Management filed written reply, whereby the allegations of the claimant regarding his illegal termination

have been denied. It is stated that the claimant was appointed as Chowkidar (Leave Substitute) because of transfer of one

Shri Rameshwar. Chowkidar and an amount of Rs.13085/- as earned salary from 1/8/93 to 15/6/94 was released to him.

It is admitted that the claimant was reinstated w.e.f. 5/11/2012 during Conciliation proceedings and he worked upto

30/11/2014 with 20 days break. It is alleged that there is no need to give any legal notice or any other benefits to the

claimant under the law, as he was a Leave substitute employee. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

4.

The claimant filed rejoinder, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations as made by the Management.

5.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30/8/2016 :-

(i)

Whether the claim is not legally maintainable ?

(ii)

In terms of reference ?

6.

In order to prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW1 & tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and

relied on documents Ex.WW/1 to Ex.WW1/7. On the other hand, the Management examined Shri Kripal Singh, Deputy

Director of Education (MCD), who filed his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A and placed reliance on the documents Ex.MW1/1

and Ex.MW1/2.

7.

I have heard Shri P.N.Dwivedi, A/R for the workman./claimant and Ms. Savita Chauhan, A/R for the

Management. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 and 2 :-

8.

These issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common

discussion.

9.

From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimant had worked as

Chowkidar with the Management from 1/8/1993 to 15/6/1994 and again after reinstatement, he worked under the

Management from 5/11/2012 to 30/11/2014 i.e. for about two years. His services were disengaged/terminated w.e.f.

1/12/2014. However, it has come on record that the Management has re-engaged/reinstated the workman and he is

working under the Management regularly since 7/7/2015. So, the issue regarding reinstatement of the workman has

become infructuous. It is a matter of record that Ld.A/R for the claimant made a statement before this Tribunal on

4/1/2018, submitting that the claimant has since been reinstatement by the Management on 7/7/2015 and the claimant is

working as such under the Management and therefore, claimant confines his claim with respect to back wages and other

consequential benefits. As such, short question arises for consideration is as to whether services of the claimant were

terminated illegally w.e.f. 1/12/2014 and if so, whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of

payment of back wages with continuity of service and all consequential benefits for the period from 1/12/2014 to

6/7/2015, as he stands reinstated/re-engaged into the service of the Management w.e.f.7/7/2015 and working as such till

date.

10.

I may mention that affidavit Ex.WW1/A filed by the claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim

petition. He has specifically pleaded and testified that the Management did not issue any warning letter, show cause

notice, recall letter or chargesheet at the time of termination of his services w.e.f. 1/12/2014. He has also deposed that

he was unemployed since the date of his termination and was allowed to resume his work w.e.f. 7/7/2015 after a gap of

more than 7 months.

11.

As mentioned above, the claimant/workman worked with the Management for about two years prior to his

removal/discharge/termination from service w.e.f.1/12/2014. MW1 Shri Kripal Singh – witness of the Management has

admitted that no notice was given to the claimant at the time of his removal but volunteered same was not required. t is

fairly settled that if the termination of an employee is based on no inquiry, no charge-sheet and not by way of

punishment, then it becomes a case of illegal retrenchment. As such, this Tribunal is of the considered view that action

of the Management in disengaging/terminating the services of the claimant herein w.e.f. 1/12/2014 amounts to

retrenchment.

12.

I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to

retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

“25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under

an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a) The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the

period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of

the notice;

4826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen

days’ average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from

giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that any retrenchment compensation was

paid to the claimant by the Management. There is also nothing on record to show that any notice or notice pay was given

by the Management prior to termination of the claimant herein. As such, the Management has violated the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act.

13.

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.

14.

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 w.e.f. 1/12/2014 is held to be illegal and void.

15.

As regards residual question whether the claimant/work is entitled to back wages w.e.f. 1/12/2014 to 6/7/2015,

It stands proved on record that claimant was continuously in the employment of the Management for the last about two

years. There is no show cause notice or charge-sheet issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover,

the job of the workman as Chowkidar is of perennial and regular nature The version of the claimant that he was totally

unemployed since his termination w.e.f..1/12/2014 to 6/7/2015 has gone unrebutted. Management has not led any

evidence to show that the workman/ claimant was gainfully employed during the aforesaid period.

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 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.”

17.

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 ). There are

also other rulings on the subject which I am not referring here for the sake of brevity

18.

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 to 50 % of his

back wage for the period from 1/12/2014 to 6/7/2015, with continuity of service, inasmuch as termination of the

claimant/workman was per-se illegal and the claimant/workman was not gainfully employed anywhere during the

aforesaid period Award is passed accordingly against the Management.

Date : 28.05.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4827

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1169-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 56/2012½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@195@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1169.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.06.2019.

[No. L-22012/195/2011-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/56/2012

Zonal General Secretary,

Coalmines Worker Association,

Duddi Palachore,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

…Workman/Union

Versus

The Chief General Manager,

WCL, Kanhan Area,

Chhindwara (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 31st day of May 2019

1.

As per letter dated 20-4-2012 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Notification

No.L-22012/195/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the General Manager, Western Coal Fields Limited, Kanhan Area, Dungaria in

not providing employment to Shri Mahesh Banwari, dependent son-in-law of deceased workman

Shri Ghudan is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2.

According to the statement of claim of workman, Late Ghudan was a General Mazdoor working with the

management in Ghorawari colliery died on 31-12-98 due to illness. He had one daughter married with the applicant

Mahesh Banwari. Her name is recoded in the service record of the workman Ghudan as his dependent daughter and

successor. The applicant who is the son-in-law of the deceased workman has been dependent on the workman and had

been residing with the workman since before the death of the workman. The workman executed his last will on 17-12-98

wherein he expressed his wish for compassionate appointment of the applicant Mahesh Banwari, his son-in-law in case

of his death. According to the applicant, there is a provision of appointment of one dependent of deceased workman on

compassionate ground. It is the case of the applicant that he did file an application before the management claiming

himself to be considered for compassionate appointment as dependent son-in-law of the deceased workman Ghudan

along with a copy of last will of Ghudan dated 17-12-98, marriage card, marriage Registration Certificate and

photograph. Management directed the applicant vide its letter dated 21-12-07 to produce documents which were

produced by the applicant vide his letter dated 3-3-2008. Again management required some additional documents vide its

letter dated 8-5-08 which were filed by the applicant before management vide his letter dated 16-6-08 but the request was

4828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not granted to the applicant in spite of various reminders sent by the applicants on various dates as mentioned in the

claim. Later on, the applicant was informed by management vide its letter dated 18-6-2010 that his request was refused

by the company headquarter on 23-24/4/2010. According to the workman, NCWA-II provides for compassionate

appointment of dependents of deceased workman. Since the applicant was dependent on his deceased father-in-law, he

was entitled to get compassionate appointment and refusal to grant compassionate appointment as dependent son-in-law

of deceased workman is against the NCWA-II which is illegal and requires to be set-aside. The workman has accordingly

sought relief of direction to be issued to the management appointing him on compassionate basis as dependent son-in-law

of deceased workman Ghudan.

3.

The case of management as pleaded in their Written Statement of defense is that the marriage of daughter of the

deceased workman with the present applicant is not genuine because the age of the applicant was only 8 years at the time

of execution of the last will by the deceased workman in which he has claimed the applicant his son-in-law which is not

possible because the present applicant was a minor. It was also pleaded that the documents required by the workman

were not produced. Management had sought information from the daughter of the deceased on this point vide its letter

dated 8-7-05 which were not produced by the applicant. Since the applicant could not establish himself to be dependent

son-in-law of the deceased workman at the time of his death hence, he was not entitled to compassionate appointment.

The alleged will has also been challenged by the management as not genuine. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the

reference be answered against the applicant.

4.

The applicant has examined himself on oath and has proved copy of death certificate of workman Ghudan, will

executed by the deceased workman, letter of management dated 20-8-99, letter of management dated 8-7-05, application

moved by daughter of the deceased workman on 25-8-06. Marriage certificate dated 18-8-06. Letter issued by

management dated 21-12-07 and 8-5-08 respectively. Letter sent by workman dated 16-6-08, 10-10-09, 30-11-09,

10-12-09 respectively. Letter issued by management dated 2-12-09, 18-6-09 letter sent by Sr. Personnel Manager to

Dy,Chief Manager dated 23-4-2010, letter issued by management to wife of the applicant dated 9-1-2011, letter issued by

the Personnel Manager to Mines Manager dated 8-6-2010, letter sent by wife of the present applicant to the Union on

10-4-2011 which have been marked Exhibit W-1 to W-17 respectively.

5.

Applicant Mahesh Banwari and wife of applicant Urmila has also been examined as witness.

6.

Management has examined on oath Shri Pramod Mohod & Shri Lalji Pandurang Indurkar on oath and has filed

and proved documents Exhibit M-1 Will of the deceased workman, letter dated 25-8-06 issued by the management

requiring the applicant to file documents mentioned in the letter, list of the documents to be filed by the applicant for

construction of his case for compassionate appointment. Application sent by the applicant to the management on 16-6-08,

letter issued by the management to daughter of the deceased workman who is wife of applicant rejecting the claim of

present applicant for compassionate appointment, letter issued by Regional Personnel Manager to Mines Superintendent

on 1-1-2011 informing him that the claim of the workman has been rejected and requesting the Mines Superintendent to

inform the applicant accordingly which are Exhibit M-1 to M-6 respectively. Other documents which are Exhibit M-7 to

M-13 are copies of internal communication between different authorities of management w.r.t. the application of

applicant for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment.

7.

I have heard argument of Mr. A.K.Shashi for management. Learned counsel for applicant Shri P.Yadav has filed

written argument which is part of record. I have gone through the written argument and the file.

8.

After perusal of record in the light of rival argument, following points come up for determination-

(1)

Whether the applicant has successfully made out a case for consideration for compassionate

appointment as dependent son-in-law of the deceased workman Shri Ghudhan?

(2)

Whether the refusal of compassionate appointment to the present applicant Mahesh Banwari as

dependent son-in-law of deceased workman Ghudan is justified in law?

(3)

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

9.

Point for Consideration No. 1

Admitted between the parties is the fact that Ghudan was employee with the present employers as General Mazdoor who

died during service on 31-12-98. Claim of the present applicant for his appointment as dependent son-in-law of deceased

workman rests on the ground that he is the dependent son-in-law of the deceased workman about whom he had made his

last will for compassionate appointment. Management has contested the claim mainly on the ground that applicant was

not married to the daughter of the workman. Hence point remains to be decided is whether the marriage of present

applicant Mahesh Banwari with Urmila who is admittedly the daughter of the deceased workman is proved or not to have

been solemnized before the death of the deceased workman. First mention of the marriage comes in the alleged will of

the deceased workman wherein he states that the applicant Mahesh is his son-in-law and dependent on him. The

applicant and his wife who have appeared as witness have also supported their allegation on this point. The workman has

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4829

filed and proved Exhibit W-8 which is certificate of marriage issued by Additional Collector/Marriage Officer, District

Chhindwara on 18-8-06. Perusal of certificate reveals that firstly, this marriage was in Special Marriage Act and

secondly this marriage was solemnized on 18-8-06. The contents of this certificate are being reproduced as follows:-

म मनोज खी अपर कलेटर एवं िववाह अिधकारी िजला िछदवारा (म.) एतद !ारा मािणत करता #ँ %क

२००६ के अग'त मास के 18व+ %दन महेश बनवारी िपता तुलसी बनवारी िनवासी पौिनया थाना तहसील चाँद

व34मान म+ घोडवादी तहसील जु7ारदेव, िजला िछदवारा (म.) एवं उ:मला बनवारी िपता घूडन िनवासी गुढी

थाना तहसील जमई व34मान म+ घोदवाडी तहसील जमाई िजला िछदवारा (म.) मेरे सम> हािज़र @ए और उनम+

से Bयेक ने मेरी उपि'तिथ म+ और उन तीन साि>यC %क उपि'तिथ म+ िजहCने इसम+ नीचे ह'ता>र %कये ह,

धारा-11 !ारा उपेि>त घोशनाएँ %क और उनका पर'पर िववाह इस अिधिनयम के अधीन मेरी उपि'तिथ म+

अनुEािपत %कया गया /

This certificate demolishes the whole claim of the applicant. Under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, documentary

evidence shall prevail over oral evidence. Hence, the contents of this certificate shall prevail oral statement of witnesses.

Accordingly it is held that the factum of marriage of present applicant with the daughter of deceased workman before the

death of the workman is not proved from evidence on record. Accordingly, it is established that there was no relation of

father-in-law and son-in-law between the deceased workman and the present workman Mahesh Banwari at the time of

death of workman. Hence, the applicant cannot be held to have made out a case for being entitled to be given

compassionate appointment as dependent son-in-law of the deceased workman. On the basis of above findings, Issue

No.1 is answered accordingly.

10.

Point for Determination No. 2

In the light of my finding recorded above, the action of management in refusing appointment to the applicant Mahesh

Banwari on compassionate basis as dependent son-in-law of deceased workman Ghudan is held justified. Issue No. 2 is

answered accordingly.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the General Manager, Western Coal Fields Limited, Kanhan Area, Dungaria in not

providing employment to Shri Mahesh Banwari, dependent son-in-law of deceased workman

Shri Ghudan is legal and justified.

(2)

The applicant Shri Mahesh Banwari is not entitled to any relief.

Dated: 31.5.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1170-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

esllZ QwM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 08/2009½ dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22011@78@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1170.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2009)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Food Corporation of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.06.2019.

[No. L-22011/78/2008-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

4830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT

LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 08/2009

Ref. No. L-22011/78/2008 - IR (CM-II) dated: 08.04.2009

BETWEEN :

The State Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

(Espousing case of Sri K.P.N. Singh)

AND

1.

The General Manger

Food Corporation of India

TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

2.

The Regional Manger

Food Corporation of India

1/13, 203 – B, Civil Lines

Faizabad.

AWARD

1.

By order No. L-22011/78/2008 - IR ( CM-II) dated: 08.04.2009 and its subsequent corrigendum dated

29.07.2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti

Nagar, Lucknow and the General Manger, Food Corporation of India, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow &

the Regional Manger, Food Corporation of India, 1/13, 203 – B, Civil Lines, Faizabad for adjudication.

2.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF FCI IN IMPOSING PENALTIES ON SHRI

K.P.N. SINGH VIDE THEIR ORDERS DATED 01.08.2008, 29.07.2008, 12.10.2007, 31.10.2007 & 23.02.2008

AND FOUR SEPARATE PENALTY ORDERS EACH DATED 31.07.2008 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? TO

WHAT RELIEF IS THE WORKMAN CONCERNED ENTITLED FOR?”

3.

The case of the workmen’s union, in brief, is that the workman, K.P.N. Singh, had been working as Assistant

Grade I (Depot) in Barabanki when he superannuated on 31.10.2007 and during his service he had been issued illegal

charge sheets for alleged storage loss vide letters dated 24.10.2007, 12.06.2007, 12.04.2007, 24.10.2007 and 24.10.2007

to which the workman filed his replies dated 27.10.2007, 26.10.2007, 26.04.2007, 21.06.2007 & 26.10.2007; but the

management of FCI, without considering his replies, imposed penalties vide impugned orders dated 01.08.2008,

29.07.2008, 12.10.2007, 31.10.2007 & 23.02.2008, imposing recovery of Rs. 5000/-, 8936/-, 50,000/-, 40,000/- &

27,150/- respectively; resultantly the gratuity of the workman had been forfeited. It is further alleged by the workman

that the management, in similar way issued charge sheets dated 23.03.2007, 07.07.2007, 16.07.2007 & 20.03.2007 to

which he filed his replies dated 27.03.2007, 18.07.2007, 26.07.2007 and 17.02.2007 and the management again without

considering his replies passed four penalties vide impugned orders dated 31.07.2007 & 31.07.2008. The workman has

submitted that the impugned penalty orders are non speaking, unreasonable and are in voilation to the regulation 60(1)(c)

and 60(1)(d) of the Staff Regulation 1971; and also the recovery had been made from his gratuity which was in violation

of the provisions contained in FCI (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) Regulation 1967; and accordingly, the workmen’s

union has prayed that the impugned penalty order be set aside and the amount recovered be returned to him with interest.

4.

The management of the Food Corporation of India has disputed the claim of the workmen’s union with

submission that the workman concerned had been issued various charges sheet for storage loss; and after providing

reasonable opportunity to defend himself, was awarded punishment of recoveries of the alleged sum in accordance with

the provisions contained in FCI (Staff) Regulation 1971. The management has also submitted that the recovery of the

impugned sum had been as per provisions contained in the FCI (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) Regulation 1967 and

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4831

there is nothing illegal in it. The management has also alleged that the workman should have availed alternate remedy of

appeal against impugned orders, provided under regulation 70 of the FCI (Staff) Regulation – 1971; but he failed to do

so; accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workmen’s union is devoid of any merit and is liable to

be rejected.

4.

The workmen’s union filed rejoinder, reiterating his contentions, already made in the statement of claim.

5.

The parties filed documents in support of their respective cases and adduced oral evidence. The workman

examined himself and he was cross-examined by the management; in rebuttal, the management filed affidavit of

Sri Promod Kumar Awasthi, AGM (Vig); but the workmen’s union did not turn up to cross-examine the management’s

witness, inspite of ample opportunities being afforded to it nor did it turn up to put oral/written arguments. However, the

forwarded its oral as well as written arguments in support of their contentions.

6.

Heard intellect submissions of the learned counsel of the management and gone through written submissions

filed by him and perused entire evidence on record.

7.

The workmen’s union has come up with a case that the workman had been issued various illegal charge sheets

for alleged storage loss and had been penalized with various penalty orders, without going through the explanation

submitted by him before the competent authority.

8.

Per contra, the case of the management is that the workman concerned had been issued various charges sheet for

storage loss at different span of time; and after providing reasonable opportunity to defend himself, was awarded

punishment of recoveries of the alleged sum in accordance with the Rules and resultantly, the recoveries were made;

moreover, the workman did not avail alternate remedy of appeal against impugned orders, provided under regulation 70

of the FCI (Staff) Regulation – 1971.

9.

Admittedly the workman had been issued various charge sheets by the management of FCI for the storage loss

occurred in the grain stock; and had been issued punishment vide impugned orders after following due procedures of

principles of natural justice.

10.

The workman in his cross-examination has stated that he had worked in Barabanki depot of FCI w.e.f.

November, 1999 to 2007 upto his superannuation and during this duration he worked as AG(III) Depot in the year 1999,

AG (II) in the year 2002, AG(I) in the year 2003. He stated that he used to prepare 29.10 statement and this statement

contained all details and this is called storage loss statement. He also stated that he was entrusted with the duties of

looking after the stock and that he did not prefer any appeal against penalty orders. On the contrary the workmen’s union

did not turn to cross-examine the management’s witness, who corroborated the pleading of the management given in the

written statement. No cross-examination with the management witness, leads to presumption of implied admission

regarding truthfulness of the witness.

11.

Thus, from perusal of the statement of the workman given before this Tribunal, during cross-examination, it is

evident that he had been custodian of the stock and used to prepare related register, therefore, he was rightly charged with

the charges of storage loss, occurred during his course of service. Secondly, from perusal of Regulations – 70 of the FCI

(Staff) Regulation – 1971, which provided 45 days for preferring an appeal against orders of the disciplinary; but the

workman did not avail the same, instead he filed application for conciliation before the RLC (C) and subsequently the

case was referred to this Tribunal.

12.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made herein above and perusal of

the record, I am of considered opinion that the action of the management of FCI in imposing penalties on

Sri K.P.N. Singh vide their order dated 01.08.2008, 29.07.2008, 12.10.2007, 31.10.2007 & 23.02.2008 and four separate

penalty orders each dated 31.07.2008 is legal and justified; and the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.

13.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

14.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

11th June, 2019

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1171-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

esllZ ,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 60/2015½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@21@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2015)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. S.E.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.06.2019.

[No. L-22012/21/2015-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/60/2015

The President,

Koyla Mazdoor Sabha,

Churcha Colliery,

Distt. Korba,

Korba Chhattisgarh

…Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited,

Kusmunda Area,

PO Kusmunda Colliery,

Korba Chhattisgarh

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of May 2019

1.

As per letter dated 19-6-2015 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,hereinafter referred to

by word ‘Act’, as per Notification No.L-22012/21/2015-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields is justified in demoting Shri Sakhram Sahu

from the post of Assistant Foreman to Category-6 worker after 18 months of working as an Assistant

Foreman? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

2.

According to workman, he was first appointed as Category I General Mazdoor & was promoted to the post of

Electrician Category-VI. He was promoted to Assistant Foreman vide order of employers dated 26-12-2008 but was

asked to work on the same post due to shortage of staff and after 15 months of his working on promotion post, he was

reverted back to Electrician Cat-VI. According to him, his demotion to Electrician Category VI after 8 months of

working as Assistant Foreman was against law. He has prayed for setting aside of his demotion order and consequential

benefits. The employers have admitted the case of workman that he was promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman from

Electrician Category VI vide order dated 26-12-2008 and was transferred to Korba Area from Kusmunda Area. He was

asked to join on the post of promotion at the place where he was transferred but he refused to move on transfer and

wanted to remain at Kusmunda Area therefore promotion order could not be implemented. In due course, he was again

promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman vide office order No.1503 dated 30-11-11. Thereafter he was posted at

Laxman Project. He was also given further promotion to post of Foreman Grade-B on 29-6-2015. According to the

employers since the workman refused to move on the place of posting which was Korba Area after promotion to the post

of Assistant Foreman Grade “C” from Electrician Grade VI vide order dated 26-12-2008 and remained at his previous

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4833

place of posting. His promotion could not be implemented hence he was again promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman

Grade C in 2011 & posted in Laxman Project itself where he has been working.

3.

At stage of evidence, workman has filed office order dated 26-12-2008, office order dated 19-1-09,

communication dated 27-1-2014 by management to ALC, representation of management dated 18-2-2011, office order

dated 30-11-11, licence issued by State of Chhattisgarh in Electricity Act( all copies) admitted by management.

4.

Management has also filed office order dated 26-12-2008 & 30-11-11, office order dated 17-18/12/2011,

1-1-2012, office order dated 29-6-2015 ( all copies) admitted by workman hence marked Exhibits.

5.

Workman has examined himself on oath as witness. Management has examined Shri Shailendra Parashar,

Assistant Manager (P) on oath as its witness. I have heard the workman in person & Shri A.K.Shashi, Advocate learned

counsel for management and have gone through the record. After having perused the record in the light of rival

argument, following points for determination come up in this case-

(1)

Whether the office order dated 26-12-2008 promoting workman from the post of Electrician Grade

VI to Assistant Foreman Grade “C” was given effect to at that time or not?

(2)

Whether the workman is entitled to difference of pay for the period as stated above or not?

6.

Point for determination No. 1

Office order dated 26-12-2008 which both parties have filed and admitted contains the name of present workman

Sakhram Sahu at Sl.No.5. he has been promoted from post of Electrician Grade VI & has been posted from Kusmunda to

Korba Mines. Exhibit W-2 is office order dated 19-1-2009 which is as follows:-

“उप मुGय का:मक बंधक एस ई सी एल िबलासपुर !ारा जारी प Hमांक एस ई सी एल. बी एस पी. एडीएमएम.

िसलेशन अिस'ट+ट फोरमैन 08.1038 %दनांक 26.12.2008 के तेहत िनOिलिखत िवPुत् एवेम यांिक कम4चाRरयC

केटेगरी-6 कS पदो7ित सहायक फोरमैन िवPुत् एवं यांिक Tेड-सी मे @आ एवं ित'थापना एस ई सी एल कोरबा

>े %कया गया है / इनको ित'थापना एस ई सी एल लVमण पRरयोजना म+ %दनांक 27.12.2008 से %कया जाता

है। यह आदेश सम> अिधकारी !ारा अनुमो%दत है-

ामंक

ामंक

ामंक

ामंक

नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

पदनाम

पदनाम

पदनाम

पदनाम

ित थापना जगह का

ित थापना जगह का

ित थापना जगह का

ित थापना जगह का नाम

नाम

नाम

नाम

१.

देवेX कुमार नायक

सहायक फोरमैन Tेड सी

लVमण पRरयोजना

२.

सखराम सा#

...”...

......”........

This office order is admitted by management and its witness. Perusal of this office order shows that vide order dated

26-12-08, workman was promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman Grade “C” and was posted in Korba Area but he was

again transferred in Laxman Area from 26-12-2008. This order no where states that his promotion was cancelled. It also

no where states that when he was again transferred to Laxman Area, he was posted against his previous post which was

Electrician Grade VI rather it states that he was posted as Asstt. Foreman Grade “C” on which he was promoted. This

document militates against the case of management that in fact, the promotion of the present workman was not given

effect to on his representation rather it establishes the case of workman that he was adjusted in his previous work place

after promotion on his representation vide order of management dated 19-1-09, copy of which is on record as Exhibit W-

2. Accordingly it will be lawful to hold that by another promotion order passed on 30-11-2011, it cannot be said that he

was demoted from his promotion post which he got in 2008 vide office order dated 26-12-2008 . Point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

7.

Point No. 2

In the light of finding recorded above, workman is held entitled to difference of pay and wages of his promotional post

Assistant Foreman Grade “C” from 27-12-2008 till 30-11-2011.

8.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields in demoting Shri Sakhram Sahu from

the post of Assistant Foreman to Category-6 worker after 18 months of working as an Assistant

Foreman is not justified.

(2)

Workman Shri Sakharam Sahu is held entitled to difference of pay and wages of his promotional

post Assistant Foreman Grade “C” from 27-12-2008 till 30-11-2011.

Dated:13.5.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

4834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1172-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

esllZ ,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 42/2010½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@8@2010&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1172.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. S.E.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.06.2019.

[No. L-22012/8/2010-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/2010

Dy.General Secretary,

Koyala Shramik Sangh (CITU),

Camp Bishrampur 1-B/34,

Kumda Colliery, Bishrampur,

Surguja (CG)

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Bishrampur SECL,

Post Bishrampur, Surguja (CG)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of May 2019

1.

As per letter dated 29-7-2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of Industrial Disputes Act 194, hereinafter referred to

by word ‘Act’, as per Notification No. L-22012/8/2010-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL, Distt. Surguja (CG) in

(i) non-payment of arrears to Shri Sunil Kumar Rathore for the post of Chief Pharmacist TS Grade A-1

for the period from 1-6-05 to 10-2-2006 and (ii) Demotion from this post to Shri Rathore w.e.f. 10-2-2006

was legal, proper and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled and from which date?”

2.

The case of the workman is that he was promoted to the post of Chief Pharmacist Grade I vide order No. 2058-

70 dated 31-5/1-6/2005 on the basis of biodata furnished by the office. He joined on the promotional post and continued

working on promotional post with utmost honesty sincerity and integrity to the satisfaction of all his superiors from 1-6-

05 to 10-2-2006 when the management passed order No. 33 dated 10-2-06 whereby his promotion to the post of Chief

Pharmacist (Gr.I) was cancelled. It is further alleged that no show cause notice or any opportunity was given to him

before cancelling his promotion and reverting him back. He made a representation to the management but of no avail. He

raised dispute and after failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred to this court. It is further case of workman that he

was not paid the salary of his promotional post w.e.f. 1-6-05 to 10-2-2006.It is also alleged that the action of the

management is against law and justice. Workman has prayed for set aside order of cancellation of his promotion and

payment of difference in salary be made from 1-6-05 to 10-2-2006.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4835

3.

According to the management, the promotion orders were issued due to clerical mistake done by office. The

mistake was w.r.t. date of first joining which was wrongly shown 4-3-99 whereas the actual date of first joining was

8-3-99. This mistake was detected later on. The basis of promotion was seniority in date of joining. By the said

promotion order passed due to mistake of report w.r.t. date of first joining,the workers who were senior to the present

workman as they have first joined on date earlier to the date of first joining of present workman were deprived of

promotion. This mistake was corrected by order dated 10-2-2006 because being junior, the workman was not eligible to

be considered for promotion on 1-6-05. Also, it was pleaded that since the workman was not assigned higher

responsibility or change in job on the basis of his promotion, there was no occasion of paying difference in salary.

Accordingly, it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

4.

The workman has filed office order of promotion dated 31-5/1-6/2005, order dated 10-2-2006 cancelling the

promotion order and copy of reference which is already on record. The order of promotion and cancellation have been

admitted by management hence marked Exhibits.

5.

Management has filed order dated 4-3-99 copy of letter dated 8-3-99 issued by the then Chief Pharmacist.

Provisional seniority list, report of office dated 1-6-05, letter of Dy.GM issued to M.Mandal, Office Superintendent on

9-6-05, promotion order, cancellation order, promotion order dated 17-20/9/08, office order dated 20-10-08 & joining

letter dated 1-10-08 sent by workman all proved and marked as Exhibit M-1 to M-11. Workman has further filed and

proved his 3 representation regarding arrears of salary which are Exhibit W-4,5 & 6 respectively.

6.

Workman has examined himself on oath as witness. Management has examined its witness Ramkrishna Prusty,

Manager (P)on oath.

7.

I have heard argument of learned counsel Shri Praveen Yadav for workman and Shri A.K.Shashi, Advocate for

management and have gone through the record.

8.

The main submission of the learned counsel for workman is that since workman has admittedly worked on his

promotional post in consequence of the promotion order, he is entitled to difference in salary and its refusal is unjustified

in law. He further submits that before cancelling/ recalling the promotion order, no opportunity of hearing was accorded

to the workman which is against law and hence the cancellation order is bad in law.

9.

On the other hand, learned counsel for management has submitted that since there was no difference in nature of

job, the management was fully justified in non-payment of difference of salary. Also, that since the promotion order was

passed on wrong facts hence there is no violation of principles of natural justice in not hearing the workman while

recalling or reviewing the promotion order.

10.

After perusal of record in the light of rival argument, following points come up in the case for determination-

(1)

Whether the demotion of workman from his promotional post w.e.f. 10-2-06 is justified in law?

(2)

Whether non-payment of difference of salary to the workman for the post of Chief Pharmacist Gr-I for the

period from 1-6-05 to 10-2-06 is justified in law?

(3)

To what relief the workman is entitled to?

11.

Point for Determination No. 1

Respective stand of the parties on this point has been detailed earlier. It is also not disputed by the workman that in fact

he did not join on 8-3-99 and had joined on 4-3-99 when he was first appointed. The provisional seniority list Exhibit M-

3 filed and proved by management shows8-3-99 as date of first joining of the workman. It also shows that the seniority

list has been prepared on the basis of date of first joining. The seniority list sent to the promotion committee, filed and

proved by management witness shows date of joining of present workman as 4-3-99. Management witness has stated on

oath that this discrepancy or clerical mistake on reporting was discovered later on, after issuing promotion order and

thereafter, promotion order of the present workman was cancelled. Since the workman has not disputed the fact that he

had joined on 8-3-99, and basis of seniority is seniority in joining, naturally he would be junior to those who joined on

dates earlier to the date of joining of present workman. Hence, there is substance in the case of management that the

promotion order regarding the present workman was passed wrongly on the basis of wrong information. Point further

arises as to whether the workman should have necessarily been given an opportunity of hearing before reviewing the

promotion order. Rules of natural justice are rules of procedure and procedure is handmaid of justice is established

principle of law. Opportunity of hearing may also be dispensed with in suitable cases. Keeping in view the facts stated

above, the present case is no doubt a fit case for dispensing with the opportunity of hearing to the workman in reviewing

his promotion order. Hence, I am unable to accept the argument of learned counsel of workman that the order cancelling

promotion to workman is bad in law because opportunity of hearing was not given to him. Accordingly, it is held that

order dated 10-2-05 passed by the management cancelling the promotion to the workman to the post of Chief

Pharmacist Grade I is justified in law and fact.

4836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

12.

Point for Determination No. 2

It is undisputed that the workman worked on his promotional post for the period 1-6-05 to 10-2-06. There is no

justification at all in denying him the benefit of his promotion in form of difference of pay when he has worked on

promotional post which is naturally a post of more responsibility. Hence the action of the management in denying the

difference of pay and other allowances to the present workman during the period 1-6-05 to 10-2-06 is not justified

in law.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

13.

Point for Determination No. 3

On the basis of finding recorded above, workman is already entitled to the relief of difference in salary for the post of

Chief Pharmacist Grade I for the period 1-6-05 to 10-2-06.

14.

In the result, award is passed as follows:-

(1)

The action of the Chief General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL, Distt. Surguja (CG) in canceling the

promotion order vide order dated 10-2-06 is legal and proper.

(2)

The action of the Chief General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL, Distt. Surguja (CG) in non-

payment of arrears to Shri Sunil Kumar Rathore for the post of Chief Pharmacist TS Grade A-1 for the

period from 1-6-05 to 10-2-2006 is not proper and legal.

(3)

Management is directed to pay the difference of salary for the post of Chief Pharmacist Grade I for the

period from 1-6-05 to 10-2-2006 to the workman Shri Sunil Kumar Rathore.

Dated:15.5.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1173-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

esllZ ,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 89/2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@113@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2013) of the Cent.Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. S.E.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.06.2019.

[No. L-22012/113/2013-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/89/2013

General Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

Raigarh Area, Qr. No. M/215,

Navapara Colony,

PO Navapara, Distt. Raigarh (CG)

Chhattisgarh

…Workman/Union

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4837

Versus

General Manager,

Raigarh Area (SECL), Behind Collectorate,

Chhote Atarmunda Post Box No.27,

Distt. Raigarh (CG),

Chhattisgarh

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of June 2019

1.

As per letter dated 18-9-2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-22012/113/2013-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), Rajgarh Area,

Distt. Rajgarh through its General Manager, Rajgarh Area in not protecting the pay of Shri Tejpal Sahu,

Ram Prakash Sahu, Vidyadhar Patel and Shri Jeet Ram following their selection to the higher post of

Mining Sardar is proper and justified? If not, to what relief these 4 workmen are entitled to?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Both the parties filed their respective claims. Major

facts are admitted between the parties. Parties differ only on the point that according to workmen when they were

appointed on the post of Mining Sirdar from their earlier post of General Mazdoor on 30-12-06, but not granted pay

protection which was their right whereas management has granted pay protection to those who were appointed as

General Mazdoor but were appointed as Mining Sirdar in the year 2008.

3.

The case of management is that these workmen, who were admittedly working as general mazdoor earlier and

was appointed Mining Sirdar in the year 2008 was given pay protection in the light of circular dated 30-10-09 which

provided granting of pay protection to those who were appointed after 1-1-08. This circular is Exhibit M-9. Exhibit M-9

filed and proved by management is issued on 28-10-09 which reads as follows:-

“The matter regarding pay protection of the employees who have been selected for the post of Mining Sirdar,

Asstt. Foreman and Data Entry Operator (Trainee) was under consideration at various levels while we were

having the departmental candidates but they were not responding for selection as their pay was being reduced as

per the prevalent practice of selection.’’

The matter was discussed in the Screening Committee and also in 2nd FDs meeting held on 8th July 2009 under item

No.442.19. It has been decided that pay will be protected as employees who have been selected on these posts on or after

1-1-08. Accordingly, the persons who have been selected for the post of Mining Sirdar, Assistant Foreman and

DEO(Trainee) from TR/PR or other lower post and have earned the increment in lower scale, their pay will be protected

in the pay scale of respective category/grade. The cases which have already been settled prior to 1-1-08 will not be

reopened.”

Workmen side has referred to circular Exhibit W-12 filed and proved by workman which is a circular dated 14-4-2016

wherein it has been mentioned that the workman selected on higher post can be granted pay protection.

4.

Now the point arises for determination is whether the action of management in refusing to grant pay

protection to the workmen whereas pay protection has been granted to the similarly placed another workman in

the light of circular of 28-10-09 is justified in law and fact or not. This circular has been reproduced earlier in this

judgment. It makes a distinction between the employees who are selected on or after 1-1-08 and others by providing pay

protection to those selected after 1-1-08 & leaving those who were selected before this cut off date. To my mind, this

circular is discriminatory and violates the basic principle of equality provided under Article 14 of Constitution, which

provides equality between law and equal protection of law. How one employee who was earlier General Mazdoor,

selected as Mining Sirdar before 1-1-08 be refused of pay protection whereas another employee having the same case be

granted pay protection only on the ground that he has been selected or or after 1-1-08 beyond common logic. Since this

circular is discriminatory as it is against Article14, it can be ignored as ineffective though it cannot be declared ultra virus

because this Tribunal does not have the power to do so. On the basis of above discussion, I record my finding and hold

4838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that refusal of pay protection to the workman on the basis of circular of 28-10-2009 is unjustified in law and the

workmen are entitled to pay protection as per rules ignoring the said circular. The reference is answered accordingly.

5.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), Rajgarh Area, Distt. Rajgarh

through its General Manager, Rajgarh Area in not protecting the pay of Shri Tejpal Sahu, Ram Prakash

Sahu, Vidyadhar Patel and Shri Jeet Ram following their selection to the higher post of Mining Sardar is

not proper and is unjustified.

(2)

Workmen are entitled to pay protection as claimed by them.

Dated: 7.6.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1174-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

esllZ ,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 100/2011½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@134@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1174.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2011) of the Cent .Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. S.E.C.L. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.06.2019.

[No. L-22012/134/2011-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/100/2011

Shri Bishun Ram,

S/o Shri Sitaram, Ex-Mechanical Helper,

Cat-II, Ward No.7,

Old Chhanna Khakka Dafai,

Korea Colliery,

Chirimiri Area,

Distt. Korea (CG)

…Workman

Versus

1.

Chief General Manager,

SECL, Baikunthpur Area,

PO Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea,

Chhattisgarh

2.

Sub Area Manager,

SECL, Churcha West Colliery,

PO Churcha, Distt. Korea,

Chhattisgarh

…Management

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4839

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of May 2019

1.

As per letter dated 10-10-2011 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-22012/134/2011-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of the Chief General Manager, Baikunthpur Area of SECL and

the Sub Area Manager, Churcha Colliery (RO) Sub Area of SECL Churcha, Distt. Korea (CG) in dismissing

Shri Bishun Ram, S/o Sita Ram, Ex Mechanical Helper Cat-II w.e.f. 3-3-2010 is legal and justified? To what relief

the workman concerned is entitled and from which date?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. According to the workman, he was first appointed

as Mechanical Helper Cat-II vide order dated 20-11-90. He was transferred from Chirimiri Area to Bhatgaon in April

2004, was again transferred from Bhatgaon to Baikunthpur Region vide order dated 17-8-06 and was present on duty for

about 116 days during the period from 24-8-06 to 3-12-06. He was allotted a residence in Churcha colliery which is 20

kms away from his place of work. He developed health issues and had to undergo medical treatment from 8-11-07 to 23-

1-08 for malaria and typhoid in District Hospital, Baikunthpur. After recovery from illness, he attempted to join his duty

with sick certificate but was not allowed by management instead he was issued a charge sheet dated 25-1-08 levelling

charges under clause 26.24 & 26.30 of certified standing orders applicable in management establishment. The charge was

that he absented himself unauthorizedly from 7-11-07 till date of charge sheet and his presence was only for 116 and 74

days respectively in the year 2006 & 2007. According to the workman, he submitted the reply to the charge sheet taking

his illness as ground of absence which was found not sufficient and departmental enquiry was instituted against him.

Firstly Shri D.N.Singh was appointed Enquiry Officer who was changed vide order dated 28-11-09 and Mr.D.Singh was

appointed Enquiry Officer. Shri H.Khalco was appointed Presenting Officer. His consistent request with management to

allow him on duty were not heard off and he was made to suffer for 28 months by not paying him even subsistence

allowance. Charge sheet with vague charges were served on him on 25-1-08. Proceedings were completed in one day.

Only a clerk Rajnu Babu obtained his statement and signature on 10-12-09 and he was told that enquiry has been

completed. It is the case of workman that he never admitted the charge during enquiry and explained the reasons behind

his absence in enquiry. No witness was examined by prosecution during DE, no documents were proved and the Enquiry

Officer submitted his Enquiry Report wrongly holding his absence unauthorizedly and willful. Though punishment of

withholding of two increments without cumulative effect were proposed but the Dy.Chief Personal Manager,

Baikunthpur region changed the sentence and issued a command to Dy.Regional Manager to send a proposal for

punishment of dismissal which was sent by Dy.Regional Manager on 3-2-2010 with a foot note on note sheet that

workman was also present from 2008 to 2009 though this was not a part of charge in the departmental enquiry.

According to the workman, no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given during the enquiry, principles of natural

justice were not followed. Hence the enquiry is bad in law. No charge of willful absence was proved from the evidence

during enquiry. Hence the finding regarding proof of charge recorded by Enquiry Officer is perverse. The Controlling

Authority acted whimsically in passing the impugned punishment of dismissal which is excessive. It is further the case of

workman that he raised dispute with the ALC. After failure of conciliation, reference as referred to above has been made

to this Tribunal. The workman has therefore sought a relief for setting aside his dismissal and reinstated him with all

backwages and benefits from the date of his dismissal.

3.

The management filed written statement of defence wherein it was pleaded that workman was a habitual

absentee. He remained absent from duty without prior information, without any application of leave or leave sanctioned

as follows-

Year

Attendance

2005

Nil

2006

116 days

2007

74 days

2008

Nil

2009

Nil

He was issued a charge sheet No. 3016 dated 20-1-2008 for his unauthorized absence from 7-11-07 and poor attendance

for the year 2005, 2006 & 2007. Finding the reply unsatisfactory, a departmental enquiry was instituted. Memorandum

4840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of enquiry dated 1-12-2009 was issued to workman. Charges were read over to him. He admitted the charges

unconditionally. He did not express his desire for assistance of co-worker to defend him. Despite his admission of

charges, the Enquiry Officer collected documentary evidence in support of charges. The medical certificate, filed by the

workman, was also taken on record. The case of workman was that he was not attending his job due to sickness. The

charges were found proved in the DE and his services were terminated by the impugned order. According to the

management, the enquiry was conducted properly giving the workman to defend him hence there is no illegality in the

DE. Management denied that the workman ever applied for leave on medical ground or sent any intimation regarding his

alleged sickness and treatment. Also denied that he reported for duty along with sickness certificate and that charge of

willful habitual absence being proved on the workman. The punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the

charge. Accordingly, the management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.

4.

Following issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 18-12-2014

(1)

Whether enquiry conducted against workman is proper and legal?

(2)

Whether charges framed against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings?

(3)

Whether punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal?

(4)

If so, whether the workman is entitled to any relief or not?

5.

Issue No.1 was taken as preliminary issue and on the basis of evidence produced , the departmental enquiry was

held legally and properly conducted against the workman vide order dated 31-3-2015 passed by my learned predecessor.

This order is part of the award.

6.

During evidence on preliminary issue No.1, workman examined himself on oath. Management examined Suresh

Kumar Sr. Officer, Pay and Accounts and proved the documents Exhibit M-1 to M-8 which are charge sheet dated

25-1-08, reply of workman dated 31-1-08, office order dated 28-11-09, notice for enquiry dated 1-12-09, proceedings of

departmental enquiry dated 10-12-09, proposal regarding dismissal put up by Dy.Chief Personnel Manager dated 3-2-

2010, office order regarding dismissal dated 4-3-2010 and mercy appeal filed by workman on 4-9-2010.

7.

No further evidence was adduced by any of the parties on additional issues. Hence argument of Shri Pranay

Choubey learned counsel for workman and Shri A.K.Shashi learned counsel for management were heard and records

were perused by me. Workman also filed written argument which is part of record. I have gone through the written

argument also.

8.

Issue No. 2

It has been submitted by learned counsel for workman that charge of unauthorized absence relates to the period 7-11-07

to 25-1-08 i.e. till date of issue of charge sheet. Regarding the charge of continuous absence in the year 2005, since the

workman was not posted in Churcha colliery, there is nothing on record, produced by management during enquiry, to

establish this charge. Same is the case regarding his absence in 2005 till July 2006 when he was not posted in Churcha

colliery hence charge regarding presence of only 16 days in 2006 & 74 days in 2007 also cannot be held proved because

of any document establishing these charges as the workman was not posted in Churcha colliery. Learned counsel for

workman has submitted that workman never admitted the charges. He has referred to the reply of the workman in this

respect. Learned counsel has further referred to case of Krishnakant B.Parmar versus Union of India and other

reported in 2012(3)SCC-178 wherein it has been observed that a Government employee who remained absent

unauthorizedly from duty cannot be proceeded against until the charges proved his absence willful and not result of

compelling circumstances. According to Hon’ble the Apex Court, unauthorized absence from duty and willful absence

are two separate things. According to the learned counsel, at the worst, the absence of workman can be unauthorized and

not willful because he had explained and established the compelling circumstances regarding his sickness in the said

period which prevented him from attending his duties. Accordingly, it has been submitted that no charge can be held

proved against the workman.

9.

On the other hand, learned counsel for management has referred to Rule 7.5,12.4, 12.5, 13.1of Standing Orders

and has submitted that there is a procedure to be adopted in case of sickness. No such procedure was adopted by the

workman in present case. Learned counsel further refers to Rule 26.24 & 26.30 which are misconduct. He further refers

to Rule 27.1 which deals with penalties for misconduct and submits that since continuous presence by the workman in

establishment is first condition for running an establishment with efficiency, any unauthorized willful absence should be

dealt with seriously otherwise workers may be tempted to absent themselves as and when they want and this will lead to

disruption of work.

10.

Learned counsel for management further submits that absence was not denied by the workman rather it was

accepted by him during DE as it is evident from record. In such a case, the burden was on the workman to establish that

his absence was not willful or to establish the excuses behind his absence. Learned counsel further submits that it is not

disputed that workman did not inform the authorities regarding his illness or treatment. He did not receive treatment in

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4841

hospitals established by the establishment. Hence in such circumstances, his defense was not found genuine. It is not

perverse as his evidence from record of enquiry. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the charges he held proved in

the enquiry.

11.

Before entering into any discussion on merits, the relevant provisions of standing orders applicable to the

management are being reproduced as follows:-

Rule 7.5-Absence from place of work-

Any workman who after going underground or after coming to his work in the department/ section in which he is

employed, is found absent from his proper place of work during working hours without permission from the Appropriate

Authority or without any sufficient reason shall be liable to be treated as absent for the period of his absence.

Rule 12.5: Application for leave or extension of leave on medical grounds shall be supported by a certificate from a

Medical Officer of the company or where there is no such officer, a government Medical Officer or failing him, from a

Registered Medical practitioner, stating the period for which leave is recommended. On receipt of such application, the

sanctioning authority shall immediately inform the workman in writing whether the leave or extension of leave has been

granted and if so for what period. An employee who has been sanctioned leave or an extension of leave on medical

ground for a period exceeding 14 days at a time shall not be allowed to resume duty unless he produced a certificate o

fitness. If no information is received by the workman, from the management, regarding leave in question as applied for, it

may be presumed to be granted.”

Rule-13: Application for leave:- A workman who desires to obtain leave of absence shall apply in writing to the

Competent Authority, not less than 15 days before the commencement of the leave, except where leave is required in

unforeseen circumstances and the competent authority shall issue orders on the application within a week of its

submission of two days prior to the commencement of the leave applied for whichever is earlier, provided that if the

leave applied for is to commence on the date of the application or within three days thereof orders shall be given on the

same day. If the leave is refused or postponed, the fact of such refusal or postponement and the reasons therefor shall be

recorded in writing in a register to be maintained for the purpose and if the workman so desires a copy of the entry in the

register shall be supplied to him. If the workman after proceeding on leave, desires an extension thereof, he shall apply to

the competent authority who shall send a written reply either granting or refusing extension of leave to the workman.

Sanction/ refusal of leave shall be communicated to the workman in writing.

Similarly Rule 26.24 & 26.30 which deal with misconduct are also being reproduced as follows:-

Rule 26.24- Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

Rule 26.30- Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave.

12.

Perusal of the charge sheet Exhibit M-1 shows that the charges were firstly, unauthorized absence from 7-11-07

till date of charge, secondly, nil presence in 2005, presence of 116 days in 2006 and 74 days in 2007 as well nil presence

in 2008 which according to the charge sheet issued, shows that the workman is in the habit of absenting himself

unauthorizedly without any intimation which is a misconduct.

13.

The reply to the charge filed by the workman during the Departmental Enquiry Exhibit M-2 shows that

workman first stated that the charges are far from truth. It is further stated that workman fell ill suddenly ad he was

receiving treatment of Dr. Karan. He further states that he could not intimate the management regarding his sickness

because there was no another co-worker at his place who used to come to the work place where he worked . workman

further assures that he will not repeat it again and requests for allowing him to work. Record of proceeding dated 10-12-

09 shows that in response to Q.1 asked by the Enquiry Officer, whether the workman admits the charges, the workman

states that he admits his mistake. He further states that he was suffering from malaria & typhoid since 7-11-07. Hence he

could not appear. He had filed a medical certificate before Enquiry Officer. He further states that he was posted in

Bhatgaon in 2005 till August 2006 from where he joined in Churcha West, the present work place. Hence his presence in

2006 has been shown less in Churcha West. No documents regarding absence of the workman in the year 2005 & 2006

till August 2006 collected from Bhatgaon have been produced before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the charge regarding

nil presence in 2005, presence of only 116 days in 2006, 74 days in 2007 & nil in 2008 is held not proved from the

records of enquiry produced before this Tribunal.

14.

As regards the charge of absence from 7-11-07 till 25-1-08, as the record of proceedings during enquiry as

mentioned above, makes it clear that this absence was not without reason. It is no where finding of Enquiry Officer that

medical certificate filed by the workman regarding his absence was not genuine.

15.

As regards the argument of learned counsel for management that workman did not avail the facilities of

treatment provided by management, the case of workman is that he was not in a position to avail because the facilities are

far away from the place where he fell ill.

4842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

Learned counsel for management has referred to case Chairman cum Managing Director Coal India Ltd.

versus Mukul Kumar Choudhari AIR-2010-SC-75 wherein the delinquent unconditionally admitted the charges, no

further evidence was required to prove but the facts of the case in hand are different from referred case. Hence the

admission was not unconditional.

Another case Vivekanand Sethi versus Chairman J&K Ltd (2005)5-SCC-337 which reiterates the same

point as referred to case of Chairman cum cum MP Coal India (Supra) can also be distinguished easily from the facts of

case in hand.

17.

Another case Smt.Padma versus Chief Traffic Manager BMTCWP No.37323-25 of 2010 decided by

Karnataka High Court on 10-6-2011 Photocopy filed and referred to by learned counsel for management to support his

argument. In the referred case, workman was absent from duty from 20-1-05 to 25-12-05 and sought to explain by

producing medical certificates were not believed on the facts peculiar to the referred case because there was discrepancy

regarding date of fitness in the certificate produced by workman. Furthermore, record of prescriptions were not produced

to explain his discrepancies and on the basis of this peculiar facts, Hon’ble High Court held that the absence was not

fully justified.

18.

Learned counsel for management has further referred to New India Assurance Co.Ltd versus Vipin Beharilal

Srivastava (2008)3-SCC-446 wherein it was observed that mere sending an application for grant of leave much after the

period of leave was over as also the date of assuming duties cannot be said to be a bonafide act on part of the workman.

In the case in hand, workman has filed medical certificate issued by Government Doctor of a District Hospital which has

no where been found fake or forged hence the facts of referred case can also be distinguished from the facts of the case in

hand.

In another case A.M.Eashwarachar versus Executive Engineer(Electrical) in 1995-I-LLJ-1065 Karnataka High

Court, it has been observed by Hon’ble High Court in cases of habitual absence, no sympathy should be shown.

19.

There can be no disagreement with the principal of law laid down by Hon’ble High Court in the referred case

but the facts of case in hand are different. Charge of habitual absence are held not proved from the evidence collected

during the Departmental Enquiry in the case in hand. charge of willful absence for the period 7-11-06 to 25-1-07 i.e.

period of 74 days have been explained by the workman during enquiry by producing medical certificate of a Government

Doctor of District Hospital which has no where been found take or not genuine hence on the basis of above discussion, I

am of the considered view that no charge of willful absence has been proved against the workman during the enquiry

though the charge of unauthorized absence can be held to be proved.

20.

In the case of Krishnakant Parmar (Supra) referred to by learned counsel for workman, Hon’ble Apex Court has

held that what is to be seen is willful absence which constitutes misconduct. As Rule 26.30 of standing orders speak

absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave is misconduct.

When the willful absence has been held not proved, absence without sufficient cause as mentioned in Rule 26.30 is also

held not proved.

21.

On the basis of above discussion, none of the charges are held proved during enquiry. Issue No.2 is answered

accordingly.

22.

Issue No. 3

On the basis of findings recorded in Issue No.1, the punishment of dismissal is held not justified in law and fact and

liable to be set aside. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

23.

Issue No. 4

In the light of findings recorded above, setting aside the order of his dismissal from service,the workman is held entitled

to reinstatement with all back wages and benefits from the date of his dismissal.

24.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of the Chief General Manager, Baikunthpur Area of SECL and the Sub

Area Manager, Churcha Colliery (RO) Sub Area of SECL Churcha, Distt. Korea (CG) in dismissing

Shri Bishun Ram, S/o Sita Ram, Ex Mechanical Helper Cat-II w.e.f. 3-3-2010 is held illegal and

unjustified.

(2)

Workman Shri Bishun Ram is held entitled to reinstatement with all backwages and consequential

benefits.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4843

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.

Dated: 30.5.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1175-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49/2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@359@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1175.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2008)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.06.2019.

[No. L-22012/359/2007-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/49/2008

General Secretary,

Sanyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC),

CRO Camp, Iklehra,

Chhindwara

…Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

WCL, Pench Area,

PO Parasia,

Chhindwara

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this Ist day of May 2019

1.

As per letter dated 4-3-2008 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-22012/359/2007-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of M/S WCL in dismissing Shri Rambharose w.e.f. 24-11-2005 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

2.

According to statement of claim filed by workman, he was appointed on 2-7-95. He fell ill and his wife

informed the management about his illness. He was taken to Nagpur for treatment where he was under treatment and

after recovery, he presented himself for joining his job. Then he was told that since the colliery in which he was working

was closed, he would be allotted duty from Regional Office. He was issued chargesheet dated 16-4-04 wherein it was

stated that he was transferred from Shivpuri mines to Vishnupuri mines on 27-4-99 and was asked to report his new place

of posting which he did not report and absented himself. The enquiry was illegally conducted without giving opportunity

to defend and without considering his defence of illness though he had filed medical certificate and was awarded

maximum punishment of dismissal which was disproportionate to the charge. Accordingly he prayed his reinstatement

with all backwages and benefits setting aside his dismissal.

4844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

In the Written Statement of defence filed by the management, it was pleaded that the workman was first

appointed at Shivpuri mines on 2-7-95 from where he was transferred to Vishunupuri mines No.2 vide order dated

27-4-99. He did not report for duty at his new place of posting and remained absent till 2004. Hence chargesheet for

continuous unauthorized absence was issued against him on 16-2-04 after instituting a departmental enquiry against him.

This chargesheet was sent to him by registered post which he refused to receive. After lapse of some time, the workman

submitted his reply under said chargesheet which was found unsatisfactory. The Enquiry Officer further proceeded. The

workman participated in the enquiry and denied the charges. Prosecution lead evidence during the enquiry and the

prosecution witnesses were cross examined by the workman. Workman refused to produce any evidence. The Enquiry

Officer submitted his Enquiry Report holding the workman guilty of unauthorised absence from 22-4-99 to 16-2-04

holding the medical illness and certificate not reliable. The Enquiry Report was accepted by the Disciplinary Officer and

after hearing the workman on sentence impugned order for dismissal was passed against him. It was also pleaded that

the enquiry was properly conducted giving workman full opportunity to participate which he availed. The misconduct

warrants major punishment hence punishment is not disproportionate. Accordingly it was prayed that the reference be

answered against the workman.

4.

During the proceedings before this Court, workman remained absent. Following issues were framed by learned

predecessor vide his order dated 16-7-2013 which is as under:-

(1)

Whether enquiry conducted against workman is legal and proper?

(2)

Whether misconduct alleged against workman is proved in enquiry proceedings?

(3)

Whether punishment of dismissal is appropriate and legal?

(4)

To what relief the workman is entitled?

5.

Issue No.1 was decided as preliminary issue holding the domestic enquiry legal. It is not worthy that the

workman remained absent and he did not produce any evidence on this preliminary issue. This order of my learned

predecessor dated 11-4-17 holding the domestic enquiry lawfully conducted is part of this award.

6.

Again parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on remaining issue. Workman remained absent. No

further evidence was adduced by any of the parties. At stage of argument, workman remains absent inspite of notice. He

was given opportunity to file written argument which he did not availed. Mr. A.K.Shashi appearing for the employers

submitted his argument.

7.

Issue No. 2

The charge against the workman is as under-

(1)

Disobedience of duty

(2)

Intentional breach of discipline resulting in loss of company

(3)

Habitual absence without sufficient cause

(4)

Unauthorized absence for more than 10 days without getting leave sanctioned.

Chargesheet in this respect has been proved by management witness which states these charges. The proceedings of

enquiry proved by the management witness goes to show that Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and has recorded

statement of witness K.S.Unitham during the enquiry who produced the records and transfer order of worker dated

27-4-99 transferring him from Shivpuri to Vishnupuri and asking him to report immediately on his new place of posting.

He also proved the receipt of transfer order by the workman and also attendance register Form B showing that the

workman never reported on duty since 27-4-99 till 16-2-04. His statement is supported by document in this respect

proved by the witness during the enquiry which is on file and proved by the management witness. The case of the

workman is that he remained ill during this period. There is nothing on record in form of any document regarding

treatment, diagnosis of his illness to substantiate this defence of workman taken by him in the enquiry hence there is no

occasion to disagree with the finding of Enquiry Officer regarding proof of charges as recorded by him in the Enquiry

Report. Accordingly it is held that the charges as mentioned above levelled against the workman during the DE

are proved. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.

8.

Issue No. 3

As regards the proportionality of punishment, the case of workman is that the punishment is disproportionate to the

proved charge but I am not inclined to accept this in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court passed in

WP No.37323-25/2010 wherein citing precedents of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts, punishment of

dismissal in case of unauthorized presence of 11 months and some days was found appropriate. Absence of more than 4

years is proved in the case in hand. hence keeping in view the principle of law laid down in the referred case, punishment

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4845

of dismissal in the case in hand cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to warrant interference by this court

hence holding that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate, this issue is answered accordingly.

9.

Issue No. 4

On the basis of finding recorded in the judgment, workman is not entitled to any relief.

10.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of M/S. WCL in dismissing Shri Rambharose w.e.f. 24-11-2005 is legal

and justified.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

Dated:1.5.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1176-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 82/2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@132@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1176.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2007)of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.06.2019.

[No. L-22012/132/2007-IR (CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/82/2007

Shri Dalchand, S/o Shri Jheena,

R/O Village Damua No.12,

Post Damua, Tehsil Junnardeo,

Chhindwara (MP)

…Workman

Versus

The Manager,

Nandan Mine No.1,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Kanhan Area, Post Nandan,

Chhindwara (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of May 2019

1.

As per letter dated 13-8-2007 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,hereinafter referred to

by word .Act, as per Notification No.L-22012/132/2007-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

4846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Dalchand w.e.f. 20-3-

2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2.

According to workman, chargesheet dated 4-5-02 for unauthorized absenteeism from duty was issued

to him and on the basis of the finding of Departmental Enquiry arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the services of the

workmen were terminated on 17-20/3/2003 but on representation, he was reinstated by the management vide order dated

20-3-03. He joined his duty and continued in service till 7-4-03 but the management reopened the same enquiry and re-

terminated the workman vide order dated 7-4-2003. 2nd enquiry on same charges is impermissible under rules hence the

said termination is against law as alleged by the workman. It is further the case of the workman that in the charge sheet

dated 4-5-2002, issued by the management to him, the charge was that he has unauthorizedly absented himself in 1999,

2000 & 2001 by being transferred on duty only for 170 days in 1999, 121 days in 2000 & 163 days in 2001. The

workman denied the charges in his reply. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with empty formalities which was

conducted exparte against the workman. The Enquiry Officer himself was Presenting Officer which is against law hence

the domestic enquiry was conducted against law without following the principles of natural justice. The workman was

issued show cause notice dated 6-6-02 by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of findings of the enquiry. He filed

reply dated 17-9-02 and considering his reply/ show cause, he was issued a warning vide letter of management dated 17-

9-2002 & was permitted to continue in service. It is further the case of workman that after having issued the punishment

of warning, the whole matter came to end and 2nd punishment was against law. According to the workman, he raised

dispute with the management and conciliation officer. After failure of conciliation, the reference was made by Central

Government to this Court. The workman has prayed for setting aside his dismissal and his reinstatement with all

backwages and service benefits.

3.

As pleaded by the management in their Written Statement of Defense, the workman absented himself

unauthorizedly and was present only for 170 days in 1999, 171 days in 2000, 163 days in 2001 & 109 days in 2002. He

was issued a charge sheet 1223 dated 4-5-2002 for habitual absenteeism. Since the reply to the charge sheet was not

satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was instituted vide order dated 22-5-2002 and Shri P.C.Mishra, Assistant Manager

was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Mr. Manohar was appointed as management representative fixing a date for enquiry,

memorandum of enquiry dated 23-5-02 was sent to the workman. The workman was present on the first date of sitting

and management representative was replaced by Shri T.K.Chakravorty. The workman was given opportunity to avail

services of co-worker as his defense Assistant and the proceedings were adjourned. Workman did not appear in the

enquiry on the next date fixed which was 1-6-2002 hence adjourning date, fresh memo of notice was sent to the workman

which was personally served on him but even then the workman did not participate in the enquiry hence the enquiry was

proceeded exparte against workman and after allowing the management to produce evidence, evidence of management

was taken. The Enquiry Report was submitted by Enquiry Officer holding the workman guilty of charges of unauthorized

absenteeism. A show cause notice dated 14-9-02 was issued to the workman with copy of the charge, Enquiry

Proceedings and Enquiry Report to submit his representation but no reply was received from workman hence punishment

of dismissal was passed by competent authority on 20-3-03. Thereafter as pleaded by management, Union submitted an

appeal on 20-3-03. It was decided by management to put the punishment on hold for two months and workman was

allowed to join duty vide order No. 697 dated 3-3-03. It is the case of management that the workman again absented

himself and did not fulfill. Hence management put in effect the order of termination dated 20-3-03 by a separate order

dated 7-4-03. It has been further pleaded that the enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer according to rules, following

the basic principles of natural justice. After giving full opportunity to the workman, he did not avail. He also pleaded that

the charge proved requires major punishment because it erodes the very potentiality, credibility and productivity of any

company or organization if remains unchecked. Accordingly it has been prayed that the reference be answered against

the workman.

4.

Following preliminary issue was framed by my learned Predecessor:-

“Whether Departmental Enquiry conducted against workman was according to law?”

5.

This preliminary issue was decided by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 14-6-2017 holding domestic

enquiry properly conducted according to law and thereafter 3 additional issues were framed which are as under:-

i.

Whether the alleged misconduct is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings?

ii.

Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is legal and proper?

iii.

If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

6.

It is further to mention here that during pendency, workman died and his LRs were brought on record. No

evidence was adduced by the LRs and management on other issues.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4847

7.

At argument stage also, none appeared for workman hence argument of Mr. A.K.Shashi learned counsel for

management were heard and records have been perused by me.

8.

Issue No. 1

This issue is whether alleged misconduct is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. There is on record statement

of T.K.Chakravorty, the then Office Superintendent, who is management witness. He has stated on oath the details of

enquiry as mentioned above in the written Statement filed by management. he also stated that statement of management’s

witness was recorded during the enquiry in support of the charges. He also submitted attendance particulars of the

workman and proved the statement of witness & attendance particulars have been filed with the enquiry papers.

Workman side has not cross-examined the management witness hence this uncontroverted statement of management’s

witness, corroborated by enquiry papers go to prove the charges. Accordingly, it is held that alleged misconduct is

proved from the Enquiry Proceedings.

9.

Issue No. 2

This issue is regarding proportionality of punishment. According to standing order Rule 26.24 & 26.25 unauthorized

continuous absence is a misconduct which warrants major punishment including dismissal from service. The charge

proved is of 3 years of regular unauthorized absence which is a grave misconduct.

Rule 26.24 & 26.25 which deal with misconduct are also being reproduced as follows:-

Rule 26.24- Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

Rule 26.25- Distributing or exhibiting in the company’s work premises or estates, hand bills, pamphlets, posters or

causing them to be displayed by means of signs or writing or other visible representations any matter prejudicial to the

company without prior sanction of the management.

There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for management that habitual absence of a worker erodes the very

potentiality, credibility and productivity of the organization and if not checked may turn disastrous for the organization.

No doubt that punctuality is a condition precedent as bedrock for an organized, established and enlightened industrial

management. No institution, howsoever, progressive can afford the irregularity on part of its employees. Keeping in view

these facts, punishment of dismissal in the case in hand where unauthorized absence is for continuous 3 years cannot be

said shockingly disproportionate to warrant by this Court.

10.

Issue No. 3

On the basis of findings recorded in this judgment, workman is held entitled to no relief.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of WCL in terminating the services of Shri Dalchand w.e.f. 20-3-2003 is

proper and legal.

(2)

Workman Shri Dalchand is not entitled to any relief.

Dated:9.5.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1177-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] bZjukdqye] dksphu ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 13@2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 25-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22011@43@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

4848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara

Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.06.2019.

[No. L-12011/43/2012-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

(Friday the 17th day of May, 2019)

ID No.13 of 2013

Union

: The Secretary

Canara Bank Staff Union

BEFI Center, Melethampanoor

Trivandrum - 695001

By M/s.ANP Associates

Management

: The General Manager

Canara Bank, HRM Section

Circle office, M.G.Road,

Trivandrum -695001

By M/s. Menon&Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 26.03.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 17.05.2019 passed the

following.

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofSub-section (1) Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12011/43/2012-IR(B-

II)dated 28.01.2013 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

2. The dispute referred is;

“Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management of Canara Bank against Smt.S.Geetha,

Ex-Clerk at Thrikkovilvattom branch of Canara Bank was proper and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and whether the punishment of compulsory retirement with

superannuation benefits imposed on her vide letter dated 18.11.2010, was justified and proportionate to

the gravity of the misconduct proved against her? What relief the workman is entitled to? ”

3. According to the union representing the workman, the Assistant General Manager, Disciplinary action cell, Circle

Office, Thiruvananthapuram suspended the workman in September 2009. After 6 months, the management issued a

charge sheet dated 08.03.2010 alleging that the workman misused her official position in the bank and unauthorized

retained and misappropriated amounts tendered by a customer and tampered with the records of the bank by making

false and fictitious entries in the passbook issued to the customers. Misconduct of “causing willful damages to the

property of the bank and its customers and acting in a manner highly prejudicial to the interest of the bank” chapter 11,

regulations 3(j) and 3(m) of Canara Bank Service Code were leveled against the workman. The charges are (1)

Workman has allegedly failed to account for an amount of Rs.50,000/- remitted on 11.06.2009 by Smt. I Subaida to the

credit of her SB A/c No.16525. (2) workman had allegedly made entries in the passbook and issued“cash received”

counter foil without supervisor’s authentication. (3)The workman misappropriated an amount of Rs.50,000/- handed

over by Smt I. Subaida to be credited to her SB A/c No.16525. (4) workman allegedly made false and bogus entries in

the pass book of SB A/c No. 16525 on 11.06.2009, 10.08.2009 and 21.08.2009 and in the pass book of SB A/c

No.74023 on 11.08.2009 and 21.08.2009.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4849

4. Rejecting the objections filed by the workman, the management initiated disciplinary enquiry proceedings and the

enquiry officer conducted a farce and namesake enquiry and submitted the report finding the workman guilty of the

charges leveled against her. Accepting the findings of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority vide order dated

18.11.2010 imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits such as pension and/or Provident

Fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without

disqualification for future employment. The appeal filed by the workman was also rejected by the Appellate Authority.

5. The impugned punishment is illegal and bad as the same is imposed under Canara Bank Service Code and not as per

Bipartite settlement which is applicable to the employees of the management bank.

6. The impugned punishment is illegal and bad as the same is imposed on the basis of vague allegations. The enquiry

based on which the punishment is imposed is one vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned

punishment imposed on the workman is illegal and unjust on the ground that the findings of guilt based on which it is

imposed are erroneous, perverse, biased and against facts, circumstances, evidence on records and probabilities of the

case. The impugned punishment imposed on the workman is also ultravires and illegal for no act of gross misconduct

has been proved against the workman. The impugned punishment is disproportionate, harsh and excessive in the facts

and circumstances of the case.

7. The management denied all the allegations of the workman in their written statement. The service condition of the

workman in the management bank are governed by Canara Bank Service Code which is in consonance with various

Bipartite settlements and awards at industry level.

8. The workman while working as clerk at Thrikkovilvattom branch from 14.08.2006 was placed under suspension from

05.09.2009 for certain irregularities and misappropriations committed by her. Thereafter she wasissued a charge

sheetdated 08.03.2010. The following charges were leveled against her.

a.

She failed to account for an amount of Rs.50,000/- remitted on 11.06.2009 by Smt.I.Subaida for the

credit of her SB A/c No.16525.

b. Making entries in the pass books and issuing cash received counter foil to the customer without

supervisor’s authentication.

c. Misappropriated an amount of Rs.50,000/- handed over by Smt.I.Subaida to be credited to her SB A/c

No.16525.

d. Made false and bogus entries in the pass book of SB A/c No.16525 on 11.06.2009, 10.08.2009 and

21.08.2009 and in the pass book of SB A/c No.74023 on 10.08.2009 and 21.08.2009.

The enquiry officer found that all the above charges are conclusively proved against the workman. The Disciplinary

Authority after considering the report and evidence on records and after hearing the workman imposed a punishment of

“compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits, Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity, as would be due

otherwise under rules or regulations prevailing at that relevant time and without disqualification for future employment.”

The Appellate Authority concurred with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority after affording an

opportunity to the workman to represent her case. In her submission before the Appellate Authority on 10.01.2012 the

workman admitted that she made bogus entries in the pass books without making corresponding entries in the books of

accounts of the bank.

9.

Findings of the enquiry officer is based on evidence and the enquiry was conducted in a proper and fair manner

following the principles of natural justice. The charges proved against the workman are of very serious nature

touching upon her honesty and integrity and hence the punishment imposed is proportionate to the proved misconduct.

10. The union was afforded anopportunity to file replication to the written statement filed by management. The union

did not file any replication.

11. The fairness of the disciplinary enquiry proceedings was taken up as a preliminary issue on the request of the

management. The enquiry officer was examined as MW1 and enquiry file was marked as Exbt.M1. After elaborate

hearing this court vide its order dated 31.01.2017 found that the enquiry conducted by the management is just, proper and

following the principles of natural justice.

12. Hence the further issues to be decided in this case are;

a.

Whether the findings of the enquiry officer are just and proper and based on evidence?

b.

Whether the punishment imposed on the workman is proportionate to the proved misconduct?

c.

Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

4850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13. Issue No.1

Having found that the enquiry is conducted in a fair and proper manner following the principles of natural

justice, the consequential issue to be decided is whether the findings of the enquiry are based on legal evidence. The case

of the management is that Smt.I.Subaida holder of SBA/c No.16525 of Thrikkovilvattom branch complained to the

Branch Manager that Rs.50,000/- remitted by her on 11.06.2009 into her account was not actually credited to her

account. On investigation it was found that the workman received money from Smt.I.Subaida on 11.06.2009 and

without crediting the money into her account a cash received counter foil was issued to her and also made an entry for

Rs.50,000/- in the deposit coloumn of her pass book. No such transaction is entered in the books of accounts of the

bank.

Hence it is clear that the workman misappropriated Rs.50,000/- handed over to her by Smt.I.Subaida for crediting in her

SB A/c No.16525.The workman also made false and bogus entries in the passbook of SB A/c No.16525 of

Smt.I.Subaida on 10.08.2009 and 21.08.2009. Further Smt.Shanaba, daughter of Smt.I.Subaida opened SBA/c No.74023

on 10.08.2009 and amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was transferred from SB A/c No.16525. A further credit entry of

Rs.50000/- is made in the pass book on the same day but the same is not reflected in the books of the accounts of the

bank. Another bogus entry was made on 21.08.2009 in the pass book debiting Rs.7000/- in favourof SBA/c No.16525.

14. On 29.08.2009 Smt.Shanaba came to the branch and presented a cheque for Rs.3,50,000/- to withdrawn money for

registration of a property. As per her pass book she had a balance of Rs.3,50,250/- as on date. The workman was

theSavings Bank Clerk in the branch on that date. She left the bank at 12.45pm after taking permission from the Bank

Manager stating that she was not feeling well. Smt.Shanaba approached the Cashier at 12noon and 1 pm to know about

the fate of the cheque presented by her. She complained to the Manager regarding the delay. The Manager finding that

the actual cash balance in her SB account is only around 3 lakhs, convinced her to give another withdrawal slip for Rs.3

lakhs and the same was paid to her. The customer left the bank after filing a complaint. The workman’s husband

approached Smt.I.Subaida outside the branch and gave Rs.50,000/- to her. The whole misappropriation came out

during the course of investigation.

15. The case of workman is that she was having acquaintance with Smt.I.Subaida. Smt.I.Subaida is running money

lending business. The workman took a loan of Rs.50,000/- from Smt.I.Subaida. Smt.I.Subaida told the workman that the

money belongs to her daughter and to convince her that the money is deposited her account, she insisted for an entry in

her SB pass book. The workman made an entry in the pass book and a corresponding counter foil of cash payin slip was

also given to Smt.I.Subaida. There is no misappropriation of funds of the bank. However she admitted that some wrong

entries were made in the pass book.

16. The facts in general are admitted. It is admitted that the workman received Rs.50,000/- from Smt.I.Subaida. It is

admitted that she made false and bogus entries in the pass book of Smt.I.Subaida and gave her counter foil of the payin

slip showing the receipt of Rs.50,000/-. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the above transaction is not entered in

the books of accounts of the bank. It is also admitted that Rs.50,000/- is returned to Smt.I.Subaida by the husband of the

workman on the day the complaint is filed with the branch. The only defense taken by the workman is that she took

Rs.50,000/- from Smt.I.Subaida as a loan and the entries were made in the pass book and a counter foil of payin slip for

having deposited Rs.50000/- was given to Smt.I.Subaida on her request to convince her daughter Smt.Shanaba to whom

the money belongs to.

17. It is very difficult to accept the argument of the workman. Her stand is that the enquiry officer failed to summon

Smt.I.Subaida and Smt. Shanaba in the enquiry. Had they been summoned, the workman could have prove the nature of

money transaction between them. It is seen from the records of the enquiry that the enquiry officer in fact summoned

Smt.I.Subaida and Smt.Shanaba in the enquiry. The Branch Manager telephoned them requesting them to attend the

enquiry. They refused to attend the enquiry saying that since they got the money back they are not interested in

persueing the complaint.

18. The learned Counsel for the workman citing the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector Sing Vs LML

Limited, 2014 KHC 4712 argued that this is a fit case where this court shall invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under

Section 11 A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, to re-evaluate the evidence produced before the enquiry officer and

considered by the disciplinary authority to impose punishment on the workman. In the above case the misconduct

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4851

involved was, the workman throwing jute balls at his Supervisor and later apologizing for the same. In the present case

the misconduct alleged and proved are misappropriation of funds and manipulation of bank records misusing her

position as a bank employee to benefit the workman. Exercising discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 depends on the facts of each case. I don’t think this is a fit case where the discretion can be exercise

in favour of workman.

19. Hence it is more appropriate in this case to confine to an enquiry whether the findings of the enquiry officer is

supported by some evidence. The Counsel for the management took this court through the relevant evidences of the

management witness’s 1 to 4 and management Exbts. ME 9, 11,12,13,24,25,26 and 27 to argue that there is adequate

evidence to support the findings of the enquiry officer.

20. The learned Counsel for the workman relied on the contradictions in ME24, the complaint given by Smt. I.

Subaidaand ME26 the statement given by Smt. Shanaba, daughter of Smt. I. Subaida. He also submitted that the

workman is prejudiced by marking of those documents through another witness and non examination of the authors of

those letters in the enquiry. The admission by the workman regarding the bogus entries cannot be a ground for punishing

her. Further there is no proof for misappropriation of money. According to him, going by evidence available on record

only a minor charge as per Clause 7(g) of the Bipartite settlement of 10.04.2002 of ‘transacting money without

permission of the bank’ can be said to be proved. Hence the punishment awarded to the workman is shockingly

disproportionate to the misconduct proved against her.

21. On a perusal of the records available in the enquiry file it is seen that the workman admitted part of the charges

regarding the bogus entries in the pass books and issue of counter foil of remittance slip for Rs.50,000/-. The above

admission is made by the workman voluntarily from the time the investigation started against the complaint. She

repeated the same in reply to the show cause notice, charge memo in the disciplinary enquiry, before the Disciplinary

Authority and the Appellate Authority. Hence it is not possible to ignore the admission by the workman as pleaded by

the Counsel for the workman. Evenif it is assumed that misappropriation is not fully established the deliberate tampering

of bank records by misusing her position as a bank employee, by itself, is a serious offence which will attract major

penalty. In this case it can be seen that the workmantook Rs.50,000/- fromSmt.I.Subaida on11.06.2009 entered in SB

account pass book and gave counter foil of payin slip. These transactions were not entered in the books of accounts of

the bank. The mischief was caught when Smt.I.Subaida along with her daughter came to the bank on 29.08.2009 to

withdraw the money. The misappropriated money was returned to Smt.I.Subaid by the husband of the workman on

29.08.2009. Hence the charge that the workman misappropriated Rs.50,000/- from 11.06.2009 to 29.08.2009 is clearly

established. Hence it can be seen that the charges against the workman are substantially proved through evidence in the

enquiry.

22. I don’t have any hesitation, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to hold that the findings of the enquiry

officer are fully supported by legal evidence.

Hence Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the management and against the workman.

23. Issue No.2

Misappropriation and tampering with bank records are the charges alleged and proved against the workman.

These are very serious charges considering the fact that the workman was a responsible employee handling the cash of

the general public. The only case of the workman is that misappropriation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the circumstantial evidence adequately support the case of the management that there was misappropriation

of Rs.50,000/- belonging to a customer of the bank. The Hon’bleSupreme Court in Union bank of India Vs

Viswamohan, (1998) 4SCC 310 held that in banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty need to

be preserved by every bank employee and if it is not , the confidence of the public would be impaired. In Chairman and

Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others Vs P. C. Kakkar, (2003) 4SCC 364 the Hon’ble Supreme

Court 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 Hon’ble

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 misconduct in such

cases shall be dealt with iron hands.

4852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

24. This being the legal position, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the punishment imposed on the

workman by the management 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 on issue No. 1 & 2 the workman is not entitled any relief.

In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management of Canara Bank in awarding a

punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits imposedon the workman vide order dated

18.11.2010 is just and proper and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

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 17th day of May 2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

-

Nil

Witness for the Management

-

MW117.12.2014 Sri. Sridharan Nair

Exhibits for the union

-

Nil

Exhibits for the Management

-

M1. Enquiry file

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1178-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkQ egkjk"Vª ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 7@2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks

25-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@171@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.06.2019.

[No. L-12012/171/2004-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/7/2005

Shri Mahu Lal Daharia,

D/o Shri C.L.Daheria,

Amin Bhimgarh Colony,

PO Bhimgarh, Distt. Seoni (MP)

…Workman

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4853

Versus

General Manager(Personnel),

Bank of Maharashtra,

Central Office, 1501, Lokmangal,

Shivaji Nagar, Pune

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 17th day of May 2019

1.

per letter dated 21-12-2004 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 Industrial DidputesAct, 1947(hereinafter referred to

by word ‘Act’)as per Notification No.L-12012/171/2004-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in stoppage of two increments without

cumulative effect and dismissing from service of Shri Mahu Lal Deharia, Sub-staff w.e.f. 15-2-2003 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim. As it

appears from perusal of respective pleadings of parties that a departmental enquiry w.r.t. charges of misconduct was

conducted against the workman. Charges were as follows-

(1)

Intentionally causing loss to the employer Bank by taking out voucher which is misconduct under Clause

19.5(d) of Bipartite Settlement.

(2)

Refused to obey the instructions of Sr. Officer which is a misconduct under clause 19.5(e) of Bipartite

Settlement.

(3)

Misbehaving his senior officer and colleague which is misconduct under clause 19.5(c) of Bipartite

Settlement.

Chargesheet dated 18-10-2001 was issued to the workman and after enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the charges

against the workman proved. He sent his Enquiry Report dated 9-12-2002 to the Disciplinary Authority who after issuing

notice and hearing the workman passed the impugned order which was dismissal from service under Clause 19.5(f) of

Bipartite Settlement for Charge No.1 & stoppage of 2 increments without cumulative effect under clause 19.5(d) of the

Bipartite settlement. The case of workman is that the enquiry was not conducted legally and properly. The opportunity to

defend was not given. Hence, charges were not proved and sentence was disproportionate. He raised dispute with the

management and Assistant Labor Commissioner. After failure of conciliation, reference was made by the Central

Government to this Court.

3.

Issue No.1 was decided as preliminary issue holding the domestic enquiry legal. This order of my learned

predecessor dated 8-4-2016 holding the domestic enquiry lawfully conducted is part of this award.

4.

On the basis of pleadings, following additional issue was framed by my learned predecessor vide his order dated

8-4-2016:-

(1)

Whether the alleged misconduct is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings?

(2)

Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is legal and proper?

(3)

If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

5.

None of the parties adduced evidence on additional issues hence the case was fixed for argument. Mr. Praveen

Yadav appeared for the workman,. His arguments were heard. Learned counsel for management did not appear at the

stage of argument, he did not file written argument also though opportunity was given to him to file written argument

within 7 days from the date of argument which is 2-5-2019.

6.

Additional Issue No.1:-

As stated above, the charge No.1 against the workman is that he intentionally caused loss to the Bank by taking out the

voucher which is a misconduct under Clause 19.5(b) of Bipartite Settlement. This is the major charge for which major

punishment of dismissal has been awarded. According to the Enquiry Report, proved by the Enquiry Officer, the facts

related to this charge were that on 8-9-01, vouchers of date 7-9-01 were given to workman for counting and serializing

them. He withdrew a voucher regarding withdrawal of Rs.150/- from his account and wrongly recorded the number of

vouchers as 65 which were found only 63 at the time when they were opened for inspection. Also, that he put this

4854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

consolidated voucher bundle for signature before the Branch Manager on 10-9-2001. He had not put his signature on the

cover which was mandatorily required. He did not make all the entries in the voucher registers regarding the vouchers to

conceal his misconduct so that responsibility of missing of voucher be fixed on other employees. There is on record

documents ME-1 to ME-6, ME-25 & ME-26 and statement of 3 witnesses recorded during enquiry by the Enquiry

Officer. Management examined its 3 witnesses MW-1, MW-2 & MW-3 who are the bank employees in support this

charge. After going through their statement, in the light of documents mentioned above produced during enquiry which

are part of record. Charge No.1 which is the major charge is held proved. As regards the other charges, they are also

helpful in the light of statements of these witnesses. Hence charges levelled during enquiry as mentioned above, are

held proved on the basis of evidence on record,. additional Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

7.

Additional Issue No. 2

From the above discussion, following charges have been held proved against the workman. They are-

(1)

Intentionally causing loss to the employer Bank by taking out voucher which is misconduct under Clause

19.5(d) of Bipartite Settlement.

(2)

Refused to obey the instructions of Sr. Officer which is a misconduct under clause 19.5(e) of Bipartite

Settlement.

(3)

Misbehaving his senior officer and colleague which is misconduct under clause 19.5(c) of Bipartite

Settlement.

Now the question arises as to whether the punishment of dismissal for Charge No.1 and punishment of stopping of 2

increments without cumulative effect with respect to charge No. 2 & 3 is appropriate or not.

8.

It is case of workman that punishment given is shockingly dis-appropriate to the proved charges whereas the

case of management is that in banking absolute integrity is required hence Charge No.1 is a misconduct for which major

punishment is provided and accordingly punishment of dismissal is not shockingly dis-appropriate as submitted by

workman. I am not inclined to agree with the submission of management on this point. Reasons are- there is no financial

loss to Bank. nly one document which is voucher of Rs.150/- was attempted to be misplaced. There is nothing on record

to show that the workman was in the habit of committing misconducts or his service record was not good. He had

completed major portion of his life in the service in Bank. In the light of these facts, I hold the punishment of

dismissal with regard to Charge No.1 shockingly dis-appropriate to the charge. Stoppage of 5 increments with

cumulative effect is held just and proper to the punishment with respect to the proved Charge No.1. As regards

punishment and charge No. 2 & 3, I donot find it dis appropriate to the charges.

Additional Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

9.

In the light of above discussion, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in dismissing Shri Mahu Lal Deharia, Sub-staff

w.e.f. 15-2-2003 is held unjustified in law.

(2)

The action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in stopping of two increments without cumulative

effect with effect to Charge No. 2 & 3 is held legal and justified.

(3)

The punishment of dismissal is set-aside and punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative

effect is awarded to the workman.

Dated: 17-5-2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1179-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkQ egkjk"Vª ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 63@2012½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 25-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@95@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4855

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.06.2019.

[No. L-12011/95/2011-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 63 / 2012

jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jsQjsUl ua. L-12011/95/2011–IR(B-II) fnukad 23.05.2012

Vishnu Kumar Topia

General Secretary, All Bank Safai Karamchari Sangh,

Denwal Bhawan, Sitabari, Kamani Road,

Harijan Basti, Jhotwara,

Jaipur.

V/s

Branch Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra,

Kumba Marg, Near Goshala,

Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh lh-Mh- prqosZnh & izfrfuf/k

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jherh ufUnuh vxzoky &izca/kd

% vf/kfu.kZ; %

fnukad % 3- 06- 2019

1-

Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 23-5-2012 dks fuEukafdr fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ (d) ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa bl vf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fd;k x;k %

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharshtra, Jaipur in terminating the services of

Shri Vishnu Kr. Topia, PTS w.e.f. 17.2.2010 is legal and justified? what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2-

mi;qDrZ fookn izkIr gksus ij vf/kdj.k }kjk mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;k vkSj izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd og vius nkos dk

vfHkdFku izLrqr djsaA

3-

izkFkhZ us fnukad 17-1-13 dks vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA ftlds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSA izkFkhZ us foi{kh

cSad dh 'kk[kkvksa esa vxLr 2008 ls Qjojh 2010 rd vLFkk;h va'kdkyhu deZpkjh ds :i esa 180 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ ls

dfu"Brj egs'k ,oa lUrks"k uked vLFkk;h deZpkfj;ksa dks cSad }kjk LFkk;h fu;qfDr ns nh x;hA vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk rFkk le>kSrs

dh 'krkZsa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, 17-2-2010 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr dj nh xbZA foi{kh us vuqfpr :i ls HksnHkko djrs gq, izkFkhZ ls

dfu"B 4 deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;qfDr ns nhA bl izdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th o 25 ,p rFkk fu;e 77 o 78 dk foi{kh us mYya?ku

fd;kA vr% izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, foi{kh dks funsZ'k fn;k tkosa fd og izkFkhZ dks foxr osru ,oa fujUrjrk lfgr cSad

ds fu;kstu esa lsokeqfDr dh frfFk ls ysosaA

4-

foi{kh us izfrmRrj esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ ds foi{kh cSad dh 'kk[kk izcU/kd ,e-vkbZ-jksM] t;iqj }kjk fnukad 20-8-2008 ls

nSfud osru ij ugha j[kk x;k cfYd 10-10-2008 ls 29-9-2009 rd fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ij dqy 25 fnu etnwjh ij j[kkA rRi'pkr uoEcj

2009 esa 8 fnu izkFkhZ dks etnwjh ij j[kk x;kA foi{kh }kjk fjDr inksa ds fy, vkosnu vkefU=r fd;s x;saA izkFkhZ ds lkFk p;u izfdz;k

4856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

esa dksbZ HksnHkko ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks cSad dh lsok esa vLFkk;h ;k LFkk;h :i ls fu;kstu ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk LFkk;h fu;qfDr

dh ekax djuk vuqfpr gS vr% nkok fujLr fd;k tkosaA

5-

fnukad 3-6-19 dks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls foi{kh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnuakd 27-2-2019 dk dksbZ izfrmRrj ugha nsuk pkgkA izkFkhZ

izfrfuf/k us izkFkhZ ds iatkc uS'kuy cSad] usg: Iysl] t;iqj esa va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr gksus ds rF; dks [kf.Mr u

djrs gq, dksbZ fookn 'ks"k u jguk vfHkO;Dr fd;k rFkk bl nkos ds vxzlj.k ij cy ugha fn;kA

6-

foi{kh izfrfuf/k dk ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dks iatkc uS'kuy cSad t;iqj eas fu;qfDr fey xbZ gS] blfy;s bl fookn dks **dksbZ

fookn 'ks"k ugha** ds vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;k tkosaA

7-

izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds leFkZu esa ek= viuk 'kiFki= izLrqr fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k us izkFkhZ dks iatkc uS'kuy cSad esa

va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;kstu izkIr gksus ds rF; dk dksbZ [k.Mu u djrs gq, bl nkos dks vxzlfjr ugha djuk pkgk gSA

bl rF;kRed ifjn`'; esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ vU;= fu;ksftr gks pqdk gS vkSj mldk foi{kh ls tks Hkh fookn jgk] izkFkhZ mls vc bl

vf/kdj.k ls vf/kfuf.kZr ugha djokuk pkgrk gSaA blfy;s mHk;i{k ds e/; vc dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk gSA vr% bl vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr

fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u izkFkhZ ds nkos ds vxzlj.k gsrq bPNqd u jgus o lk{; ds vHkko esa ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% **dksbZ fookn 'ks"k

ugha** ds vUrxZr lUnfHkZr fookn dks mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

vkns'k

8-

vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fookn dk mRrj

mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

9-

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

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1180-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

us'kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 31@2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

25-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@38@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.06.2019.

[No. L-12012/38/2005-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

DATED : 18TH June 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

C.R No. 31/2005

I Party

II Party

Sh. G.S. Gopala,

S/o G. Subba Rao,

No. 2926, 1st Floor,

4th Main, V.V. Mohalla,

Mysore - 570 002.

The Sr. Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

HRD Section, Regional Office,

M.G. Road,

Bangalore - 560 001.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4857

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. K.B. Harihara Rao

Advocate for II Party : Mr. T.R.K. Prasad

AWARD

The Central Government vide OrderNo.L-12012/38/2005-IR(B-II) dated 13.07.2005 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 management of Punjab National Bank is justified having removed Sh. G.S. Gopala, Head

Cashier from services w.e.f. 26.02.2003? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date?”

1.

The 1st Party herein is the Ex-employee of the 2nd Party Bank who was working as Clerk-cm-Cashier at Mysore

S.J.C.E Branch and was removed from service vide order dated 26.02.2003 consequent upon the issue of charge sheet

followed by Disciplinary Proceedings. The 1st Party in his claim statement pleads that, during 2001 the Branch Manager

had a lengthy discussion with the 1st Party and advised that the relevant records show some discrepancies in the books of

accounts of S.J.C.E on various dates in cash accounting in respect of Students fee remittance; he shall accept the

responsibility for the discrepancies and submit a letter to the Bank to that effect or face Disciplinary Action. Due to oral

threats by the Branch Manager of the Disciplinary Action and consequent loss of the job, stigma in the society and on his

specific assurance that if he accepts the responsibility for the discrepancies in the accounts of S.J.C.E the Bank would

take lenient view and he submitted a letter dated 27.07.2001 as per the dictation of the Branch Manager; subsequently he

had given another letter dated 03.08.2001; he was kept under suspension from 28.07.2001 followed by charge sheet

dated 06.02.2002. The charge sheet was ambiguous without specific charge, even at that stage he was assured by the

Branch Manager that Disciplinary Action is just a formality and he would be let off with a simple ‘WARNING’ after

enquiry as per the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. Accordingly, he submitted his explanation to the charge sheet

vide letter dated 23.02.2002 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority again taking the responsibility for the discrepancies.

The Enquiry Officer was appointed but the enquiry conducted against the 1st Party is farce and contrary to principles of

natural justice. After completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his finding on the basis of the dialogues that

took place between the participants in the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority brushed out his objection which was

based on solid grounds as ‘objections on flimsy ground’ and proposed punishment of removal from service with

superannuation benefits etc, in terms of para 6(b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 vide show cause

notice dated 08.02.2003 and offered a personal hearing, but the personal hearing held on 24.02.2003 was a empty

formality, none of his submissions were recorded; vide final order dated 08.02.2003 punishment proposed was

confirmed. On his appeal personal hearing was scheduled, it was also a formality though on the scheduled date he was

present with his Defence Representative at the Office of the Appellate Authority, no personal hearing was given. The

Disciplinary Proceedings was only to victimise the 1st Party and the penalty is imposed in total contravention of the

binding awards and settlements and principles of natural justice.

2. 2.

The 2nd Party countered the claim allegations in their statements as follows:-

During July 2001, on coming to know about the discrepancies with regard to the date of remittance of fees in the student

copy of the challan with college copy, the Branch Manager verified the challans with the Bank record and noticed

variations in the dates mentioned in the student copy with the Bank/College copy. On preliminary enquiry the

involvement of 1st Party workman revealed. He admitted the responsibility for the irregularity, he was placed under

suspension w.e.f. 28.07.2001 vide his letter dated 03.08.2001, he reiterated his stand, further clarified about the period

for which the money was withheld.

Charge Sheet dated 06.02.2002 as per Para 5 (J) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 was issued in his reply

he admitted the charge and further submitted that he has misused Bank funds due to mental strain and compelling family

circumstances; however, to give him a fair chance to defend his case enquiry was initiated by appointing the Enquiry

Officer. During the enquiry he was provided with fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The Enquiry

Officer submitted his report and the 1st Party gave his comment.

3.

The Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report which was supported with the evidence and

agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer; 2nd show cause notice was issued proposing the punishment of removal

from service with superannuation benefits, after giving personal hearing the proposed punishment was confirmed. The

Appellate Authority also gave personal hearing but did not find merit on the points raised by him. Hence, concurred

with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and rejected the Appeal.

4858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4.

On completion of the pleadings from either side, preliminary issue regarding fairness of the Domestic Enquiry

was framed, tried and adjudicated by answering the issue against the Management.

5.

The 2nd Party examined one witness to prove the charges; 1st Party has given his rebuttal evidence.

6.

To epitomise the allegations against the 1st Party workman:-

he did not credit the cash received from the students of S.J.C.E College Mysore, to the credit of various accounts of the

college on the same day and was crediting the amount on subsequent days. In respect of some cases the difference

between date of receipt and date of credit was only few days, in many other cases he retained the amount for more than

one month. The above act amounts to gross misconduct as per Para 19.5 (J) of the Bipartite Settlement (amended).

7.

In his reply to the charge sheet he pleaded his family and personal problems; he expressed his remorse and

assured that such things will not repeat in future, sought to condone his lapses and give opportunity to prove his real

worth. He maintained the same stand even while submitting his remarks to the Enquiry Report. However, before this

Tribunal he has turned around to state that said letters were taken from him under false assurance and also threat.

8.

After Preliminary Issue on Domestic Enquiry was answered negative against the Management by this Tribunal,

the witness examined for the Management is, the then Branch Manager of the 2nd Party’s S.J.C.E Campus Branch,

Mysore. In his affidavit evidence he has detailed the procedure of handling the College fees credited by the students.

Accordingly, the students whenever required to pay fees will first collect the challan in triplicate, fill it up with required

details, sign all the three challans and submit the same to his College/Accounts/fees section for their verification. In turn

the College will verify the said challans by affixing their round seal with their initial and dates at the bottom of the

challan; said challans will be handed over to the students and he would in turn submit the challan in triplicate to the

Cashier of the 2nd Party Bank with fees mentioned in the challan.

9.

The concerned Cashier of the Bank will affix Bank’s seal on all the three challans with date and signature; the

cashier should also enter the amount received through the challan in the Bank registers, on retaining original of the three

challans, he will forward the duplicate to the College and triplicate challan will be returned to the student. The modus

operandi followed by the 1st Party was in some cases, he will affix Bank cash received seal containing date, month and

year with the amount received on the said challans. He will retain their fee and other two challans; he will not account

the amount in College Bank Accounts. After some days depending on his convenience, he used to super impose

subsequent date on said two challans retained by him. He will credit the amount to the Bank, on such date he used to

enter the said amount in the concerned College Bank Accounts pretending that he has received the said fees from the

concerned students along with unauthorizedly retained two challans. He would account in the Bank and also College

Account. The witness quoted several instances of such delayed credits.

10.

13 student’s vouchers were marked by him as Ex M-8 (1 to 13). He further produced 6 vouchers of the College

as Ex M-9(1 to 6) and the credit advice as Ex M-10. The consolidated vouchers for the individual challans on particular

date were marked as Ex M-2, Ex M-3, Ex M-4 and Ex M-6. Ex M-9 (2) belongs to 5 consolidated challans of Ex M-8

(1) to Ex M-8(5). Ex M-9(3) is the proforma for the voucher produced for the purpose of procedure. Ex M-9 (4)

belongs to Ex M-7 to Ex M-8(9). Ex M-9(6) belongs to Ex M-8(6).

It emerged during his cross examination that, he has issued suspension order to the 1st Party as per the

instruction of Senior Regional Manager. It also surfaced that additional Cashiers were also given rubber seals which will

be in the custody of Cashier in charge.

11.

During his rebuttal evidence the 1st Party reiterated his contention in his affidavit evidence and further averred

that Ex M-1 to Ex M-10 were not marked during the enquiry. The so-called confession letters Ex M-3 and Ex M-4 and

his reply to the charge sheet (Ex M-4) and appeal memo (Ex M-6) (all these documents are marked before this Tribunal

during trial in respect of Preliminary Issue) were given under pressure and compulsion. He listed his reasons to deny the

charge sheet on the following grounds:-

a)

The names of the students are not mentioned in the charge sheet;

b)

The cash supervisor has not counter signed the 13 challans, all of which are above Rs. 5,000/-. It is

beyond cashier powers as per book of instructions to counter sign in all the three portions to authenticate

them;

c)

The cash supervisor failed to enter the details of the challans in his cash book;

d)

No documents/witnesses were produced to show that there was any difference/shortage of cash on the

dates mentioned in the charge sheet;

e)

There were no complaints against him by anybody;

f)

In all the challans the date outside the cash received stamps are different;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4859

Among other things he further contends discrepancies if any in cash accounting and relevant accounts of

S.J.C.E on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet must have crept in because of heavy cash receipts in

those days, and the cash used to be received by other staff members also outside the cash cabin.

12.

In his written arguments the 1st Party has emphasized on the following facts:-

a)

The charge sheet Ex M-1 is ambiguous and not naming the students in relation to Ex M-8 is against the

principles of natural justice.

b)

The Bipartite Settlement came into effect from 10.04.2002 hence the charge sheet issued on 06.02.2002 is

void.

c)

The documents produced by the management for the 1st time before this Tribunal without producing the

same before the Domestic Enquiry prejudiced his interest.

d)

The confession letters were obtained from him under force

e)

The Management documents Ex M-8(1) to Ex M-8(13) are not the attachment to Ex M-9(1) to Ex M-9(6)

f)

There was no complaint against him either from the students or from the college.

g)

The Appellate Authority did not give personal hearing as required by bipartite settlement.

h)

By not taking disciplinary action against any staff member of the branch though serious lapses noticed

against him he alone is victimised.

i)

The orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority is arbitrary and without application

of mind, and no speaking orders.

j)

There is no signature of the 1st Party inside the Bank seal in Ex M-8(1)

13.

Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd Party submits that 1st Party admitted the charges before issuing the charge

sheet. But, there was some mistake in the notice served on him pertaining to the period of misconduct however after

issue of charge sheet also he admitted his mistake. Even in his appeal memo also he had admitted his misconduct. After

the Domestic Enquiry was set aside by this Tribunal, he was given interim relief of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The witness

examined before this Tribunal was the Manager of the Branch at the relevant point of time and he was also Presenting

Officer in the enquiry proceedings. The misconduct alleged against him are supported by the documentary evidence, the

punishment of removal from service with the superannuation benefits i.e. Pension/Provident Fund and Gratuity without

disqualification from future employment commensurates with the gravity of the gross misconduct committed by him.

14.

Before probing further into the matter it shall be borne in mind that once the Domestic Enquiry on which the

punishment order was founded is invalidated by the order of this Tribunal, it is not for the 1st Party to object to the

documents produced by the management in support of the charges though they were not produced during the Domestic

Enquiry. He is not disputing the contents of his reply to the charge sheet, his remarks to the Enquiry Report or the

grounds urged in the appeal memo. He has taken U-turn from the stand taken by him earlier to state that those

statements/appeal were drafted under force and coercion and also under the threat of losing the job. The 2nd Party since is

not resting its case entirely on the reply submitted by the 1st Party to the charge sheet and has given independent

evidence in support of the charges, now it is for the Tribunal to examine the evidentiary material placed by MW-2 before

this Tribunal.

15.

Regarding remittance of fee in triplicate MW-2 has produced 13 student vouchers Ex M-8(1) to M-8(13);

Ex M-9(1) to M-9(6) are the 6 vouchers and 1 credit advise is Ex M-10. It has come in his evidence that every credit

challan above Rs. 10,000/- is to be countersigned by the supervisor and the cashier maintains the log book and at Ex M-

8(1) to Ex M-8(13) there is no signature of the Supervisor. The authenticity of these challans are disputed by the

1st Party on the ground that there is no documentary proof with regard to exact date of deposit of the amount, the date

stamp is not clear and the dates are not visible, the challans carry more than 1 stamp with different dates. On a careful

scrutiny of these challans – in all the challans the cash received seal bears the signature of the cashier, there is difference

between the date on which the challan was filled up and the date on which the amount is credited at the Bank. The

underlining question is whether the amount was received by the cashier on the date mentioned in the cash received seal

or on the date mentioned in the round seal of the college. As contended by the 1st Party during the intermittent period

while there was more movement apart from the cashier in the Cabin, other staff also used to receive the cash with the

challan and they will be provided with the Bank seal said possibility is admitted by MW-2 also.

At Ex M-8(1) the triplicate challan of the college seal bears the date 26 February 2001 and the amount is

received on 12 April 2001 in the original for the Bank and the duplicate for the college Office but in the triplicate of the

student copy the date is 11 March 2001.

4860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

At Ex M-8(2) the college seal bears the date 26 March 2001, the amount is received on 12 April 2001 in the original for

the Bank, and the duplicate for the college Office it is shown as 26 February 2001 in the triplicate of the student. At Ex

M-8(3) while the original and the duplicate bear the date 12 April 2001 the triplicate bears 28 February 2001, they do not

bear the college seal.

At Ex M-8(4) the original and the duplicate bear the date 02 April 2001 the triplicate bears the date 01 March 2001 the

college seal also bears the date 01 March 2001.

At Ex M-8(5) the original and the duplicate bear the date 02 April 2001 and the triplicate bears the date 01 March 2001

the college seal also bears the same date.

Ex M-8(6) the original and the duplicate bear the date 11 May 2001 and the triplicate bears the date 09 April 2001 and

the college seal bears the same, the triplicate bears the signature of the cashier. There is no cashier seal in the original

and duplicate.

Ex M-8(7) the original and the duplicate bear the date 15 June 2001 triplicate bears the date 08 May 2001 and the college

seal bears the same.

Ex M-8(8) triplicate bears the date 21 April 2001 and the college seal bears the same, the original and duplicate date 15

June 2001.

As regards Ex M-8(9), the triplicate is not available.

Ex M-8(10) 15 July 2001 is the college seal but student copy bears 15 June 2001 the original and duplicate is of June

2001 but the date appears to have been erased intentionally.

At Ex M-8(11) no college seal, the triplicate date is 15 June 2001 original and college copy does not bear the

signature of the cashier and the date in original and duplicate is June 2001 but the date appears to have been erased

intentionally.

Ex M-8(12) the original does not bear the signature of the cashier; the college seal bears the date 15.07.2001; the

triplicate copy of the student bears the date is 15 June 2001 the original and the duplicate though bear the date June 2001

the date not clear appears to has been erased intentionally.

Ex M-8(13) college seal is of 15.07.2001; triplicate copy of the student bears the date 15 June 2001 original and

duplicate does not bear the signature of the cashier and the duplicate though show ‘June 2001’ the date appears to have

been erased intentionally.

Wherefore it is evident that there is sufficient discrepancy within the management documents. There was no complaint

either from any of the students or the college about late credit of fees. In all probability the challans are manipulated to

correlate the charge sheet allegation.

16.

I have given deep consideration on the so-called admission and the apology letter give by the 1st Party in his

reply to the charge sheet, in his remarks to the Enquiry Report and the grounds urged by him in the appeal memo.

Subsequently he withdrew from his stand; one has to understand the mental status of a man who is under the threat of

losing his job before reaching the stage of superannuation. It is quite natural for him to extend apology in anticipation of

leniency in the disciplinary proceedings. As admitted by the 2nd Party none other official is charge sheeted except the

1st Party workman. It has come in the evidence of MW-2 that at the end of the day’s transaction the supervisor checks

the closing balance and in none of the challans the signature of the supervisor is found. Even if there are occasional

breaches in the due performance of the duties by the 1st Party same gets diluted by the quality of evidence adduced by the

2nd Party before this Tribunal.

17.

It is evident that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were carried away by the reply given

by the workman to the charge sheet seeking leniency for the occasional lapses. Had if they were confronted with the

evidence which is brought before this Tribunal I think the consequence would been otherwise. The punishment order

issued on the workman since does not founded on tangible incriminating evidentiary material same is illegal and not

justified. The 1st Party workman has crossed the age of superannuation and there is no question of reinstatement.

However injustice done to him needs to be compensated by awarding monetary compensation.

AWARD

The Reference is accepted. The 2nd Party Bank is not justified in removing Sh. G S Gopala, from services w.e.f

26.02.2003. The 2nd Party shall treat the1st Party workman as on duty from 26.02.2003 till the date he reached

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4861

superannuation and pay him 60% of the back wages and the difference of terminal benefit/pension within 60 days

of the publication of the Award, otherwise the amount shall carry future interest of 8% per annum. The amount

received by him towards interim relief shall be deducted while computing the monetary benefit.

(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 18th June, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1181-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dkjiksjs'ku cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 20@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 25-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@5@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Corporation Bank, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.06.2019.

[No. L-12012/5/2008-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED : 20TH June 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

C.R No. 20/2008

I Party

II Party

Sh. H. Somappa,

S/o Pakeerappa,

Sanadi Manzil Building,

Opp Patel Engineering Works,

3rd Cross, Nehru Nagar,

Belgaum District - 590 010.

The Managing Director,

Corporation Bank,

Head Office,

Mangaladevi Temple Road,

P.B No. 88,

Mangalore - 575 001

Appearance

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Pradeep S Sawker

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/5/2008-IR(B-II) dated 31.03.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’

hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

4862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank in imposing the penalty of ‘dismissal from

services’ vide order dated 30.09.2005 on Sh. H. Somappa, Clerk is legal and justified? If not, what relief

the concerned workman is entitled?”

1.

The 1st Party workman was working at Belgaum Currency Chest of the 2nd Party Bank between 28.02.2005 to

05.04.2005; on allegation of serious misconduct he was placed under suspension pending enquiry w.e.f. 05.04.2005. The

Domestic Enquiry was ordered in the matter. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges proved,

based on the Enquiry Report he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 05.04.2005.

2.

The 1st Party pleads before this Tribunal that the enquiry was one sided without providing reasonable

opportunity to him. The Enquiry Officer by force obtained a letter from him and closed the enquiry, he has not admitted

the charges; he was not allowed to give his statement of defence and was not permitted to submit his written brief. The

finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse in nature. The Disciplinary Authority imposed maximum penalty of dismissal

from service, it is harsh, excessive and highly disproportionate. He had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority

to reopen the enquiry and to provide him opportunity to defend his case, but the same was dismissed without providing

him any opportunity; he is unemployed and has a large family to maintain.

3.

The 2nd Party in their counter statement justified their action and contended that the 1st Party committed serious

misconduct of removal of 59 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denominations aggregating to Rs. 29,500/- from the cash

entrusted to him. He had admitted the charges unequivocally by pleading guilty to the charges levelled against him in his

letter dated 30.07.2005 and sought for mercy; a statement to that effect is recorded in the enquiry on 30.07.2005. In spite

of the admission of guilt, enquiry was conducted by appointing Enquiry Officer. In view of the admission of guilt by the

1st Party workman the Enquiry Officer concluded the Enquiry and submitted his finding holding him guilty of the

charges. On 27.09.2005 he appeared for the personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority, he was asked whether he

would like to take assistance of any Union Representative which he denied; he submitted that he regrets for his actions

for which he is charged; he pleaded for leniency in the punishment. On the independent analysis of evidence and taking

into account the submissions made by the 1st Party workman the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of

‘Discharge from the services of the Bank’. The enquiry held against him is fair and proper.

4.

On the rival pleadings of the parties touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry a Preliminary Issue was

framed in that regard. After enquiry on the issue it was answered in favour of the 2nd Party Bank upholding the validity

of Domestic Enquiry.

5.

Thereafter 1st Party did not prosecute his case, his advocate retired from the case of the 1st Party. Notice issued

to 1st Party to the changed address furnished by him returned as ‘No such address’.

6.

The allegation as per the charge sheet is, On 04.04.2005 the Manager and the Officer of the Branch being the

Joint Custodians of Currency Chest Belgaum, took out 72 packets of Rs. 500/- denominations and 2900 packets of

Rs. 100/- denominations from the vault. The amount was handed over to Sh. Felix Rebeiro, Officer and Sh. N M Daghe,

Clerk and the 1st Party for sorting; the sorting work commenced with Rs. 500/- denominations notes and at 1 p.m

Sh. Felix Rebeiro noticed shortage of 59 pieces of Rs. 500/- denomination currency notes in 3 packets out of which

2 packets were already verified and signed by him and other packet which was yet to be verified by him. Suspecting

more shortage of currency notes, Sh. Felix Reberio arranged for recounting of the entire currency note packets of

Rs. 500/- denomination and it was found that in 3 packets, 59 pieces of Rs. 500/- denomination were missing; though the

3 packets contained only 62, 89 and 90 pieces each as against 100 pieces in each packet. The Manager on being apprised

of missing of the currency notes brought the matter to the notice of the Manager Sh. Achar who arranged for a thorough

search of the note counting area in the Currency Chest, but could not trace the missing currency notes. The staff

members concerned were called and were asked to remove their shirt and banian as a measure of self check, though the

other 2 immediately removed their shirt, 1st Party was initially not inclined to remove his shirt; at the insistence of Sh.

Achar he removed the shirt and in the process a few currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination fell on the ground.

Immediately the matter was reported to the Zonal Manager and he rushed to the Currency Chest along with Senior

Manager (Security) and the Manager(Personnel). On Enquiry the 1st Party confessed to them orally that the currency

notes lying on the floor were the ones which he had clandestinely removed and concealed on his person. On baring his

chest few more pieces of Rs. 500/- fell off from his shirt/banian. On verification there were in all 56 pieces of Rs. 500/-

denomination notes. On further checking of his personal hand bag, another 3 pieces of Rs. 500/- denomination notes

were found. Thus, total 59 pieces of Rs. 500/- denomination notes amounting to Rs. 29,500/- tallied with the shortage

noticed at the Currency Chest. On 04.04.2005 at 3 p.m he confessed by way of a written statement about having

clandestinely removed the 59 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination and having concealed them.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4863

7.

During the preliminary hearing responding to the question of the Enquiry Officer that whether he pleads guilty

of all or any of the allegations alleged against him, he pleaded guilty and did not wish to avail the assistance of any

Union Representative to defend him at the enquiry; he further pleaded that he is the sole bread winner of the family of 4

children and a lenient view may be taken in his favour. He further gave a letter dated 30.07.2005 admitting the

charges/allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer in view of his categorical statement

supported by his letter dated 30.07.2005 held him guilty of the charges.

8.

The Disciplinary Authority gave personal hearing and before him also the 1st Party pleaded for leniency in

punishment. Vide considered order dated 30.07.2005 the Disciplinary Authority observed “.....such depraved conduct is

totally unexpected of an employee of the Bank. Unless such conducts are deprecated and exemplary punishments are

awarded, it would breed indiscipline. The dishonest intent of the employee is clear from the records of the case. An

employee found guilty of such grave misconduct is not a fit person to be retained any longer in the services of the Bank,

where public money is involved and highest level of integrity and honesty is expected of its employee....” Thus the

Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the punishment order of ‘discharge from service of the Bank’ as envisaged

under clause 6(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002.

9.

As the validity of the Domestic Enquiry held against the 1st Party workman is already upheld, the short question

that remains for ponderance is quantum of punishment. In view of judicial pronouncements,

a)

2001 (I) LLJ 1330 SC, Tripura Gramina Bank and others vs Tarti Baran Roy and

another.

b)

2000 (II) LLJ 1395 SC, Janatha Bazaar vs South Canara Central Co-operative

Wholesale Stores Ltd., and others

c)

1995 (1) LLJ-KAR (DB) = 1995 (1) LLJ 233 (SB), D Padmanabudu vs Bank of India

and another.

d)

AIR 1988 SC 2311 = 1998 LAB I.C 2514 = AIR 1998 4 SCC 310, Union Bank of

India vs Vishwa Mohan.

e)

2002 (1) LLJ 234 SC, Regional Manager, RSRTC vs Ghanshyam Guptha.

f)

AIR 1997 SC 2661, Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited vs Kala Singh

g)

AIR 2000 SC 3028, State Bank of India vs Tharun Kumar Banerjee.

h)

1999 (II) LLJ 155, Baby Vijayan vs Industrial Tribunal & Another.

i)

ILR 2001 KAR 2914, KSRTC vs Ramanna

It is the position of law that the misappropriation/thrift of public money is a grave misconduct which deserves to be met

with a stringent punishment order and the Labour Court as to contain itself from intervening. The impugned punishment

is both legal and justified viz a viz the gravity of misconduct. The 1st Party does not deserve any relief under the

jurisdiction of section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act. Hence,

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 20th June, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

4864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 25 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1182-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dksydÙkk iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydÙkk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 30@2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 25-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&32011@02@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2019

S.O. 1182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kolkata Port Trust, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25.06.2019.

[No. L-32011/02/2013-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 30 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Pioneer Security Agency

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, learned counsel for Kolkata Port Trust

On behalf of the Workmen

:

None

Dated: 10th June, 2019

Industry: Port & Dock.

AWARD

By Order No.L-32011/02/2013-IR(B-II) dated 10.07.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Pioneer Security Agency, sub-contractor of M/s. ABG Haldia

Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd. main contractor of Haldia Dock Complex is justified by terminating the service of

16 (sixteen) no. of workmen as per the Annexure-I is legal and or justified? What relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

2.

When the case is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for Kolkata Port Trust is present but none is

present for other parties. It transpires from record that though this reference is pending in this Tribunal since 22.07.2013

and inspite of all the opportunities, neither the union has not filed its statement of claim, nor the managements have filed

its written statement to proceed further with the case.

3.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present

in respect of termination of the sixteen concerned workmen as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore, there

exists no dispute for adjudication.

4.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 10th June, 2019

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4865

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1183-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 15@2017½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@08@2017&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore 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 26.06.2019.

[No. L-12012/08/2017-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED

:

13th JUNE 2019

PRESENT

:

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

C R No.15/2017

I Party

II Party

Sri Basappa Gandigappa Mulimani, R/o Sadageri

Oni,

At Post : Kundagol,

DIST : DHARWAD

The Chief Manager (P&HRD),

State Bank of India,

T S Complex, Solapur Road,

HUBLI.

Appearances :

I Party :

Shri A. M. Patil, Advocate

II Party :

Sh. V. A. Byatnal, Advocate

1.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labourvide order No. L-12012/08/2017-IR(B-I) dated 08.05.2017 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 management of SBI, Hubli in terminating and non regularizing the services of the

workman, Sri Basappa Mulimani from the services of Bank is justified? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

2.

Consequent upon receipt of the reference, both parties were issued notices and they appeared through their

respective advocates. Though several opportunities were provided they have not filed their respective statements. They

have not responded to the notice issued thereafter also.

3.

In the above circumstance, there is no other go except to Reject the Reference. Hence,

4866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Reference is Rejected

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 13th June 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1184-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/;

jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 14@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@121@2000&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-41012/121/2000-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2007

Smt. Aruna, Robin & Rohit,

LRs of Late Shri Ashok Manikam

R/o New Basti, 389, Sarra Pipal,

Behind Narmada Floor Mill,

Ranjhi, Jabalpur (MP)

…Workman

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway,

Jabalpur (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of June 2019

1.

As per letter dated 9-1-2007 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred

to by word ‘Act’, as per Notification No.L-41012/121/2000-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur

(MP) in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Manikam w.e.f. 18-9-85 is justified or not? If not, what

relief the applicant is entitled to?”

2.

The case of workman in his statement of claim is that he was employed as a monthly rated casual worker under

the management of DRM, Central Railway, Jabalpur and worked from 25-5-78 to 18-9-85 continuously, hence obtained

temporary status in service but has been terminated by an oral order without notice or compensation. He raised a dispute

with the ALC, Jabalpur. After Failure of Conciliation, a reference was made by Central Government to this Tribunal.

Also, it was alleged that firstly, the dispute was not referred by Chief Labor Commissioner to the appropriate Court

hence workman filed Writ Petition No. 14055/06 before Hon’ble High Court to the Chief Labor Commissioner and it

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4867

was in compliance of that direction, the reference was sent to this Tribunal. The workman alleged that his termination is

against law and unjustified being violative of Section 25-F of ID Act,1947. He accordingly prayed for relief of

reinstatement with all backwages and benefits setting aside the termination.

3.

In their statement of defense, management specifically denied that workman was under the employment or

engagement of DRM, Central Railway Jabalpur for the period 25-3-78 to 18-9-85. It was also pleaded that the reference

is highly belated as the dispute was raised in the year 2000 i.e. after 15 years of the alleged termination of workman on

September 1985. It was also pleaded that the reference is highly belated as the dispute was raised in the year 2000 i.e.

after 15 years of alleged termination of workman on September 1985 hence liable to be rejected. It was further pleaded

that the Casual Card No. 187953 as alleged by the workman as never been issued by the management and the name of

the workman doesnot find mention in the list of casual labors. Accordingly it has been prayed that the reference be

answered against the workman.

4.

Workman filed and proved photocopy of documents sent by ALC, Jabalpur to Secretary, Ministry of Labor on

30-5-2000. The two documents with same contents have been filed and marked Exhibit W-1 & W-2 which is clerical

mistake on part of concerned clerk requires to be corrected. Workman further files photocopy of petition under Article

226, copy of reference which are Exhibit w-3 & W-4 respectively.

5.

Workman died during the pendency of proceedings hence his wife and children were impleaded as

L Rs. Workman side examined the widow of the workman Smt. Aruna of the witness who was cross examined by

management. management examined Rakesh ku.Soni an employee of management as witness who has proved the copy

of casual register, copy of live register and letter to Divisional Manager dated 10-3-2008 which are Exhibit M-1 to M-3

respectively.

6.

During the proceedings, the workman side absented themselves at the stage of argument hence argument of

Shri A.K. Shashi learned counsel for management were heard. Workman was given opportunity to file written argument

which was not availed.

7.

After having perused the records in the light of argument, following points come up for determination-

(1)

Whether the workman side successfully proved the continuous employment of workman for a

period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination?

(2)

Whether the alleged termination of services of the workman Late Shri Ashok Manikam w.e.f.

18-9-85 is justified in law?

(3)

Relief to which the workman is entitled?

8.

Point for Determination No. 1 & 2

Since these two points are interconnected hence they are being taken up together. Before proceeding Section 2(s), 25(B)

& 25(G) of the ‘Act’ required to be mentioned here and are reproduced 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

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 authorized 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

4868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.

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.

Respective claims of the parties have been detailed earlier. The burden to prove the fact of continuous employment for

240 days in the year preceding the date of termination is on the workman is settled principles of law. Workman side has

examined the widow of the workman who has stated that her husband worked with the management from 25-5-78 to

18-9-85 continuously and obtained temporary status in employment. His services were terminated without hearing, notice

or compensation. Hence arbitrary and violative of law. His termination is liable to be quashed. In her cross examination

by management, witness has stated that the dispute was raised by her husband after 15 years. He was given appointment

order, she cannot tell the name of the officer who had issued the appointment order and date of appointment order. she

doesnot know as to how many days her late husband worked with the management and in which year. She denied that her

husband was never engaged by the management.

9.

The case of the management is that late workman was issued a casual card No. 187953 which has been

specifically denied by the management witness as stated on oath that no such card appearing this number has been issued.

He also produced live register and casual register for the period September 1977 to 11-9-1981 and register for the period

11-1-78 to 11-8-81 which is regarding the casual workers working with the management and name of the deceased

workman does not find mentioned in these registers. He has further filed and proved Exhibit M-3 letter issued by

management Head office that no such worker was ever found employed according to casual labor register and no casual

card bearing No. 187953 was issued by the management. there is nothing in the cross examination of the management’s

witness to disbelieve him on this point hence sole statement of widow of the workman is held less reliable as compared

to the statement of management’s witness supported with documents. Accordingly the case of the workman that he was

in continuous employment of the management as casual labor for the period as alleged by him or for a period of 240 days

in the year preceding the date of his termination is held not proved. Accordingly, the alleged termination is held not

against law. Point for Determination No. 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

10.

Point for consideration No. 3

Admittedly the workman has raised the dispute after 15 years of his alleged disengagement hence his claim is also barred

by delay and latches on his part. This fact coupled with the findings arrived at earlier in this judgment, lead to the

conclusion that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

11.

In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP) in

terminating the services of Late Shri Ashok Manikam w.e.f. 18-9-85 is justified and legal.

(2)

Workman/ LRs are not entitled to any relief.

Dated:13.6.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1185-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 131@2003½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@48@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4869

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 131/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-12012/48/2003-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/131/2003

Shri Arun Kumar Patel,

S/o Shri B.P.Patel,

L-107, Kotra Sultanabad,

T.T.Nagar,

Bilaspur (MP)

….Workman

Versus

Dy.General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Hamidia Road,

Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of June 2019

1.

As per letter dated 31-7-2003 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ,hereinafter referred

to by word ‘Act’ as per Notification No.L-12012/48/2003-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Dy.General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Bhopal in imposing the punishment of dismissing the services of Shri Arun Kumar Patel

S/o Shri B.P.Patel w.e.f. 28-9-01 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?”

2.

According to the workman, he was dismissed from service by way of punishment vide order dated 28-9-2001

which spelt an economic death after having putting merely 15 years of service without blame, appeal for

reconsideration of this harsh punishment was also dismissed by Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 21-2-02, a mercy

petition seeking review also made same effect thereafter a dispute was raised and after failure of conciliation, the

reference was sent to this Tribunal by the Central Government. According to the workman, the punishment is excessive

and harsh hence disproportionate to the charge. Also alleged that it is not intention of workman to challenge the validity

of enquiry or legality of punishment based there on but the sole issue for consideration urged is to mould the relief in

exercise of powers conferred by Section 11-A of the ‘Act’ in the interest of social justice on the principle of

proportionality of punishing having regard to all relevant factors of the case.

3.

In the written statement of defense, it has been pleaded on behalf of management that while workman was

working as Assistant in HET branch of the Bank at Bhopal, he was served a chargesheet dated 27-5-00 wherein 4

charges were levelled against him. Proved charges were regarding fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.63000/- from the Saving

Bank Account of Shri Anand Sharma and another fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.49000/- at different occasions from the

account of Ku. Homa Roy Choudhary and Smt. Basanti Roy Choudhary by forging signatures of these account holders.

According to management, a departmental enquiry was conducted giving the workman fair chance to defend him. The

Enquiry Officer found the charges proved and submitted Enquiry Report to Disciplinary Authority on 29-3-2001. The

Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of Enquiry Officer and after issuing showcause notice to the workman

and considering the reply filed by the workman in response to the notice, the Disciplinary Authority imposed

punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 28-9-01 and appeal was preferred by the workman before

Appellate Authority which was dismissed keeping in view the seriousness of charge vide order dated 21-2-2002. Also

pleaded is the fact that since the reference is only with reference to the quantum of punishment, hence legality of enquiry

4870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is not point to be considered. According to management, the punishment is proportionate to the charges hence require no

interference.

4.

At the stage of evidence, the workman filed his affidavit. The case first proceeded exparte against management

which was recalled by an order by my learned predecessor. Thereafter during the pendency of reference, the workman

absented himself. Following issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 1-6-2017:-

1.

Whether punishment imposed against workman is harsh and deserves to be modified ?

2.

If so, to what relief the workman is entitled?

No further evidence was produced by any of the parties. At stage of argument, workman or learned counsel

were not present hence argument of Shri Ashish Shroti learned counsel for management were heard. I have perused the

record.

5.

Point for Determination No. 1.

Undisputed is the fact that two charges firstly that the workman withdrew an amount of Rs.63000/- from the Saving

Bank Account of Shri Anand Sharma by forging signature of Account holder and secondly that the workman

fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.49000/- from the joint Account of Ku. Homa Roy Choudhary and Smt. Basanti

Roy Choudhary by forging signatures of these account holders was proved. Now the question remains to be considered

is whether the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the charges proved or not or whether the punishment is so

shockingly disappropriate deserving interference by this Tribunal.

6.

The sole case of the workman is that his record of 15 years was unblemished and dismissal has resulted into

economic death of the family and workman should have been given an opportunity.

7.

It is true that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future but integrity of employee, that too of a

Banker, is the first and foremost ingredient which cannot be compromised. The charges proved are criminal in nature.

The record does not show that any prosecution was launched against the workman.

8.

Learned counsel for management has referred to case Ganesh Santaram Sirur vs SBI (2005)1SCC13 in

support of his argument. In the case referred, a Bank Manager was found guilty of sanctioning of loan to his spouse in

disregard of provision of service rules. In view of the magnitude and gravity of the charge, punishment of removal was

found not disappropriate.

Inspite of the fact that amount of money allegedly misappropriated was not huge, following observations of Hon’ble

Apex Court made in Para 12 of the judgment is being reproduced as follows:-

“The Bank Manager/Officer and employees and any Bank nationalised/or non-nationalised are expected to act and

discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank. Acting beyond one’s authority is by

itself a breach of discipline and Trust and a misconduct. In the instant case Charge No. 5 framed against the appellant is

very serious and grave in nature. We have already extracted the relevant rule which prohibits the Bank Manager to

sanction a loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner. While sanctioning the loan the appellant do not appear to have

kept this aspect in mind and acted illegally and sanctioned the loan. He realized the mistake later and tried to salvage the

same by not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name of his wife though the draft was issued but not encashed. The

decision to sanction a loan is not an honest decisions. The Rule 34(3)(1) is a rule of integrity and therefore as rightly

pointed out by Mr. Salve, the respondent Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as Bank Manager. The punishment of

removal awarded by the Appellate Authority is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before

concluding, we may usefully rely on the judgment Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC. Etawah & Ors. vs. Hoti Lal & Anr.

reported in 2003(3) SCC 605. Wherein this Court has held as under:-

"If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of

functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt

with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a

fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in

that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside

the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal."

9.

In another case Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC Vs Sohanlal (2004)8 SCC 218 referred to by learned

counsel for management. the bus conductor collected money from passengers for their tickets and did not issue tickets to

the passenger lead to monetary loss to the corporation. Dismissal from service for this charge was upheld by Hon’ble

Apex Court.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4871

10.

Another case Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs A.T.Mane (2005)3SCC 254 referred to by learned counsel

for management, the charge against the Bus conductor was that he misappropriated the amount which he received from

the passengers for their tickets by not issuing tickets to them. Punishment of dismissal for this charge was again proved

by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11.

In the light of these settled principles as referred to above, the punishment of dismissal awarded to

workman w.r.t. the proved charges as mentioned above cannot be said shockingly disappropriate to warrant any

interference by this Tribunal. Hence holding the punishment proportionate to the charges, Issue No.1 is answered

accordingly.

12.

Point for Determination No. 2

In the light of finding on Issue No.1, the workman is held entitled to no relief.

Dated: 12.6.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1186-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV

cSad vkWQ ifV;kyk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 53@2012½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Patiyala,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 53/2012

BETWEEN :

Roop Singh Sahi, S/o Sri Bahadur Singh

R/o H.No. 3/694, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow

AND

1.

A.G.M.-III(D)/Staff (Disciplinary Authority)

State Bank of Patiyala, Regional Officer IIIrd (D)

21, Vihan Sabha Marg, Lucknow.

2.

Enquiry Officer, State Bank of Patiyala

Enquiry Officer, C-3, Janakipuri, New Delhi – 110058.

3.

The Branch Manager

State Bank of Patiyala, Hussainganj, Lucknow

4872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

1.

The workman, Roop Singh Sahi, S/o Sri Bahadur Singh, R/o H.No. 3/694, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow has filed the

present industrial disputes under provisions of the Section 2A (iii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘Act’), against the alleged injustice done to him by the management of the State Bank of Patiyala for

adjudication before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court, Lucknow with the following

prayer:

“to hold that termination of service of the workman is illegal and unjustified and he be reinstated in services

with continuity of service of service along with fill back wages and other fringe benefits, which he would have

received as if his services would not have been terminated.”

2.

In brief it is admitted case of the parties that the workman, Roop Singh Sahi, in brief, had been served upon a

charge sheet dated 28.08.2009, and finally was removed from services vide order dated 09.02.2010.

3.

The workman has alleged that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management was in violation of the

principles of natural justice and prayed for setting aside the same along with consequential punishment order dated

09.02.2010 and he be reinstated with consequential benefits. On the contrary the management has defended the

departmental proceedings with submissions that the domestic inquiry, conducted by the management, was in consonance

with the principles of natural justice and workman was afforded all opportunities to defend himself, therefore, the

statement of claim of the workman is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit.

4.

The workman has filed its rejoinder reiterating averments already made in the statement of claim.

5.

The management has filed documentary evidence; whereas the workman neither filed any documentary

evidence nor filed any oral evidence on affidavit and the case was being fixed for filing management evidence on

affidavit; when the workman moved application, W-26 to withdraw the case; whereupon the management endorsed its

“no objection” on the application, W-26.

6.

Therefore, in view of prayer of the workman for withdrawal of the case; and no opposition from the

management, there remains nothing to adjudicate upon in the case as no grievance is left with the workman. Resultantly

no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned. The industrial dispute, under adjudication is adjudicated

accordingly.

7.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

23rd May, 2019

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1187-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,lchvkbZ ykbQ ba';ksjsa'k daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 118@2011½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 118/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of SBI Life Insurance

Company Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4873

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT

LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 118/2011

BETWEEN :

Manish Mohan Singh S/o Sri Jagdish Singh

E-1962, Rajajipuram

Lucknow – 226017

AND

1.

Managing Director

SBI Life Insurance Company Limited

Natraj, Gundavali Cillafe

Andheri Kurla road, Andheri East

Mumbai – 400099.

2.

Associate Vice President – HR

SBI Life Insurance Company Limited

Natraj, Gundavali Cillafe

Andheri Kurla road, Andheri East

Mumbai – 400099

3.

Regional Director (Central Region)

SBI Life Insurance Company Limited

IInd Floor, Metro Tower, (Opp. Saharaganj)

Shahnajaf Road

Lucknow – 226001

AWARD

1.

The workman, Manish Mohan Singh S/o Sri Jagdish Singh, E-1962, Rajajipuram, Lucknow has filed the present

industrial disputes under provisions of the Section 2A (iii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Act’), against the alleged injustice done to him by the management of the SBI Life Insurance Company Limited for

adjudication before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour Court, Lucknow with the following

prayer:

“To declare the termination of the workman as illegal, wrong, arbitrary and unfair labour practice

consequently, the workman is entitled for reinstatement along with full back wages and consequential benefits,

as per the law of the land in the interest of justice.”

2.

The case of the workman, Manish Mohan Singh, in brief, is that he had been working with the opposite parties

as Branch Sales Manager w.e.f. 13.05.2010 in Harodi branch; and his terms of appointment were governed by the terms

of appointment order dated 20.05.2010 and was on probation for a period of six months; and during such appointment he

was not given any administrative or financial powers. It is submitted by the workman that on completion of his

probation, he was transferred to Muzzafarpur, Bihar vide order dated 19.11.2010. The workman has submitted that, prior

to joining; he met with an accident at Lucknow on 25.05.2009 and was advised for bed rest by the doctor. It is alleged by

the workman that when he recovered from injuries, he approached the employers to join his duties on 27.01.2011; but he

was denied and was forced to resign from the service to settle his accounts finally. The workman has submitted that he

was served upon a show cause notice dated 21.02.2011 & 24.02.2011 regarding his absence; which was replied by him

vide letter dated 24.02.2011 & 01.03.2011 respectively. The workman has alleged that the opposite party had terminated

his services vide order dated 25.04.2011, without serving any charge sheet or conducting any inquiry etc; accordingly, he

has prayed that he may be reinstated with consequential benefits.

3.

The management of the SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd has filed its preliminary objection regarding

maintainability of the statement of claim of the petitioner; and has contended that the applicant does not fall within the

category of ‘workman’ as he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 58,333/- besides other perks and his basic salary was

4874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rs. 23,333/-, which is much more than the limit of Rs. 10,000/-. The management has stated that the applicant was given

offer of appointment to the post of Branch Sales Manger in Grade M-6 level L-2 vide letter dated 07.05.2010 and on the

acceptance of the same by the applicant, he was appointed as such vide appointment order dated 20.05.2010. It has

specifically been submitted by the management that the job profile of the Branch Sales Manger is to supervise & guide

the Unit Manager and the Agency Force, working under him and to train and educate them about new products; and to

motivate them to solicit and procure business and develop business in his area of operation. It is submitted by the

management that the services of the employee were terminated in accordance with ‘SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Terms and Conditions of Service of Directly recruited Officers’ and the same does not suffer with any infirmity. It is

stated by the management that the applicant had been on probation and in absence of any confirmation, his probation

deemed to have continued under SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Terms and Conditions of Service of Directly

Recruited Officers; and accordingly, there was no need for any formal inquiry in case of the workman before termination

of his services. Thus, the management has prayed that the claim of the applicant be rejected being devoid of any merit.

4.

The workman has filed its rejoinder, paper No. W-22, wherein he has reiterated averments already made in the

statement of claim and has introduced nothing new.

5.

The parties filed documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective case and forwarded oral as

well as written arguments.

6.

Heard learned authorized representatives of the parties at length and perused entire evidence on record.

7.

The applicant has submitted that he had been appointed vide appointment letter dated 20.05.2010; wherein it

had been categorically mentioned that his appointment shall be w.e.f. 13.05.2010. It is also the case of the applicant that

though he had been designated as Branch Sales Manager; but he had not been assigned any administrative or financial

powers; and his duties were non-managerial and non-supervisorial in nature; hence his case is covered within the

definition of applicant. He has also submitted that as per appointment letter his probation period lasted for six months

and his termination by the employers thereafter, without conducting any inquiry and affording any defence, is voilative

of natural justice. He has relied upon:

i.

JT 1987 (2) 101 A. Sundarambal vs State of Goa, Daman & Diu & others.

ii.

(1994) 3 SCC 510 S.K. Maini vs M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited & others.

iii.

(2001) 7 SCC 394 Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar vs Bombay Iron & Steel & others.

iv.

(2006) 6 SCC 548 Anand Regional Coooperative Oil Seeds Grower’s Union Ltd. vs Shailesh Kumar Harshad

Bhai Shah.

v.

(2011) 6 SCC 584 Davinder Singh vs Municipal Council, Sanaur.

vi.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8422 of 2009 M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs State of U.P. & others.

8.

Per contra, the management of the SBI Life Insurance Company, stressing its earlier preliminary objections, has

submitted that the applicant does not fall within the category of ‘workman’ as he was paid much more than the statutory

limit of Rs. 10,000/-. The management has argued that the applicant was appointed vide appointment order dated

20.05.2010 on the post of Branch Sales Manger in Grade M-6 level L-2 on his acceptance of the offer of appointment

and his work obligations as Branch Sales Manager were supervisory in nature. It is submitted by the management that

the services of the employee were terminated in accordance with ‘SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Terms and

Conditions of Service of Directly recruited Officers’ and the same does not suffer with any infirmity. It is argued by the

management that the applicant had been on probation and since his probation was not confirmed, his probation deemed

to continue under SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Terms and Conditions of Service of Directly Recruited Officers; and

therefore, no inquiry was required before termination of the services of the applicant. The management has relied upon:

i.

CDJ 2015 SC 880 Chauharya Tripathi & Others vs. L.I.C. of India & Others.

9.

Having gone through the rival pleadings of the parties, documents relied upon, oral evidence adduced and oral

as well as written submissions of the parties, two points emerge out for adjudication of the present industrial dispute

firstly, as to whether the applicant viz. Sri Manish Mohan Singh falls within the definition of ‘workman’; and secondly,

as to whether non-confirmation of the services of the applicant, who was on probation, shall amount to extension of

probation; and if not so, its effects.

10.

The parties were called upon to adduce evidence on entire merits of the case, including preliminary objection

raised by the management regarding non-coverage of the applicant under definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2 (s) of

the Act. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in 2019 LLR 498 Management of M/s TE Connectivity India Private Ltd. vs The

General Secretary, TE Connectivity Staff Association (TECSA) & another held that whether the claimant was a technical

hand or was appointed for managerial or administrative or supervisory duties would be possible only after evidence in

full so recorded.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4875

11.

Taking into account, first issue, the Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides definition of

workman which reads as under:

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)

………….

(ii)

………….

(iii) …………

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand 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.”

In this regard, the case of the workman is that though he was designated as Branch Sales Manager; but he had not been

assigned any administrative or financial powers; and his duties were non-managerial and non-supervisorial in nature;

hence he is covered within the definition of workman. In rebuttal, the management has filed a formal written preliminary

objection on the point of coverage of the workman within the definition of workman, paper No. M-4, a copy of which

had been supplied to the workman, seeking its reply. The management has enclosed photocopy of salary sheet, paper

No. 4/7; and work liabilities of Branch Sales Manger, paper No. 4/12 in its written preliminary objection, paper No. M -

4. The workman, instead of filing any specific reply to the preliminary objection, moved by the management, has filed is

statement of claim, paper No. W-5 and the management again filed its preliminary objection, M-8 along with its written

statement, M-9. The management reiterated its version regarding maintainability of the industrial dispute through

preliminary objections in the repeated preliminary objections as well as in the written statement. The management has

enclosed the salary sheet of the workman, paper No. 9/20 and work liability of Branch Sales Manager, paper No. 9/21.

The workman was provided with the copy of preliminary objections, M-8 and written statement, M-9; but the workman

while filing its reply, W-11 did not file any parawise reply to the preliminary objections, M-8.

A close scrutiny of the work liability sheet, which is not adequately rebutted by the workman through parawise reply, in

his reply, W-11, goes to show that the role of the applicant as Branch Sales Manager was ‘to ensure administrative and

financial discipline’ and to train the Unit Managers/IAs. The relevant portion of the sheet, paper No. 9/21, containing job

liability of the workman is reproduced hereunder:

Position Title

Branch Sales Manager/ABSM/Sr. BSM (RA/RS/04)

Role

•

Leading the team of Unit Mangers individual specific goals should be known to

Ums, will check turn over to achieve branch business goals.

•

Act as a profit centre head to develop quality business based on various

parameters.

•

To ensure administrative and financial discipline.

Reporting To

•

………………..

Key Responsibilities

•

Achieve the new business premium targets and renewal premium targets of the

branch.

•

Maintain a High IA Activation standard, IA productivity and UM productivity.

•

Reduction in “Zero-business” IA’s and termination on account of MBG norms.

•

Ensure cost effectiveness and encourage cost consciousness at all levels.

•

Inculcate a habit of timely submission of bills/documents/papers/data among the

team members as per the requirement.

•

Ensure effective and need based training exposure to UM’s and IA’s.

•

Create and Nurture a customer centric environment by conducting customer

meets and organizing customer service camps at periodic intervals-share the

minutes with senior regional functionaries.

•

Reduce customer complaints of Misselling and take effective steps to prevent

circulation of unauthorized publicity materials. Take proactive measures to

rectify irregularities pointed out by the audit team.

4876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Hon’ble Apex Court in CDJ 2015 SC 880 Chauharya Tripathi & others vs. LIC of India & others, while holding that

appellant Development Officers in corporation are not ‘workman’ has observed duties of Development officers as under:

“The Court then referred to the nature of duties of the development Officers and pointed out that a

Development Officer was to be a whole-time employee and that his operations were to be restricted to a

defined area and that he was liable to be transferred. He had no authority whatsoever to bind the

Corporation in any way. His principal duty appeared to be to organize and develop the business of the

Corporation in the area allotted to him, and for that purpose, to recruit active and reliable agents, to train

them, to canvass new business and to render post-sale services to policyholders. He was expected to assist

and inspire the agents. Even so, he had not the authority either to appoint them or to take disciplinary action

against them. He did not even supervise the work of the agents though he was required to train them and

assist them. He was to be a friend, philosopher and guide of the agents working within his jurisdiction and

no more. He was expected to ‘stimulate and excite’ the agents to work while exercising no administrative

control over them. The agents were not his subordinates. He had no subordinate staff working under him.”

Thus, it is evident in the light of the adduced documentary evidence, paper No. 15/18 to 15/38 as well that the

applicant, Manish Mohan Singh in capacity of Approving Authority/Branch Sales Manger, regarding petty expenses

bills, had financial powers also to disburse various petty expenses.

Accordingly, in view of the discussions made here in above and the law cited, it is established that the applicant,

Manish Mohan Singh is not a workman as provided in the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

12.

Now coming to the second issue involved in the case, as to whether non-confirmation of the services of the

applicant, who was on probation, shall amount to extension of probation; and if not so, its effects. In this regard the

applicant has submitted that he was on probation for a period of six months as per terms of the appointment letter dated

20.05.2010 and in event of non-extension of his probation, he would be deemed confirmed after expiry of period of six

months, therefore, the management was under obligation to hold a formal disciplinary inquiry before terminating the

services of the applicant. On the contrary, the management has contended that non-extension of the probation period

shall amount to deemed extension of the probation period; and accordingly, the management was free to take action

against the applicant under Clause 6 (1) of the SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Terms & Conditions of Service of

Directly Recruited Officers. The parties have relied upon documentary evidence in this regard, to sustain their respective

pleadings.

Admittedly, the applicant, Manish Mohan Singh had been appointed by the opposite parties vide appointment

letter dated 20.05.2010 and the para 6 of the said appointment letter provides a probation period of six months. There is

no iota of evidence that the said period of six months was either extended by the management or the applicant’s services

were confirmed by the management of SBI Life Insurance Company Limited.

Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 59185 of 2008 Raj Kamal Sonkar vs High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad Through R.G., decided on 07.04.2016 has observed as under:

“The Supreme Court, after considering various Constitution Bench, judgments as well as series of other

decisions, noticed that there are three line of cases on the point viz. (a) where in the service rules or the letter

of appointment a period of probation is specified and power to extend the same is also conferred upon the

authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the

prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there is no bar against

termination at any point of time after expiry of the period of probation; (b) where while is a provision in the

rules for initial probating and extension thereof, a maximum period for such extension is also provided

beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. The inference in such cases is that officer concerned

is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiry

order of termination has not been passed. And (c) where though under the rules maximum period of

probation is prescribed, but the same require a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of

confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such, even if the maximum period of

probation has expired and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor the person concerned has

passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has

expired.

7. The Supreme Court considered the Constitution Bench judgments in the case of Sukhbans Singh vs. State

of Punjab, G.S. Ramaswamy vs. Inspector General of Police, Mysore and State of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali

Khan and held that under the first line of cases where no maximum period of probation is stipulated under

the Service Rules or the letter of appointment, a probationer cannot be deemed to be confirmed. It is held

that in such cases there is no bar against termination at any point of time, before the service is confirmed.”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4877

From perusal of the above referred case law, and the letter of appointment along with the SBI Life Insurance Company

Ltd. Terms & Conditions of Service of Directly Recruited Officers, it is crystal clear that the case of the applicant, falls in

the first line of cases where no maximum period of probation is stipulated under the Service Rules or in the letter of

appointment, therefore, a probationer cannot be deemed to be confirmed; hence there was no bar against termination of

the applicant, Manish Mohan Singh, at any point of time, before the service is confirmed by the SBI Life Insurance

Company Limited. However, from perusal of the documents relied upon by the parties, it is evident that the applicant

had been issued show cause notices dated 21.01.2011 & 24.02.2011, which had been replied by the applicant vide letters

dated 24.02.2011, 01.03.2011 and 04.03.2011; moreover, it is purported from the face of record that while issuing the

termination order dated 19.03.2011 the management of SBI Life Insurance Company Limited has adequately taken into

account the replies of the workman; hence the principles of natural justice seem to have been duly complied with by the

management.

13.

Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited hereinabove, I am of considered

opinion that the applicant doses not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ and the action of the management of SBI Life

Insurance Company Limited in terminating the services of applicant, Manish Mohan Singh was neither illegal nor

unjustified; accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

14.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

22nd May, 2019

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1188-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

LVsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 23@2014½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow 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 26.06.2019.

[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 23/2014

BETWEEN :

Ameer Hider S/o Sri Wazeer Haider

R/o Mohalla Bangla, Village & Post – Nasirabad

District – Rai-Bareli – 229307

AND

1.

State Bank of India, through its Zonal Manager

Vth Zone, Halwasiya Court, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

4878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

Manager, State Bank of India

Jayas Branch, Jayas, Rae-Bareli.

AWARD

1.

The workman, Ameer Haider S/o Sri Wazeer Haider, R/o Mohalla Bangla, Village & Post – Nasirabad, District

– Rai-bareli has filed the present industrial disputes under provisions of the Section 2A (iii) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), against the alleged injustice done to him by the management of the State

Bank of India, Jayas, Rae-bareli for adjudication before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal –cum- Labour

Court, Lucknow with following prayer:

“(i) To declare that the action of the management in terminating the services of workman by oral order dated

24.08.1999 is neither legal nor justified.

(ii)

To set aside the order dated 13.07.2000, whereby the claim of the applicant/workman has been rejected by

the respondent bank with a direction to the employees to reinstate the applicant/workman in service together

with entire consequential benefits including back wages and other service benefits.”

2.

The case of the workman, Ameer Haider, in brief, is that he had been appointed by the opposite parties in sub-

ordinate Cadre as part time Farrash on 1/3rd pay of the regular pay scale w.e.f. 01.07.1997. He has submitted that he had

been paid bonus amounting to Rs. 640.18 on 24.09.1998 and was given 1% higher rate of interests on the fixed deposit as

was admissible to the regular employees of the bank. The workman has stated that though he was appointed in sub-

ordinate cadre; but looking into his educational qualification he was ought to have been appointed in clerical cadre and

when pressed hard upon the authorities for the same his services were terminated by the opposite party no. 2 ‘orally’

w.e.f. 24.08.1999 in an arbitrary and illegal manner without following provisions of the section 25 of the Act as he had

worked for more than 240 days; likewise he was not paid any retrenchment compensation; nor was given any notice nor

any notice pay in lieu thereof. The workman has submitted that aggrieved form his illegal termination, he preferred a

Writ Petition No. 4642 (SS) of 1999 before Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow; wherein the Hon’ble High

Court directed the management to consider the case of workman for appointment on Class IV post on sub-ordinate cadre;

whereupon the management passed an order dated 13.07.2000, rejecting the claim of the workman. When the workman

again approached to the Hon’ble High Court, he was directed to approach this Tribunal, condoning the delay.

Accordingly, the workman has filed present industrial dispute with prayer to set aside his illegal and unjustified oral

termination dated 24.08.1999; along with order dated 13.07.2000, with consequential benefits including back wages and

other service benefits.

3.

The management of the State Bank of India, has disputed the claim of the workman, by filing its written

statement; wherein it has submitted that the workman had never been given any appointment letter inasmuch as no

prescribed procedure was adopted in the case of the workman; rather he was engaged as part time Farrash; hence he was

not entitled for any of the privilege claimed by him. The management has submitted that as per bank’s Rule, a person

who is class 10th pass, cannot be appointed on class IV post; and that he was given bonus and extra 1% interest on FDR,

erroneously, as he had worked for more than 30 days at a stretch in the bank as part time Farrash and this cannot entitle

him to be presumed to be a regular employee of the Bank. It has been submitted by the bank that since he had never been

appointed, following due procedure, and was only engaged in exigencies for short duration accordingly, there was no

need for compliance of provisions of section 25 F of the Act. Therefore, the management has prayed that the claim of the

workman be rejected out rightly, being devoid of merit, without any relief to the workman.

4.

The workman has filed rejoinder, reiterating his contentions, already made in the statement of claim.

5.

The parties filed documents in support of their respective case and adduced oral evidence. The workman

examined himself; whereas the management examined Sri Mukesh Kumar Bajpai, Branch Manager, SBI, Jais Branch in

support of their case. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other apart from forwarding

oral arguments in support of their respective cases.

6.

Heard authorized representatives of the parties and perused entire evidence on record.

7.

The learned authorized representative of the workman has submitted that the workman had been appointed by

the opposite party establishment in sub-ordinate Cadre as part time Farrash on 1/3rd pay of the regular pay scale w.e.f.

01.07.1997 and worked continuously as such upto 24.08.1999 when his services have been terminated in an arbitrary and

illegal manner without following provisions of the section 25 of the Act and without making any payment towards

retrenchment compensation; or given any notice or any notice pay in lieu thereof. He has also submitted that the bank

failed to produce any Rule which prohibits appointment of the workman in sub-ordinate category due to having higher

qualification. He has relied upon:

(i) 1994 (69) 419 FLR Man Phool vs Union of India & others; Hon’ble Allahabad HC.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4879

8.

In rebuttal, learned authorized representative of the management has submitted that the workman had never

been appointed by the Bank, following due procedure, rather he was engaged as part time Farrash in exigencies; and

since he was not appointed by the Bank was discontinued without compliance of provisions of section 25 of the Act. He

has also stressed that as per Bank’s Rule for appointment in sub-staff category a person should not be class 10th pass;

accordingly, the workman’s claim was rightly rejected by the Bank vide order dated 13.07.2000 & 04.03.2002. He has

relied upon:

(i)

(2014) 15 SCC 353 Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Haryana vs Diwan Chand.

(ii) (2016) 16 SCC 610 State of Madhya Pradesh & another vs Vinod Kumar Tiwari.

9.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned authorized representatives of the

parties and scanned entire record available in light thereto.

10.

The workman has come up with a case that he had been appointed by the opposite parties as part time Farrash

w.e.f. 01.07.1997 and worked as such on 1/3rd pay of the regular pay scale till 24.08.1999 when his services have been

terminated through oral order without assigning any rhyme or reason; also that he was neither given any notice nor been

paid any notice pay in lieu thereof, in utter violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. The workman has

produced photocopy of the various documents in support of his uninterrupted working with the Bank.

11.

Per contra, the management of the Bank has come up with a case that the workman had never went through

regular selection procedure, prescribed for the sub-staff inasmuch as he had never been appointed by the Bank at any

point time; rather he had been engaged by the Bank as and when required in exigencies. It is also the case of the

management that when he had not been appointed by it, therefore, there was no need to comply with provisions of the

section 25 F of the Act. Moreover, the Bank has also pleaded that the workman was ineligible for appointment, as per

Bank Rules, by virtue of fact that he was high school pass; whereas for getting appointment in sub-staff category, the

candidate should not have been high school pass; accordingly, his claim for appointment was discarded by the Bank vide

order dated 13.07.2000.

12.

The parties have adduced number of documents in support of their respective cases. The workman has filed his

salary details w.e.f. July, 1997 to 23.08.1999, paper No. 16/7, photocopy of the pass book of his saving bank account,

paper No. 16/9 to 16/14, which has details of payment being made to him on account of salary/pay from July, 1997 upto

23.8.99, photocopy of FDR amount to Rs. 1000/- with rate of interest @ 12.5%, paper No. 16/20; wherein after his name

‘Staff’ has been mentioned. All these documents are admitted by the authorized representative of the management.

The management has filed photocopy of Establishment Charges Register for the period 01.07.97 to 31.3.99,

paper No. 21/1 to 21/22, Establishment Charges Register for the period 01.04.99 to August, 99, paper No. 21/25 to 21/30,

photocopy of STDR Ledger No. 1, paper No. 21/31 to 21/32. All these documents are admitted by the authorized

representative of the workman.

13.

Now having gone through the rival pleadings of the parties and documentary evidence adduced by them, it is

evident that the workman had been working with the opposite parties ‘part time temporary safai karmchari’ and been

paid 1/3rd of the regular pay scale applicable to the post, as it is evident from the photocopy of the establishment charges

register, paper No. 21/1 to 21/30 filed by the management itself. Again he had been paid for working, for the period

from July, 1997 to 23rd August, 1999, which is evident from the photocopy of salary details, paper No. 16/7, filed by the

workman and admitted by the management. Also, that the workman had been paid bonus for the period 01.04.97 to

31.03.98, along with other clerical and subordinate staff of the bank, as it is evident from paper No. 16/1, filed by the

workman and admitted by the management. Apart from this the workman has also filed STDR certificate for Rs. 1000/-

in his name as ‘Staff’, paper No. 16/20, which is again admitted by the management.

Thus, from the perusal of above mentioned documents admitted to the parties, it is crystal clear and established

beyond doubt that the workman, Ameer Haider had been working as “Part time Temporary Safai Karmchari” and been

paid 1/3rd of the regular pay scale applicable to the post for the period 01.07.1999 to 23.08.1999 continuously. Though

there is no iota of evidence from either side that he ever went through regular selection procedure or was issued any

written order or appointment order for the same; but his continuous and uninterrupted working with the bank, for more

than 240 days, preceding twelve months from the date of termination is established. It is also established from the

respective pleadings of the parties that while terminating his serves ‘orally’, the mandatory provisions of Section 25 F

were not followed by the Bank.

14.

Further, the Bank has also come up with a case that the workman was not eligible for the appointment in the

bank services as per Rules of bank a person who is High School pass, cannot be appointed on a class IV post of farrash

etc., however, the Bank utterly failed to file copy of any such Rule or Regulation which debars a person who is High

School pass cannot not be appointed in the bank. It is well settled law, that mere pleading or self serving affidavit cannot

be substantial proof; rather a party which pleads existence of any Rule/Regulation has to corroborate its stand through

cogent documentary evident and the management could not succeed this test while making a case that as per Rules the

4880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman, being High School pass was ineligible for appointment as subordinate staff in the Bank. Moreover, when the

Hon’ble High Court High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide its order dated 18.05.2000 in Writ Petition No. 4642 of

1999 (S/S) directed the bank to consider the case of the workman for appointment on class IV post in subordinate cadre,

keeping in view that the workman had already worked for more than two years and there was no order in writing

regarding termination of his services, the Bank, in compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 13.07.2000,

considered the case of the workman and rejected the same vide order dated 3.07.2000, wherein it mentioned as under:

“2- बक के नयमानुसार चतुथ ेणी अधीनथ वग म नयुित हेतु अधकतम शै"#णक यो%यता क"ा दस फेल है और

आप हाई कूल पास ह, अतः नयुित हेतु सुपा/ नह0ं ह”

Thus, the Bank while passing the order dated 13.07.2000, did not mention any such particular Rule or

Regulation, which prohibits a person from appointment in Bank services. The management being a Government

undertaking was not expected to act in such an evasive manner; rather it was required to make a specific quote to the

Rule and here in the present industrial dispute before this Tribunal again the Bank did not come with any specific Rule or

Regulation which deprived the workman from being considered with the appointment in the Bank as sub staff.

15.

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Pal Singh & another 2012 (2) ALJ 325 while

scrutinizing the validity of the award of the Labour Court found that the findings of the Labour Court were not perverse;

wherein the Labour Court has drawn out a finding that the workman had continuously worked for more than 240 days in

calendar months prior to termination of his services; and the termination of services was without any notice and without

payment of retrenchment compensation; and accordingly, Hon’ble High Court held that the relief of reinstatement with

60% of back wages, awarded by the Labour Court was justified. Hon’ble High Court in para 47-50 of its judgment, has

referred decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural

Marketing Board, Rohtak (Hayana) (2010) 3 SCC 637: (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 787 as under:

“47.

........….. the appellant worked as a daily wager under the respondent from 1.6.1988. His services

were terminated in December, 1993. He served a notice of demand dated 3012.1997 on the respondent

contended that his services were terminated orally without complying with the mandatory provisions of

Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that he may be

reinstated in service with full back wages from the date of illegal termination and he may be regularized

according o the Government policy. The respondent did not respond to the demand made by the appellant

and by and order dated 23.7.1999, the State Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act to

the Labour Court. Thereupon the Labour Court passed the award dated 18.7.2006 holding that the appellant

had admittedly completed 267 days from 1.6.1988 to 30th April, 1989 and his services were terminated without

any notice or notice pay and without payment of retrenchment compensation and the termination was,

therefore, in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in his

previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.12.1997.

48.

The respondent challenged the award of the Labour Court before the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana, in writ petition and by order dated 9.12.2008, High Court allowed the said writ petition and set

aside the award dated 18.7.2006 of the Labour Court and directed the respondent instead to pay

compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant. Aggrieved by order dated 9.12.2008 of the High Court, the

appellant filed appeal before the Apex Court. By placing reliance upon earlier decision rendered by the Apex

Court in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra),l allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated

9.12.2008 passed by the High Court and directed that the appellant will be reinstated as a daily wager with

50% back wages forthwith.

49.

While dealing with the question of discretionary powers of the Labour Court, in para 17 of the

decision, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“17.

Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute

relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in

the facts and circumstances of the case to direct reinstatement of a workman with 50% back wages taking

into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the High Court in exercise of its

power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the same, except on well

settled principles laid down by this Court for a writ of certiorari against an order passed by a court or a

tribunal.”

50.

In the said case while drawing distinction between the cases of this nature and State of Karnataka

vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (AIR 2006 SC 1806 SC 1806) in para 22 of the said decision Hon’ble Apex

Court held as under:

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4881

22.

The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) cited by the counsel for the respondent

relates to regularization in public employment and has no relevance to an award for reinstatement of a

discharged workman passed by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act without any direction for

regularization of his services.”

16.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, discussions made hereinabove and law relied on, it is

established that the workman, Ameer Haider, who was engaged as Part time Temporary Safai Karmchari by the opposite

party Bank, had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination and his services

have been illegally termination on 24.08.1999 by the management of the State Bank of India without following the

mandatory provisions of the Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion

that the workman, Ameer Haider is entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service along with 60% of back wages

and other consequential benefits under Rules, within 08 weeks of publication of the award, failing which; the back wages

shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.

17.

The reference is answered accordingly.

LUCKNOW

18th April, 2019

RAKESH KUAMR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1189-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bZLV

dksLV jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 78@2012½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41011@44@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of East Coast Railway,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-41011/44/2012-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,BHUANESWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No.78 of 2012

Dated this the 5th day of February, 2019.

Present: Shri B.C.Rath,LL.B., Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

Between:

The Senior Divisional Operation Manager,

East Coast Railway,Khurda Road, At/P.O./P.S. Jatni, District-Khurda (Odisha).

… First Party- Management.

4882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The District Secretary, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangha,

Khurda Disrrict, Qrs. No.VA/23/3, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar,

District-Khurda (Odisha).

…2nd. Party Workman/Union

Appearances:-

For the First Party Management : Sri C.R.Nayak.

For the 2nd Party workman : S.K.Mangaraj

AWARD

This award arises out of a dispute referred by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour exercising its

authority conferred by clause (d) sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947(herein after “ the Act’’) vide Letter No.1-41011/44/2012-IR(B-1) dated.31.02.2012 and the schedule of the

reference is :- “ Whether the demand of the Union, Bharat Mazdoor Sangh for payment of salary for the period from

5.4.2006 to 17.05.2006 to Sri S.V.Rao, Asst.Guard, is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled ’’ ?

2.

On being noticed the 2nd Party workman has submitted his statement of claim wherein it is alleged that he was

working as Asst. Guard of East Coast Railway and posted at Khordha Road,Jatni under the control of Chief Controller of

Senior Division Operation Manger,East Coast Railway in the year 2006. He applied for leave for the period from

5.4.2006 to 30.5.2006 and he resumed his duty on 30.5.2006 after submitting medical certificate towards illness and

fitness. But, his authority neither allowed him to sign the Attendance Register nor allotted him any duty from 31.5.2006

onwards. Rather, a charge sheet was issued to him alleging that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly from

5.4.2006 to 17.6.2006. It is the claim of the disputant workman that he made a representation to his authority for release

of his salary/wages for the above period. But , it did not pay any attention for which he approached the labour

machinery and raised a dispute . Attempt of conciliation between the parties having been failed the dispute has been

referred to for its adjudication as mentioned earlier.

3.

In its written statement the Management has refuted the allegations raised by the disputant workman. It is the

stand of the Management that the disputant remained absent unauthorisedly for the above period for which a

departmental proceeding was initiated. He did not submit his leave application with proper medical certificate towards

his illness and fitness i.e. medical report of the Railway hospital .His leave was never sanctioned by his authority and

as such the disputant workman was not entitled to any salary/wages for the above period on the principle of “ no

work no pay “. That apart, it has been contended by the Management that the alleged disputant being related to the

year 2006 could have been raised earliest and an appeal could have preferred before the appropriate authority if the

disputant workman was not genuinely allowed to discharge his duty or his leave application was rejected out rightly

without due consideration. The above omission and commission on the part of the workman raises serious doubt on his

claim and the same suggests that the applicant workman has not come with clean hand while raising the dispute before

the Labour Machinery. Hence, prayer has been made for rejection of the statement of claim.

4.

It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of statement of claim and written statement by the parties the

disputant workman failed to adduce any evidence and remained absent for which his evidence was closed and the

management was asked to adduce its evidence. As the management declined to adduce any evidence, the case was

posted for argument. The disputant workman submitted a written note of argument without adducing any evidence

whereas the Management advanced an oral argument at length refuting the allegations raised by the disputant

workman.

5.

Keeping in view the pleadings and arguments advanced by the parties the point for determination is whether

the disputant was denied salary/wages for the period from 05.04.2006 to 17.06.2006 and if so such refusal of

wages/salary by the Management was legal and justified/If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

6.

As per his own pleadings the disputant workman remained absent from 05.04.2006 to 30.05.2006. Though he

has pleaded to have submitted an application for leave on his joining on 31.05.2006 along with a Medical Certificate

towards his fitness, no documentary or oral evidence has been adduced in support of his such pleading that he submitted

leave application along with fitness certificate. On the other hand it appears from his pleadings that he did not submit

any application seeking permission to avail leave before he remained absent from 05.04.2006 onwards. Rather, it is

apparent from the pleadings of the parties that he was proceeded with a departmental enquiry for his unauthorised

absence from 5.4.2006 onwards. His statement of claim is silent to disclose if he had ever approached his superior

authority for non-sanctioning of the leave by his immediate authority. When there is no iota of evidence to establish

that he had submitted any application for the leave along with medical certificate and it is emerging from his

pleadings advanced in the statement of claim that he did not submit any leave application prior to his remaining

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4883

absent from 5.4.2006 onwards, it can be safely inferred that his absence from duty from 5.4.2006 onwards was

apparently unauthorised one . It is not disputed that he was allotted with a quarters at Jatni. The disputant workman

has not refuted the claim of the Management that the Railway hospital is situated at Jatni. It is emerging from the

pleadings of the parties that the disputant workman had not submitted any medical certificate of Railway hospital

towards his illness or fitness. In the above back drops it can be safely said that the disputant workman did not perform

any duty and he remained absent from 5.4.2006 to 17.6.2006 without permission or prior intimation to his authority.

There is no evidence on the record to suggest that he had ever submitted any leave application on medical ground for

the above period along with proper medical certificate towards his illness and fitness. On the other hand it is

emerging that such absence from duty being unauthorised, he was proceeded with departmentally. Hence, on the

principles of ‘’ no work no pay’’ the disputant workman is not entitled to salary/wages for the above period of his

unauthorised absence. Therefore, the demand of the Union of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangha for payment of salary to the

disputant workman for the period from 5.4.2006 to 16.7.2006 is not legal land justified. Thus, the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

Reference is answered accordingly.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1190-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

f=os.kh vFkZewolZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 49@2014½ dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&26012@02@2010&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Triveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 19.06.2019.

[No. L-26012/02/2010-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No. 49 of 2014

Dated of passing of the award 08.04.2019

Present: Shri B. C. Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar

Between:

Management of M/s.-Triveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. Opposite to Joda Womens College,

Joda, P.O.Joda,Dist. Keonjhar (Odisha)

…First Party- Management

Versus

Yunus Ansari, At- Chasnalla, 2 No. Basti,P.O.Chasnalla, Dist. Dhanbad,

Dhanbad, (Jharkhand)

…2nd. Party Workman/Union.

4884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:-

For the First Party Management : Sri B. Swain.

For the 2nd Party workman : Self

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment have referred an Industrial Dispute between the above

named parties for its adjudication vide its order No,L-26012/02/2010-IR(M) dated. 04.09.2014 in exercising its

authority conferred under Clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section(2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947(14 of 1947) and the Schedule of the reference is as follows:-

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Triveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the service of

Md. Yunus Ansari,Dumper Operator w.e.f. 16.9.2009 is legal and justified? What relief Sri Ansari is entitled

to ? ’’

2.

The case of the 2nd party workman is that he was appointed as a Dumper Operator with effect from

21.12.2005 in the establishment of 1st Party Management after being successful in an interview. He was transferred and

posted in different places of mines and he was discharging his duty to the utmost satisfaction of his employer .On

14.9.2009 While he was driving his Dumper, the same had some mechanical problem. His Mechanical in charge

advised him to proceed to the near by R.C. to get the vehicle repaired. But, on that day evening he was placed under

suspension on the allegation of disobedience of the order of the Supervisor of Mines. He was informed that an enquiry

was fixed on the next day i.e. on 15.09.2009. On the next day he was called by the General Manager and the Manager,

HR to the chamber of General Manager and forced to sign on a paper. The content of the paper was dictated by the

officer and he was forced to admit his guilt that he drove the Dumper in to the mining activity area inspite of a

prohibition. On his confessional statement he was dismissed from service with effect from 16.9.2009. According to

him no charge sheet was issued to him for any misconduct or for disobeying the order of the Supervisor of the

Mining blast area. There was no departmental enquiry and he was not given any opportunity of hearing before his

dismissal. Hence, he raised a dispute before the Labour Machinery . As there was no conciliation between the parties,

the reference has been made to this Tribunal as mentioned above.

3.

The 1st Party Management has resisted the claim taking a stand that the reference is bad in the eye of law

since the disputed workman having voluntarily confessed his misconduct by accepting his dues in a final settlement, is

estopped to raise any dispute. According to the Management the 2nd party workman being a Dumper Operator drove

his vehicle to the blasting area of the mines though he was entry to the area by the Supervisor- in-Charge of blasting.

According to the Management when blasting operation was going on 14.9.2009, the 2nd Party workman drove his

Dumper nearer to the blasting face and fortunately no bolder hit the Dumper or the workman. The Supervisor-in-

charge of blasting tried to stop the Dumper but, the driver did not listen him and forced his entry with the Dumper.

Hence, on receipt of a written complaint from the Supervisor, the 2nd Party Workman was called and placed under

suspension and directed to attend an enquiry to be held on 15.9.2009 at 10 A.M. It is the claim of the Management

that the workman confessed his guilt in writing on his own hand writing. On such admission there was no necessity of

issuing any charge sheet and holding a departmental enquiry. Having regard to his confession in writing and the

gravity of the misconduct committed by him he was dismissed from service and he was asked to collect his dues

towards his final settlement. Having received the full and final settlement amount without any protest the workman

has no cause of action to raise any further dispute. As such prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim statement.

4.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper

adjudication of the dispute.

ISSUES

1.

Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2.

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman by the 1st. Party Management is fair and

proper?

3.

Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., in terminating the

service of Md. Yunus Ansari,Dumper Operator with effect from 16.9.2009 is legal and justified?

4.

What relief the workman is entitled to ?

5.

As per the settled principle the fairness of the departmental proceeding is required to be heard as a preliminary

issue. But, in the case at hand both the parties agreed and submitted for hearing on all the issues simultaneously. That

apart it is emerging from the pleading and evidence of the parties that the disputant workman is stated to have been

dismissed from service on the basis of his written admission to his guilty and on a fact finding report. Further, for the

sake of convenience all the issues are taken for consideration simultaneously as they are inter linked to each other.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4885

6.

The 1st party Management has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the misconduct of the

disputed workman to justify his stand. It has examined one Sri K. K. Mandal, the AGM Mines as M,W.No.2 and one

Balakrishna, Asst. Manager as M.W.No.3 who were said to have been present at the spot when the disputant workman

drove his Dumper towards the blasting site. M.W.No.1 is the General Manager(HR) of the 1st Party Management.

Document like the Photo copy of Charge Memo dt.14.9.2009.,Photo copy of the reply of the workman, Photo copy of

the proceeding of the enquiry, photo copy of the order of termination dated.16.9.2009, copy of full and final settlement

of calculation of the workman, photo copy of the report/complaint dated.14.9.2009 to Sri S.Balakrishnan and Photo

copy of the report/complaint dated.14.9.2009 to Sri K.K.Mandal are pressed in to evidence by the Management and

they are marked as Exts.1 to 7. The 2nd Party workman has not adduced any evidence except advancing his argument

challenging his dismissal order.

7.

On a close reading of the pleadings advanced by the parties in their written statements and the evidence

adduced by the Management it is emerging that the disputant workman was working as a Dumper operator/driver on the

relevant day of incident i.e. on 14.9.2009 being appointed on 21.12.2005. Further, it is emerging that on 14.9.2009 when

blasting operation was going on in the mining area of the 1st. Party Management, the disputant workman drove his

vehicle towards the said area. According to the workman his vehicle was not inside the blasting zone and there was no

prohibition or signal to him to restrict the movement of the vehicle/ Dumper to the said area and his trespass, if any ,

was due to ignorance. It is the claim of the 1st. Party Management that the action and conduct of the workman in driving

the Dumper closer to blasting area and entering into the same unauthorisedly is an act of deliberate negligence. Inspite

of warning given by the Supervisor who was present at the blasting clearance site, the workman took his Dumper into

the blasting face. According to the Management the workman disobeyed the order of the Mining Supervisor and

having entered into the blasting area he put his life as well as the property of the Management(the Dumper) in to

danger. Thereby he committed gross negligence of duty for which he was placed under suspension on the said day

when he made an admission in regard to his misconduct. The 2nd party workman has not disputed the written

admission made by him vide Ext.2. But, it is his stand that the said admission was taken from him by threat and his

admission statement was scribed as per the dictation of the Management Officer.

It is also seen from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that no charge sheet was issued to the 2nd. Party

workman before his dismissal on 14.9.2009 and there was no departmental enquiry to find out if any misconduct is

committed on the part of the 2nd Party workman. It appears from the pleadings and evidence of the Management that

punishment of dismissal was imposed on the basis of the written admission of the disputant workman and the

preliminary enquiry held on 15.9.2009 at 10 A.M, in the office of the General Manager(HR). Thus, it is found that the

management imposed the punishment of dismissal (major punishment) without issuing any charge sheet to the disputed

workman and holding any enquiry to find out if any misconduct was committed on the part of the delinquent workman

by taking his Dumper into the blast zone. No opportunity seems to have been given to the workman to put forth his

stand before issuing his dismissal order except seeking a explanation from him on a complaint of the Supervisor and

considering the explanation of the workman under Ext.2 wherein he had admitted to have driven the Dumper towards

the blasting zone. The so called admission made by the workman can not be treated as a conclusive evidence against

him as a workman/employee is not bound to disclose his defence and give any explanation during the course of

preliminary enquiry. It is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Bikanir and Jeypore –Versus-

J.S.Khadawat 1987LAB I.C that where it was concluded that the employee was guilty of misconduct/offence solely on

the basis of admission made by him in the preliminary enquiry, the termination of his service without holding regular

enquiry would be invalid. In the above back drop the order of dismissal imposed by the Management on admission of

the delinquent and a fact finding report i.e. on the basis of preliminary enquiry can not be sustained in the eye of law.

Since such order of dismissal was issued without holding any departmental enquiry to find out any misconduct

committed on the part of the workman and the order was passed in violation of principle of natural justice i.e without

hearing the workman.

8.

The next question arises for consideration if this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to find out if any misconduct was

committed on the part of the disputed workman to justify the order of his dismissal. In this regard it is well settled that

where a domestic enquiry has been held or the domestic enquiry has been found to be defective, the management

would be entitled to adduce evidence in support of those charges for which the workman employee is dismissed . In the

case between Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co -Versus- Ludh Budh Singh reported in AIR 1972 S.C. 1031 and in

several other cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in cases where the enquiry has been found to be

invalid and no enquiry at all was held at all the Tribunal may give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case

and in doing so the Tribunal tries the merits of the case itself. Hence, the argument advanced on behalf of the

management that the action of dismissal can still be sustained by the employer by justifying it before the Tribunal by

adducing relevant evidence holds good. It has been settled in the case under reference that even though the Tribunal can

be satisfied that no enquiry was held before dismissal of the workman, the Tribunal can take evidence adduced

before him into consideration to find out if any misconduct was committed on the part of the workman justifying his

dismissal. Having regard to the above settled principle it may be mentioned here that the management has examined

4886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M.W.No.2 the then Supervisor and M.W.No.3 to prove the misconduct committed by the workman. On a close

reading of the evidence adduced by M.W.No.2 and M.W.No.3 and taking the same into consideration read with the

admission/explanation given by the workman vide Ext.2 it appears that the Dumper driven by the workman entered

into the blasting zone while blasting operation was going on. There is nothing substantial in the cross examination of

M.W.No.2 to disbelieve his version that he took all prohibitory measure to restrain the movement of the vehicle/human

being inside the blasting zone. Despite his such action the disputed workman drove his vehicle into the blasting site.

Such conduct/action of the workman is undoubtedly an act of disobedience of lawful order of his authority. Further, the

testimony of M.W.No.1 find support from the written admission made by the workman. Though, the workman has

pleaded and argued that such admission was made due to threat and it was written on the dictation of the Management

Officer, it is found that the admission in Ext.2 was made by the workman in his own hand writing in Hindi and in his

colocal language. Hence, it is hard to believe that Ext.2 was obtained on threat or the contents of the admission

statement was written as per the dictation of the Officer of the Management. Thus, the evidence of the management

before this Tribunal is adequate to prove the misconduct i.e negligence of duty as well as disobedience of his superior

authority on the part of the workman.

9.

The next question arises for consideration is whether the Management was justified by dismissing the

workman from service for such misconduct. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the workman was

ever found or held guilty of any misconduct earlier. There is no evidence to establish that any sort of damage was

caused to the Dumper of the management by such act of negligence or insubordination on the part of the work man.

He should have been given a chance without being dismissed for such negligence of duty. The law is well settled that

punishment imposed on the workman can be interfered where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the

gravity of misconduct committed by the delinquent workman or the punishment is so harassed as to suggest

victimisation. It is also well settled that U/s.11-A if the Tribunal finds the order of discharge or dismissal unjustified,

it could reappraise evidence and interfere in the punishment imposed by the Management. Thus, law is well settled

that the Tribunal should interfere only in a case where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate . Coming to

the case at hand the punishment of dismissal on a single instance of negligence of duty or disobedience of the order

of the authority is apparently shocking and highly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved against the

workman.

In view of the discussions made above the punishment of dismissal by the Management without holding an

enquiry is not sustainable in the eye of law. However the Management could able to prove the misconduct on the part of

the workman by giving direct evidence in the Tribunal. The evidence led by the Management is not demolished by the

workman and rather the same finds support from the admission made by the workman on his own hand writing and

language. But, the punishment of dismissal being found shockingly the disproportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct committed by the 2nd Party , I am inclined to reinstate him without any back wages except the benefit to

which he is entitled on being deemed to be in service and I do not feel it necessary to impose any separate punishment

for the misconduct brought and proved by the evidence of the management adduced directly in this Tribunal since no

benefit has been extended to the workman towards his back wages on his reinstatement.

Hence, the management is directed to reinstate the 2nd Party Workman with immediate effect on publication of

the award failing which the 2nd Party Workman is entitled to full wages from the date of this order.

The reference is answered accordingly.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1191-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

ikjknhi ekbfuax ,.M daLVªD'ku izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 85@2016½

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29012@34@2016&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4887

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Paradeep Mining & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 19.06.2019.

[No. L-29012/34/2016-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No. 85 of 2016

Dated of passing of the award 13.02.2019

Present: Shri B. C. Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar

Between:

The Management, M/s. Pradeep Mining & Construction (P) Ltd,

(Contractor of IDC Chromites Mines, Talangi, Sukinda) At/P.O./P.S.-Chorda,

Jajpur Road, Dist-Jajapur,Odisha, Pin-755019.

…First Party- Management

Versus

Sisir Dehury,aged about 50 years, S/o.Late Rout Dehury,

Vill-Kusumundia, P.O. Ransol, P.S. Kaliapani,

Dist-Jajapur, Odisha, Pin-755018.

…2nd. Party Workman/Union

Appearances:-

For the First Party Management : None

For the 2nd Party workman : Self

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment have referred an Industrial Dispute between the above

named parties for its adjudication vide its order No,L-29012/34/2016-IR(M) dated.14.12.2016 in exercising its

authority conferred under Clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section(2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act,1947 and the Schedule of the reference is as follows:-

“Whether it is justified on the part of the workman Shri Sisir Dehury, not to receive the terminal benefits

offered by the contractor M/s. Pradeep Mining and Construction(P) Ltd.,Jajpur Road,Odisha on the ground that

he should be paid wages for the period from 07.04.2012 to 04.09.2012 actually not worked ? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to ?”

2.

In his statement of claim the 2nd Party- Workman

contends that he was working as a Mazdoor in the

Chromites Mines of the 1st Party Management from 1.12.1998 continuously and uninterruptedly till he was retrenched

from service forcefully on 6.3.2012. According to him he was getting a monthly salary around Rs.8000/- and his

Provident Fund Contribution was deducted and deposited by the 1st Party Management during the period of his

employment. It is his claim that in the General Panchayat Election held in the year 2012 he supported the Congress

Party and as such the workmen of the Management belonging to the group of BJD threatened him to disengage him

from service. On 7.3.2012 the Ist. Party Management did not allow him to work on being influenced by his rival group.

He was not allotted with any work from 7.3.2012 onwards though, he was present in his place of work. He was not

given any notice Pay and Retrenchment Compensation before his forceful retrenchment. Such action of the Management

refusing employment to him without compliance of the requirement of Section 25(f) and 25(n) is illegal and unjustified.

Further, he has prayed that he shall be reinstated with all back wages and service benefits being treated to have been

continuing in service.

3.

It is pertinent to mention here that the disputant workman being aggrieved by the terms of the reference of the

appropriate Government had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha vide W.P(C) No.22129/2017 for changing

the terms and schedule of the reference. The Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated.30.10.2017 have directed this

4888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Tribunal to take the issue of retrenchment and the relief to which the workman is entitled to along with the dispute

referred to for adjudication.

4.

Since the 1st. Party-Managemet did not appear and contest the claim of the disputant- workman inspite of being

noticed, the reference case is heard exparte. During exparte hearing the disputant-workman has filed his evidence in

form of sworn affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. and exhibited documents like copy of his Identity Card issued

by the Management, Copies of wage slips, copies of EPF Slips, Copy of Letter dt.17.4.2012, copy of letter dt.17.4.2012

of the workman, copy of letter of ALC(Central),BBSR,dated.21.9.2012 addressed to Ministry. Copy of letter dt.7.9.2012

of the Management and copy of letter dt.7.6.2012 of the Management which are marked as Exts.1 to 8 respectively.

5.

Keeping in view the terms of the reference as well as the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in its

order dt.30.10.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.22129/2017 the points for consideration are :-

1)

Whether the disputant-workman was retrenched illegally with effect from 7.3.2012 ?

2)

To what relief he is entitled to, if his retrenchment was illegal ?

3)

Whether it was justified on the part of the workman not to receive the retrenchment benefits offered by

the Management on the ground that he should be paid wages for the period from 7.4.2012 to 4.9.2012

6. In his sworn affidavit filed towards his examination in chief the disputant-workman has reiterated the pleadings

advanced in his statement of claim. It has been claimed by him that he was working as a Mazdoor under the 1st Party

Management continuously and uninterruptedly from 1.12.1998 till he was refused work/employment with effect from

7..3.2012. He has asserted that he was discharging his duty with utmost satisfaction of the Management and he was

receiving a monthly salary of Rs.8000/- . The 1st Party Management was deducting from his salary towards his monthly

Provident Fund Contribution. The 1st Party Management refused employment to him at the instance of his rival group

working under the said Management. There was no sufficient reason to refuse employment to him which amounted to

retrenchment. The said retrenchment was made in violation of the provision of Section 25(f) and as such the same is

illegal and unjustified. Hence he has claimed for his reinstatement with back wages and other service benefits. There is

nothing substantial in his unchallenged and uncontroverted oral testimony to disbelieve him. Rather, the documents

Exts.1 to 8 filed by him reveal that the 1st Party Management has issued Ext.1 the identity card wherein the date of

joining of the workman is indicated as 1.12.1998. The wage slips issued in his favour reveal that wages were paid

to him by the 1st Party Management. Provident Fund Contribution was deducted from his monthly wages, The

representation made by the workman to various authorities further reveal that he put forth his grievances for refusal of

employment to him. In the above back drops it can be safely held that the disputant was working as a Mazdoor under

the 1st. Party Management continuously and uninterruptedly from 1.12.1998. It is alleged that he was not paid notice

pay and retrenchment compensation as required U/s.25(f) of the Act when he was refused employment on 7.3.2012.

Therefore, such refusal of employment amounting to retrenchment was illegal and unjustified and the same was in

violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7.

Further, it appears from his unchallenged and uncontroverted pleadings and evidence that other workmen are

continuing in their services and there was no justification to refuse work to him though, he was working as a Mazdoor

for more than 12 years continuously and uninterruptedly in the mines of the 1st. Party Management. Therefore, it is a fit

case wherein reinstatement with all back wages and other service benefits would be the appropriate relief to be awarded

to the workman. Hence, the 1st Party Management is directed to reinstate the disputant- workman within two months

from the date of notification of the award along with 50% of his back wages failing which the disputant is entitled to

interest @ 7.5% per annum on his back wages from the date of this award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1192-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

vkW;y bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 74@2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30012@29@2013&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4889

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Oil India Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

19.06.2019.

[No. L-30012/29/2013-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABAOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No.74 of 2013

Date of passing of the Award 06.02.2019

Present: Shri B. C. Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar

Between:

1.

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Oil India Ltd.

2.

Director for (H.R. & B.I). Oil India Ltd.

3.

Resident Chief Executive, Oil India Ltd.

…First Party- Management

Versus

Shri D.R. Patnaik, S/o. Late Kishore Chandra Patnik,

57- Bivab Estate, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar-2

…2nd. Party Workman.

Appearances:

For the First Party Management : Sri S. K. Senpati

For the 2nd. Party workman : Self

AWARD

This award arises out of a reference made by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide their Order No.

L-30012/29/2013-IR(M) Dated.24.10.2013 in exercise of its authority 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) and the terms and

Schedule of reference sent for adjudication in “whether the action of management of Oil India Limited, Duliajan (Assam)

by dismissing the services of Sri Dipti Ranjan Patnaik, Ex, Supervising Assistant (Accounts) Bay Exploration Project,

Bhubaneswar (Odisha) w.e.f. 10.4.2009, is legal or justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?

2.

Shorn of the unnecessary details the facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute are that the

disputed workman was appointed as a Clerk on 24.3.1982 in the Bay Exploration Project, Bhubaneswar of the First Party

Management and he was designated as Supervising Assistant (Accounts) at the relevant time of dispute. On 15.11.2007

order was issued at the instance of the First Party management by which he was transferred to Duliajan, Assam and

directed to join his new place of posting on 10th December,2007 at latest. Accordingly he was relieved on 17.11.2007

from his Project Office at Bhubaneswar. He did not join his duty at Duliajan after his relieve as a result of which he was

issued with Show Cause-cum- Charge Sheet on 6.5.2008 for his unauthorised absence. After being relieved from his

office at Bhubaneswar the disputed workman submitted a representation before his authority challenging his transfer

order since consent was not obtained from him before transferring him to the Project at Duliajan. When Charge Sheet

was issued and Departmental enquiry was contemplated, he made another representation claiming supply of a copy of the

certified standing order governing the Service Conditions of the Employees of Bay Exploration Project at Bhubaneswar.

He neither submitted his show cause in the Departmental Proceeding nor appeared before the Enquiry Officer for which

Departmental Proceeding was held exparte. The Enquiry Office completed enquiry in absence of the disputed workman

and submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority holding the disputed workman guilty of miss-conduct for his

unauthorised absence. A copy of the report was sent to the Disputed work man and explanation was called for on the

report. Having been satisfied that charges have been established and the same are serious in nature, the Disciplinary

Authority gave an order to discharge the disputed workman from his service with effect from 10.4.2009. Consequently,

the workman raised a dispute before the Labour machinery challenging the order of his discharge and the conciliation

proceeding before the Labour Machinery having been failed a reference is made for adjudication of the dispute as

mentioned earlier.

4890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

The case of the disputed workman is that he was an office bearer of the Bay Exploration Project’s Employees

Union. Hence he was recognised by the Management as a protected workman as per the provisions of the Act. As such

he could not be transferred from his place of posting i.e Bhubaneswar to any other place without his consent. According

to him his transfer as well as his discharge from service are the consequences of vindictive attitude of the Management

as he was participating actively in the Trade Union activities. When he was transferred to Assam, he made a

representation for cancellation of his transfer order taking a ground that he being a protected workman can not be

disturbed from Bhubaneswar office. On receipt of the show cause-cum-charge sheet he made a representation to

provide him a copy of the certified standing order of the Project office at Bhubaneswar since it was necessary for

preparation of his show cause and to defend him self in the departmental proceeding. But, the Management did not

furnish him the copy of the certified standing order for which he could not prepare and submit his show cause and defend

himself in the departmental proceeding. It is also his claim that he was not furnished with the list of documents and list

of witnesses as well as copies of documents by which and by whom the charges of misconducts were going to be

established. In the above manner he was not given due opportunity to defend himself in the Departmental proceeding.

He was not provided with any financial assistance to attend the departmental proceeding conducted in the State of

Assam and he could not avail any scope to cross examine the departmental witnesses as a result the departmental enquiry

was conducted exparte and thereby the principle of natural justice was violated while holding the enquiry as well as

while imposing punishment of discharge . According to him the transfer order was issued in violation of the settlement

dt.16.3.1998 entered into between the Management and the Union. He was discharging his duty with utmost sincerity

and devotion while posted at Bhubaneswar. There was no other allegation against him justifying his transfer. The

punishment of discharge was also shockingly dis-appropriate to the gravity of misconduct allegedly proved against

him. Hence, he has made a prayer for his reinstatement with benefit of back wages and other consequential service

benefits including continuity of his service.

4.

The statement of claim preferred by the workman has been resisted by the Management on a stand that the

disputed work man did not join his duty at Duliajan, Assam inspite of his transfer from Bhubaneswar Project office to

the Project office at Duliajan. When he did not join in his new place of posting even after lapse of three months, he was

issued with a reminder on 5.3.2008 to join in his duty immediately. When he did not report in his place of posting, he

was issued with a charge sheet on 6.5.2008 for his unauthorised absence keeping in view the Clause-19 Sub Clause(i)(e)

of the Certified Standing order of the Company. Though, the workman had assured to join in his duty soon, he did not

join. The explanation submitted by the workman towards his unauthorised absence was not accepted . As a result a

Departmental Proceeding was initiated and one Arun Jyoti Barua Manager,(Employees Relations) was appointed as

Enquiry Officer vide order dt.30.7.2008. Such matter of appointment of Enquiry Officer was also informed to the

workman. According to the Management he was issued with Charge Sheet along with list of documents and copies

thereof. The date of enquiry was fixed on 20.8.2008 and the workman was informed and permitted to participate in the

enquiry taking assistance of co-workers as per his choice. As he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer on the date

fixed, the Enquiry Officer issued another notice to him on 23.8.2008 directing him to attend the enquiry proceeding to

be held in the Head office, Duliajan at Assam on 12.9.2008. Though the Enquiry Committee met as per the scheduled

date and time, the workmen did not attend the enquiry. He was extended further opportunity and the Enquiry was

adjourned to 20.10.2008. When the workman did not attend the enquiry on the next date ie. 20.10.2008, the proceeding

was held exparte as it was wilful absence on the part of the workman. It is the stand of the Management that

opportunity of natural justice as well as the procedures laid down in the certified standing order were followed in the

departmental proceeding. The disputant was given all opportunities to defend himself in the enquiry. But he did not

participate in the proceeding deliberately for which the enquiry was held in absence of the workman. The workman

being found guilty of misconduct was furnished with the report of enquiry Officer and asked to submit his show cause

on such report. As the workman was fond absent unauthorisedly from duty for a considerable period i.e for more than

14 days and he did not join his duty after his transfer and issuance of reminders and having been found guilty of

misconduct for his such unauthorised absence, he was discharged from his service as per the provision of the certified

standing order. There is no scope of interference in the decision of the Management by which the disputant was

punished and discharged from service. Hence, a prayer has been made for rejection of the statement of claim preferred by

the work man.

5.

On the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication of the

dispute.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act ?

2.

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the 2nd party-workman is fair and proper ?

3.

Whether the action of the Management of Oil India Limited, Duliajan (Assam) by dismissing the services of

Sri Dipti Ranjan Patnaik, Ex-Supervising Assistant (Accounts), Bay Exploration Project, Bhubaneswar,

(Odisha) with effect from 10.4.2009 is legal and justified?

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4891

4.

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

6.

In order to establish his claim the workman has examined himself as W.W.No.1. Besides, he has filed and

exhibited documents like copy of the appointment letter dt.9.3.1982, copy of transfer order dated.15.11.2007, copy of

relieve letter dated.17.11.2007,copy of advice of punishment dated.17.11.2009 ,copy of letter dated.7.12.2007

addressed to CMD, copy of the letter to the Head(ER) dated 20.5.2008, Copy of notice of enquiry dt.30.7.2008,copy of

letter to Head (ER)dated.17.8.2008, copy of letter to the Enquiry Officer dated.5.9.2008, copy of letter to the Enquiry

Officer dated.16.10.2008 , copy of letter of enquiry dated.13.12.2008, copy of the letter to the Head (ER)

dated.24.12.2008, copy of the Union Letter requesting protected workman dated.9.4.2009 and copy of advice of

punishment dated.10.4.2009 which are marked as Exhibits 1 to 14 respectively. On the other hand the Management has

adduced oral and documentary evidence to refute the allegations of the workman. One Arunjyoti Baruah Chief

Manager(Employee Relation),Oil India Ltd., Duliajan and another Sri S.K.Senapati who is working as a Head

(Legal),Corporate Office of Oil India Ltd. Noida are examined as M.W.No.1 and M.W.No.2 respectively on behalf of

the Management and documents like Copy of Letter dated 15.11.2007, Copy of Letter dated.5.3.2008, Copy of letter

dated.6.5.2008, Copy of Notice of Enquiry dated.30.7.2008, Copy of letter dt.23.8.2008, Copy of Letter dated

27.9.2008, Copy of the Departmental Proceeding, Copy of Advice of Punishment dated.10.4.2008, Copy of letter

dt.11.9.2008, copy of letter dated.17.4.2008 issued by Central Asst.Public Information Officer the disputant and copy of

letter dated.4.9.2008 from the Head Project addressed to the Disputat are marked as Exts.A to Ext.L respectively have

been filed to refute the allegations.

FINDINGS

7.

The issue of fairness of the departmental proceeding has been taken up simultaneously along with other issues

for finalisation of the adjudication since no prayer was raised from either side to take up the issue of fairness of the

departmental enquiry as a preliminary issue. On the other hand the parties have agreed for hearing of all the issues

simultaneously.

Since all the issues are inter linked to each other they are taken up together for consideration for the sake of

convenience.

It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the workman that being recognised as a protected workman he

could not be transferred from his place of posting without his consent keeping in view the protection given to such a

protected workmen in the Act. Hence, the order of his transfer was abinitio void and non-est. It is also argued that the

Project Office at Bhubaneswar has a different entity than the projects of the Management running in other places. The

certified standing order of the Management is related to the project situated in north east State and it was not applicable

to the workman under the Project at Bhubaneswar. No certified standing order was formulated for the project office at

Bhubaneswar. When he was issued with the charge sheet for his alleged unauthorised absence, he made a prayer to his

Disciplinary Authority to provide a copy of the standing order formulated for the employees of the project at

Bhubaneswar. As he was not provided with a copy of the standing order he could not prepare his defence and he did not

participate in the departmental proceeding for want of copy of standing order. The Enquiry Officer committed a gross

error in holding the enquiry in his absence as he could not be set exparte without supply of the certified copy of the

standing order as claimed by him. The enquiry having been conducted in his absence was a clear violation of the basic

principle of natural justice. As such the workman was deprived of the opportunity of participating in the departmental

enquiry as well as deprived of the opportunity of challenging the materials relied upon by the department in the

departmental enquiry. He was also deprived of the opportunity to put-forth his defence. The punishment order was

passed without taking his above stand. Hence, the order of his discharge is violation of natural justice.

8.

Per contra, it has been strenuously argued on behalf of the Management that the workman can not raise a

contention that he was not given scope to contest the departmental enquiry when he did not deliberately attend the

enquiry proceeding after being notified about the date and time of commencement of such proceeding. It is the claim of

the Management that the departmental enquiry was deferred on two or three occasions in order to give scope to the

workman to participate in the proceeding. When he was noticed about the enquiry and he did not participate in the

enquiry inspite of being noticed sufficiently ahead , he can not claim prejudice and allege that there was violation of

principle of natural justice. It is also argued that t he workman was never recognised as protected workman and at the

time of appointment the workman was informed he would be transferred from one project to another project in case

of exigency. As the Management decided to close the operation of the Project at Bhubaneswar, most of the employees

working under the project were either given V.R.S. or on their option transferred to other project sites of the

Management. The disputant having failed to report to his duty in place of his transfer he was issued with the charge

sheet. Having been found guilty of unauthorised absence, his mis-conduct as contemplated in Clause-19 )1)(i)(e) of the

standing order was established and he was rightly discharged from his duty.

9.

On the aforesaid pleadings and contentions advanced by the parties, more particularly the contentions raised by

the disputed workman that his transfer order being a violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is void

4892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

abinitio and non-est in the eye of law and as such he can not be proceeded with any departmental enquiry for his non-

reporting in the place to which he was transferred, it is to be determined first whether any gross illegality or irregularity

was committed by the Management by transferring the disputant who was allegedly a protected work man and whether

such issue can be taken into consideration by this Tribunal. Law is well settled that order and term and conditions of

appointment is a contract between the Employer and the Employee. It is emerging from the oral testimony of the

disputed work man as well as the terms and conditions laid down in the appointment offer letter i.e Ext.1 that the terms

and conditions of the employment offered to the disputant had a clause that the offeree ( the work man) shall be liable

to be transferred to other sphere of activities/place of operation at the discretion of the Company and he shall be

governed by such rules and regulations that may be applicable. There is no serious dispute that the 1st Party

Management has different projects or fields of operation in different places including Duliajan, Assam.The appointment

letter of the workman had a condition that he could be transferred to other places. The workman has not produced any

rule or circular by which the Management was prohibited from transferring its employees under a Project to another

project or place of operation in administrative exigency. The only contention of the disputed workman is that he was a

recognised protected work man and as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the settlement of 1998

reached out between the Management and the Union he can not be transferred. Though he claims to be an office bearer

of the Employees Union of the project and it was known to the Management, there is no order on the part of the

Management declaring him as a protected workman as contemplated in Sub Clause.(2 )of Rule.61 of the Industrial

Disputes (Central) Rules,1957. The said provision provides that the employer shall, subject to Section 33, sub-

section(4), recognise such workman to be “protected workmen’’ for the purposes of sub-section(3) of the said section

and communicated to the Union, in writing within 15 days of receipt of the names and addresses under sub- rule-(1), the

list of workman recognised as protected workman. For the purpose of recognisation the period is twelve months

from the date of such communication. In the case at hand the evidence is wanting to establish that if at any point of

time the 1st Party Management was ever intimated or informed about the election/selection/nomination of the disputant

as an office bearer of the Union in order to declare him as a “protected workman’’ . The letter dated.9.4.2009 (Ext.13)

of the Union in this regard was issued at the stage of closure of departmental enquiry which suggests that at the time of

transferring the disputant and issuance of show cause notice to the workman, the 1st Party Management had no

information that the disputant was an office bearer of the Employees Union and he should be declared as protected

‘‘workman. There is also no evidence to show that the 1st Party Management had recognised the disputant as a ‘’

Protected Workman’’ . Even if it is accepted that the Management did not recognise or declare him as a ‘’ Protected

Workman’’ deliberately in order to harass him, the disputant can not be held or said as a Protected Workman’’ till he

was recognised by the Management. In case of any fault on the part of the Management in this regard, the disputant had

a relief and he could have raised the matter and obtained the recognisation of a ‘’Protected Workman’’ as per the

procedure laid down in sub-clause(4) of rule-61.Till he was recognised as protected workman in writing by the

Management as per provisions of Rule-61 the disputant can not be held as a protected workman. In that view of the

matter the transfer order in respect to the disputant can not be said illegal or in violation of the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act and the same can not be said an act of unfair labour practice.

10.

It is also emerging from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that employees working in the project at

Bhubaneswar were extended scheme of VRS due to oil exploration failure under the project and even some of them

were transferred to other projects/ fields of operation on their consent. The VRS scheme and transfer of the employees

were taken as a measure to reduce the staff strength of the project as there was no oil exploration. There is no

substantive material in the evidence of the workman to show that he was transferred on vindictive attitude of the

Management. Further, transfer and posting of the staff is a managerial discretion of the employer and unless any

violation of rules and procedure has been proved while issuing or effecting such transfer order such transfer order

can not be held illegal and unjustified It is the contention of t he work man that his consent was not taken while

transferring him from Bhubaneswar to Duliajan though in other transfer cases consent of the employees were taken .

When there is no rule or circular for taking consent of the employees before transferring him from one place to another

place ,no illegality or irregularity can be said to have been committed by the Management in transferring the disputed

workman from Bhubaneswar to Duliajan, Assam. The mere fact that since other staff were transferred after obtaining

their consent, the Management is not duty bound to seek consent from the Disputant before transferring him from

Bhubaneswar to Duliajan. Similarly, on the same ground the transfer order can not be said to have been effected on

vindictive ground. For the sake of argument, even if it is considered that his transfer was against any terms and

conditions of any procedure, rule, circular, the disputant could have raised the said contention before the Enquiry

Officer or other appropriate authorities and got declared the transfer order as illegal and void. Further, it can not be

over sighted that the reference is silent on the aspects of the above issue and as such doubt can be entertained if this

Tribunal has any jurisdiction to consider and decide the above issues/ argument of the disputed workman keeping in

view the principle that the Industrial Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference of the dispute which is referred

to for adjudication. For the reasons mentioned above it can not safely said that neither the transfer order of the

disputant was illegal and vindictive nor this Tribunal has any jurisdiction to give any finding in this regard.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4893

11.

The other grievance of the disputant workman is that he was not provided with a copy of the certified standing

order which is applicable to the employees working in the project office at Bhubaneswar as a result of which he could

not defend himself in the departmental enquiry. For non supply of such vital document like certified standing order

applicable to the employees of the project at Bhubaneswar the departmental proceeding is to be vitiated. It is emerging

from the evidence of the parties that the disputant raised an issue before his authority for supply of a copy of certified

standing order applicable to the project and he was informed about the application of the certified standing order meant

for the project or the sphere of field located in the States of North-east. When he was informed about the applicability

of certified standing order which was applicable to the projects in the North-east States and he was supplied with

copy of such certified standing order, it can not be held that any prejudice was caused to him for having no separate

certified standing order for the project at Bhubaneswar. Even if , it is accepted that the certified standing order of

projects at North-East States is not applicable to the Project at Bhubaneswar and no separate certified standing order

was formulated for the project at Bhubaneswar, provisions of model standing order under the Act is supposed to be

applicable. It was a bounden duty of the work man to raise any contention in this regard before the enquiry officer

instead of backing out in the departmental proceeding. Unauthorised absence for more than ten days is a misconduct as

per the model standing order and similarly as per the alleged certified standing order of the Management/Company

unauthorised absence for more than 14 days is a misconduct and the same warrants punishment of dismissal or

removal. The work man has not explained as to how he was prejudiced in the departmental proceeding for non- supply

of a copy of separate standing order for the project at Bhubaneswar. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the

workman was justified for not participating in the departmental enquiry for want of certified standing order for the

project at Bhubaneswar. Simultaneously, it can not be said that principle of natural justice was violated in the

departmental proceeding against the work man for non- effecting a separate certified standing order for the project

at Bhubaneswar. That apart, the disputant could have raised the above issue in his show cause in response to the

Charge Sheet issued to him and contested the Departmental proceeding before the enquiry officer instead of taking a

lay man excuse for not submitting his show cause and participating in the departmental proceeding.

12.

Coming to the next point of argument advanced on behalf of workman that holding exparte enquiry in the

given circumstances was a violation of the principle of natural justice , it can not be over sighted that the disputant

work man was duly issued with the charge sheet and he was given opportunity to file his show cause on the charges

levelled against him. He was informed about the date ,time and place of the enquiry. Undisputedly, he did not attend the

enquiry despite notice about the date ,time and place of enquiry. It is also emerging from the pleading and evidence of

the Management that the enquiry proceeding was deferred thrice for non-attendance of the disputed work man . It is

also in evidence that he was duly intimated about the dates of adjournments of the enquiry. The above facts are not

disputed by the work man. When the workman himself refused to avail of the opportunity provided to him in a

disciplinary proceeding to defend himself against the charges of misconduct , he can not be permitted to complain later

that he had been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. It is well settled that enquiry in absence of an

employee can be held valid and there is no violation of principle of natural justice for holding such exparte enquiry if

the charged employee remains absent inspite of notice.

The principle of natural justice requires that notice of proposed enquiry to be held should be given to the concerned

person. They do not require that even after giving notice, if the concerned person remains absent, the enquiry should

not be held in his absence. An enquiry can not be said to have been properly held unless,(i) the charged employee has

been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him (ii) the witnesses are examined ordinarily in presence of the

employee in respect of the charges,(iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine witnesses , (iv) he is

given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter,

and (v) the enquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report. Keeping the above settled

principles in view if the case at hand is examined critically it is seen from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that

the disputant did not join in the place of his transfer till his discharge from his service inspite of being transferred from

Bhubaneswar to Duliajan though order was issued on 15.11.2007 and he was relieved on 17.11.2007 from the Project

office at Bhubaneswar with a direction to report in place of transfer on 10th December,2007 at latest. He had not made

any correspondence or representation for extending the date of his joining except challenging or making a

representation on the order of his transfer. There is no serious dispute to the fact that he was issued with a reminder on

5.3.2008 to join in his duty immediately vide Ext.B. When he did not join after receipt of the reminder he was issued

with a show cause notice –cum- charge sheet on 6.5.2008 vide Ext.C wherein he was asked to submit his explanation

within seven days of receipt of the show cause notice as to why appropriate action in accordance with Clause-19.11(e)

of the Companies’ modified standing order which provides discharge for absence from duty without authorised leave or

permission for more than 14 consecutive days. Admittedly, the disputant had not applied for any leave except

challenging his order. On receipt of the show cause notice the disputant submitted his reply vide his letter dt.20.5.2008

(Ext.6). It is apparent from his reply Ext.6 that the disputant took a plea that he would submit his written explanation to

the show cause notice after receipt of copy of modified standing order certified from Regional Labour

Commissioner(Central),Bhubaneswar for which he had approached the said authority under the RTI Act. On receipt of

such reply he was informed that his explanation was not satisfactory and he was informed about the initiation of

4894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

departmental proceeding vide Ext.7/ Ext.D. It is pertinent to mention here that the disputant was informed about the

place, date and time of commencement of the departmental enquiry. He was also extended opportunity to defend

himself in the said enquiry by taking assistance or representation of a co-employee and he was given liberty to

examine witnesses on his behalf and to cross examine the witnesses examine on behalf of the department.

Further, it appears from the oral evidence of the disputant and documents filed on his behalf more particularly,

Exts.8, 9 and 10 that he did not appear before the enquiry officer on the date fixed inspite of he being informed about

non-acceptance of his explanation-cum- prayer for postponing the departmental enquiry till his representation to CMD

for recalling the transfer order was disposed of and he received the copy of the certified standing order for the project at

Bhubaneswar. It is in the evidence of the Management that he was informed about the appointment of one Sri Arun Jyoti

Barua, Manager(E.R) as Enquiry Officer. Admittedly, the disputant was again informed about the next date, time and

place of enquiry by the Enquiring Officer vide Ext.E when he did not attend the enquiry on the 1st scheduled date. The

enquiry was deferred to 20.8.2008 and thereafter 12th September,2008 as the disputant failed to attend the enquiry on

20.8.2008. The enquiry was again deferred to 20.10.2008 as the disputant failed to appear on 12th September,2008. The

disputant appears to have received the letters in regard to adjournments of the departmental proceeding. Ultimately,

the enquiry was held on 20.10.2008 in absence of the disputant when he failed to make his appearance inspite of three

adjournments. The reply submitted by the disputant do not disclose that as to how the copy of the modified standing

order was relevant for the purpose of submitting his show cause and participating in the departmental enquiry for his

unauthorised absence from duty. As per the reply he wanted the postponement of the departmental enquiry for an

indefinite period as he had made a representation to the CMD on his transfer order and he has applied for a copy of

certified standing order to the Regional Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar. There is nothing in his reply to suggest

that he had ever asked the Disciplinary Authority to provide the copy of the certified standing order applicable to

him or any other documents. In that view of the matter it can not be said that he was not provided with important

documents required for the purpose of his defence by the Disciplinary Authority. In none of the documents filed by

him he had ever asked for any documents from the Disciplinary Authority except a request to defer the departmental

proceeding for an indefinite period i.e till his representation made to CMD on his transfer was disposed off or he

received a copy of the certified standing order of the Project Office at Bhubaneswar.

Argument has been advanced that no on behalf of the disputant no separate certified standing order certified by

Regional Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar was formulated for the Project office at Bhubaneswar and the certified

standing order for the projects of North- east States is not applicable to the staff of Bhubaneswar project. Hence, he

was deprived of a vital information about the certified standing order applicable to the employees working at

Bhubaneswar and as such it was a violation of principle of natural justice. On the other hand it is the stand of the

Management that certified standing order issued for the projects at North- East States is also applicable to the staff of

Bhubaneswar project and the disputant had neither asked the Disciplinary Authority to provide a copy of such certified

standing order nor it had raised any issue before the enquiry officer for non-applicability of such certified standing order

to the employees of Bhubaneswar project office. The replies of the disputant was a lay man’s excuse to remain absent

deliberately in the departmental proceeding. On close reading of the replies reveals that the disputant had never raised

a question before his authority that the certified standing order for the projects at North-East States is not applicable for

the project at Bhubaneswar nor he had made a prayer either to Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer to provide

a copy of the certified standing order applicable to the project office at Bhubaneswar. Admittedly, the projects at

Bhubaneswar and Projects at North-East States belonging to the 1st Party Management and the standing order for other

Projects is also applicable to the projects at Bhubaneswar. Hence, his stand that he did not attend the enquiry for non

receipt of the certified standing order of Bhubaneswar project is not a justified ground.

13.

In the above back drops it can be safely held that he did not attend the departmental proceeding deliberately

without any sufficient cause inspite of being informed about the date, time and place of enquiry and issuance of charge

sheet as a result of which the Enquiry Officer was compelled to hold the enquiry in his absence. Thus it can be safely

concluded that he was informed clearly of the charges levelled against him by the show cause notice-cum-charge sheet

Ext.C. He was given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the department and he

was given fair opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf but he failed to avail of the opportunity by remaining

absent deliberately for which the enquiry was held in his absence . As he did not join in his duty for a long period

i.e. for more than six months without any reason or authority, the Enquiring Officer had rightly held him guilty of

misconduct for his unauthorised absence. He was also issued with second show cause notice before imposition of

punishment. In that view of the matters the departmental proceeding seems to have been conducted fairly and with

conformity to the principles of natural justice.

Further, it can not be over sighted that the disputant did not report to his duty after his transfer till he was

discharged from service. He did not either apply for any leave or sought permission to remain absent from duty except

making a representation challenging his transfer. There is no provision or circular or rule of law which permits a

workman to remain absent from his duty till his representation was disposed of by his authority. Hence, the enquiring

officer had rightly found the disputant guilty of misconduct for his unauthorised absence which was nearly six months on

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4895

the date of issuance of show cause notice and such findings can not be said perverse or contradictory to the evidence

/materials led before him. The plea taken by the disputant workman shows that he had adopted a belligerent attitude and

did not participate in the enquiry on any reasonable plea or ground. He could have joined his new place of posting after

receipt of the transfer order and challenged or made a representation to his authority on such transfer. Similarly, he

could have high lighted his grievances or illegality on the part of management before the Enquiry Officer after being

issued with the show cause notice-cum-charge sheet. There is nothing on record or no substantive material has been

produced by the disputant workman to show that he was transferred with malafide intention and the departmental

proceeding as well as his discharge from service in the departmental proceeding was with malafide intention. Law is

well settled that the burden of proving malafide lies very heavily on the person who alleges it . A mere allegation is not

enough and the party making such allegation is under the legal obligation to place specific material to substantiate

the said allegation. When the workman did not join his duty in place of his transfer after being transferred and relieved

from the place of earlier posting and instead makes a representation challenging his transfer without taking any

permission or leave for his absence from duty in the new place of posting, the employer can not be said to have acted

with malafide by initiating a departmental proceeding against the workman for his such non-reporting to duty. Thus the

misconduct on the part of the disputant workman was proved in the departmental enquiry.

14.

The next question involves for consideration is whether the 1st party management was justified in

discharging the disputant workman for the misconduct of unauthorised absence and whether such punishment is

shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and this Tribunal has any legal obligation to interfere in the

question of punishment given by the Managememt. In this regard law is well settled that:-

“Disciplinary authority and on appeal, Appellate Authority are invested with the discretion to impose

appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High

Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own

conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would

appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary /Appellate Authority to reconsider the

penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exception and rare cases, impose

appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof’ ( B.C. Chaturvedi –Vers- Union of India

A.I.R.1996 S.C. 484).

In the case between Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation –Versus – A.K. Parul (1998) 9 SCC 416 the

Hon’ble Apex Court has taken a view that while exercising judicial review the Courts shall not normally interfere

with the punishments imposed by the authorities as this will be more so when the Court finds the charges were

proved. The Hon’ble Court have observed that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary

matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the

findings of the Inquiry Officer or Competent Authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is

appropriate to remember that t he power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent

officer either by an Act of Legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there

had been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice what punishment

would met the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty

can lawfully be imposed on the proved misconduct the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that

of the Authority unless it is malafide. In view of the above settled principles this Tribunal has little scope to interfere in

the power and decision of the Management.

Further, the certified standing order of the Management Company as well as the model standing order

provides the punishment of discharge/dismissal for a misconduct of unauthorised absence for more than two weeks

consecutively and having regard to the facts that the disputant did not join his duty and remained absent

unauthorisedly for more than six months and he did not join even after receipt of the enquiry report and show cause

notice, the punishment of his discharge cannot be said shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proved

misconduct. Considering the above facts and circumstance of the case there can be no opinion that the penalty of

discharge from service imposed upon the disputant was whimsical.

15.

In the facts and circumstances emerging from the pleadings and evidence of the parties as narrated above it

can be safely held that the action of the Management of Oil India Limited ,Duliajan (Assam) discharging the disputant

workman from service with effect from 10.4.2009 can not be said illegal or unjustified keeping in view the misconduct

proved against the disputant in the departmental proceeding and the provisions incorporated in the certified standing

order of the Company as well as the provisions of the Model Standing Order and as such the disputant is not entitled to

any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

4896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1193-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

lsy&vkj,eMh&cksykuh vkslZ ekbal ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 37@2012½ dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&29011@3@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Sail-RMD-Bolani Ores Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 19.06.2019.

[No. L-29011/3/2011-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR

Industrial Dispute Case No.37 of 2012

Date of passing of Award 11.02.2019

Present : Shri B. C. Rath, LL.B., Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.

Between:

The General Manager, SAIL-RMD- Bolani Ores Mines,

Bolani,District-Keonjhar

…First Party- Management

-Versus-

Keonjhar Mining Workers Union, represented by their General Secretary,

At/P.O. Bolani, District-Keonjhar.

…2nd Party Workman

Appearances:

For the First Party Management : Sri A. K. Biswas

For the 2nd Party workman : Indramani Behera

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment have referred the Industrial Dispute vide its

Order No.L-29011/3/2011-I.R.(M) dated.29.2.2012 for its adjudication in exercising its authority under clause(d) of sub

section(1)and sub section(2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(hereinafter referred to as”” the Act.”)

and the Schedule of the reference is :- “ Whether the action of the Management of Bolani Ores Mines,SAIL-RMD-

Bolani Ores Mines, in increasing the electricity rent @ Rs.100/- i.e. from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/-,Rs.85/- to Rs.185 and

Rs.65/- to Rs.165/- for F.F.S./W/G/NG and CESS/BB type of Quarters respectively, is justified? If not , what should be

the rate of interest?”

2.

The case of the 2nd Party Union is that the workmen of the Ist. Party Management were enjoying free

electricity initially while occupying the Quarters allotted to them. Subsequently electricity rent was fixed for each

Quarters on the basis of its type. Such rent for electricity were revised from time to time after taking the union of the

Employees in to confidence. The said rent was revised on 1.6.2005 after consulting the 2nd. Party Union. and rent was

at Rs.100/-,Rs.85/- and Rs.65/- taking the types of the Quarters into consideration. Such rent was again enhanced and

revised with effect from 1.4.2008 without taking the employees or the Union of the Employees into confidence. It is the

stand of the 2nd Party Union that providing Quarters and electric energy on a subsidiary rate to its employees is a

service condition and any modification or enhancement of such rent without a settlement with the employees or any

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4897

change or enhancement of such rent without notice as contemplated U/s.9(a) of the Act is a violation of Service

Condition and the same is an unfair labour practice. Therefore, the action of the Management increasing the electricity

charges/rent with effect from 1.4.2008 is not legal and justified. The excess rent paid by the workmen/employees after

1.4.2008 onwards are to be refunded to the concerned employees. Such decision of the Ist. Party Management increasing

rent of electricity was challenged before the Labour Machinery/ by the 2nd Party Union as a result of which a

conciliation proceeding was initiated. As the conciliation proceeding was failed , the dispute has been referred to for its

adjudication as mentioned in supra.

3.

The Ist Party Management has resisted the claim statement taking a stand that the Management is not duty

bound to provide Quarters and Electricity to its employees.. There was no agreement between the Management and its

employees for providing electricity in subsidiary rate. There is also no term and condition in the appointment letter of

any employee in this regard. No settlement is ever reached out between the parties by which the Management is

prohibited from enhancing the electric rent. According to the Ist. Party Management rent on electricity is being

enhanced from time to time keeping in view the revision of cost of electric energy charges by the State Electricity

Department. As the electricity tariff was increased by Electricity Board,, the Management was compelled to enhance

the rent with effect from 1.5.2008. Therefore, no illegality was committed or any service condition was violated by

enhancing such electricity rent provided to the Quarters. Hence, prayer has been made for rejection of the claim

statement.

4.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for just and proper adjudication

of the dispute.

ISSUES

(1)

``Whether the reference is maintainable ?

(2)

(Whether the action of the Management of Bolani Ores Mines,SAIL-RMD,Bolani Ores Mines, in

increasing the electricity rent @ Rs.100/- i.e. from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- Rs.85/- to Rs.185/- nd Rs.65/- for

F.F.S./W/G/NG and CESS/BB type of Quarters respectively, is justified? If not , what should be the rate

of increase ?

(3) If not, what should be the rate of increase?

5.

Both the parties have examined one witness each and filed documents like- copies of letters of the Union

given to the Managements, copies of letters of the LEO(C) Barbil, Copies of letters of the Management, copy of

electricity bill of NESCO, Copy of minutes of discussions/agreement and copy of notice which are marked as Exts.1

to 6 respectively and copy of notes of discussion of the meeting dt.3.6.200, copy of discussion dt.5.4.2006, coy of

notes of discussion of meeting dt.5.4.2006,Letter of AGM,SAIL dt.28.7.2008 , Copy of letter of the Executive Director,

Copy of letter of PDCA, Copy of Inter office correspondence of SAIL,RMD, and copy of purchase price of Electricity of

Balani Ores Mines which are marked as Ext.A to Ext. H in order to substantiate their respective claims.

6.

For the sake of convenience all the issues are taken up together for consideration simultaneously since they

are inter linked to each other.

7.

In view of the pleadings and evidence advanced by the parties there is no serious dispute to the fact that the

electricity rent/charges @ Rs.100/-,Rs.85/- and Rs.65/- fixed for different types of Quarters were increased to

Rs.200/-,Rs.185/- and Rs.165/- respectively with effect from 1.5.2008. It is also emerging that the electricity rent fixed

earlier was enhanced and revised on 1.5.2000 and at that time the revision was made with the consent of the

Union/workmen. It is also admitted by MW No.1 that prior to 1.5.2000 electricity rent was also enhanced taking the

employees/Union into confidence. There is no pleading and evidence on behalf of the Management that the

employees or the Union was consulted before enhancing electricity rent/charges with effect from 1.5.2008.

8.

In the above back drops it is to be seen whether the Management has committed any illegality by enhancing

such rent for different types of Quarters without taking the Union to confidence or such enhancement of electricity

rent without a prior notice as contemplated U/s.9-A of the Act is a unfair practice on the part of the Management.

Though, the 2nd party Union has pleaded specifically that the Management is duty bound to provide Quarters and

electricity to its employees on subsidiary rate and providing such quarters and electricity in a subsidiary rate is a

service condition , no document/ agreement/settlement between the parties is filed to establish such claim. It has been

argued on behalf of the Management that payment of electricity charges is not a condition of service and accordingly,

enhancement of electricity rent for occupants of the Quarters does not attract rigorous of Section 9-A of the I.D Act.

Allotment of Quarters to n employee does not come within the preview of conditions of service of Workman. The allot

tee workman is a licensee visa-vis such allotment and governed under the House Allotment Rules of the Company. A

Quarter is being allotted to an employee subject to its availability and turn of the employee/workman for such

allotment, as such , it can never be said to be a condition of service of a workman.. When the electricity charges are

4898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

revised basing upon the enhancement of charges by the supplier, the same can not be treated or presumed as an adverse

change in condition of employment .

9.

Admittedly, the 2nd Party Union has not filed any letter by which offer of appointment is given to a

workman to establish that making a provision of Quarters to an employee is a service condition. It can not be over

looked that the employees, who are not provided with Quarters, are entitled to house rent allowance. As such allotment

of Quarters can not be said to be a service condition in as much as it is not provided to all the employees of the

Management. Allotment of Quarters is governed by a set of rule of the Management. It primarily depends upon

availability as well as entitlement of the workman as per the established procedure under the Rules for such allotment.

Thus, charges on the heads of allotment and loose of the Quarters like rent, electricity, water or conservancy charges

etc. can not be said to be a service condition . It is optional for the workman to occupy a Quarters, if allotted by the

Management. Similarly enhancement of rent of Quarters or enhancement of electric charges can not be covered by wages

keeping in view as defined U/s.2 RR of the Act.

“Condition of service has not been defined under the I.D. Act. But, 4th Schedule of the Act provides the

instances of condition of service, change of which requires a prior notice under section 9-A of the Act as discussed

earlier allotment of Quarters is always subject to availability and entitlement of a workman. The charges for such

occupation of Quarters including the electricity charges are governed under certain rules and regulations . Thus, house

rent , electricity or water charges can not form a part of wages. On the other hand it is clear from the pleading and

evidence of the parties that the workmen were required to pay electricity charges at higher rate when ever the

Management makes an order to that effect the 2nd Party Union although claims that the electricity to the Quarters is

being supplied at a concessional rate, no document or material in support of the same has been filed. Thus, by no

stretch of imagination the electricity rent can ever be said to be a customary concession or privilege or usages.

Consequently, the Provision of Section 9-A of the Act is not attracted in t he present case. The stand of the

Management finds support from the principles set out by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in the case between

Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. –Versus- Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and others

reported in 2018 LLR 985.

For the reasons mentioned above the claim statement filed on behalf of the 2bd Party Union has no merit for

consideration and the same stands rejected.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2019

dk-vk- 1194-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ¼chihlh,y½ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 10 ,oa 11@2015½ dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- tsM&16025@4@2019&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka'kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2019

S.O. 1194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10 & 11/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 19.06.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR (M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4899

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri B. C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 10/2015

Between:

(1)

The Area Marketing Manager,

M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL),

Alok Bharati Complex, 2nd Floor,

At./Po. & Ps. Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751 007,

Dist. Khordha.

(2)

Mr. M. Satyanarayan Murthy,

OSTS Manager, BPCL.

(3)

Mr. Rakesh Das,

S/o. Late Pravakar Das, Contractor/

Provider Operator, Manakahani, Po. Kasaba,

Jaypur, P.S. Khantapada, Dist. Balasore – 756 043

…1st Party-Managements

(AND)

Shri Srikanta Patra, S/o. Late Harihara Patra,

Resident of Vill. Chasakhand, Po. Padagaon,

P.S. Nilgiri, Dist. Balasore.

… 2nd Party-Disputant

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 11/2015

Between:

(1)

The Area Marketing Manager,

M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL),

Alok Bharati Complex, 2nd Floor,

At./Po. & Ps. Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751 007,

Dist. Khordha.

(2)

Mr. M. Satyanarayan Murthy,

OSTS Manager, BPCL.

(3)

Mr. Rakesh Das,

S/o. Late Pravakar Das, Contractor/

Provider Operator, Manakahani, Po. Kasaba,

Jaypur, P.S. Khantapada, Dist. Balasore – 756 043.

…1st Party-Managements

(AND)

Shri Ashok Kumar Mallick,

S/o. Sri Purusottam Mallick,

Resident of Vill. Chitapada

P.O./P.S. Khantapada, Dist. Balasore.

… 2nd Party-Disputant

Date of Passing Order – 22nd October, 2018

Appearances:

Mr. P.K. Pradhan, Auth. Representative : For the 1st Party-Management No. 1 & 2.

Mr. Rakesh Das

: For the 1st Party-Management No. 3

Shri S. Patra

: For themselves the 2nd Party-Disputants

Shri A.K. Mallick

4900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Since, in both the above noted cases the dispute relates to retrenchment/refusal of employment to the 2nd party

workman by the same Managements and the parties have advanced identical pleadings and evidence in the adjudication

they are disposed of by this common award.

2.

The disputant 2nd party-workmen have filed their separate statement of claim resorting to the provisions of

section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein-after referred to as “The Act”) contending that the 1st Party-

Management No. 2 i.e. M/s. B.P.C.L. Limited is having a petrol pump outlet at Manakahani under Khantapada P.S. of

the district of Balasore. The applicants and some others were engaged in the said out-let as drive-way Salesmen. The

applicant workmen were appointed in the said capacity from December, 2002 after they had been trained along with

other workers by the Management No. 2. They discharged their duties with all sincerity and honesty. There was no

allegation against them in any point of time while they were employed in the out-let. It is claimed by them that they were

working directly under the supervision and control of the Management No. 2. Their wages were also paid by the said

Management. Other service benefits like E.P.F., E.S.I. and Bonus etc. were also provided to them by the Management

No. 2. All of a sudden they were refused employment with effect from 2.1.2014. Further, it has been pleaded that

though they were working continuously from December, 2002 to 1.1.2014 under the Management No. 2, they were not

given notice pay and retrenchment compensation when employment was refused to them. Hence, they raised a dispute

before the labour machinery. When conciliation was failed before the labour machinery a certificate was issued to them

for raising the dispute directly before this Tribunal resorting to the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Act. Hence, the

case.

3.

Being noticed the Management No. 1 and 2 have jointly filed a common written statement refuting the claim of

the disputant workmen. It is their stand that the applicant-workmen were never engaged or employed by them. There was

no employer and employee relationship between them. According to them, the out-let is being given on lease by a tender

process and as such it is being run by different contractors from time to time on agreements executed between those

contractors and the Management of M/s. BPCL. The Management has no control over selection and hiring of persons by

the contractors who run the out-let on the basis of agreements. Wages and other benefits to the employees engaged in the

out-let are being paid by those contractors. The employees in the out-let worked under the control and supervision of the

contractors. As such, there was no scope on their part to disengage or to refuse employment to the disputants. The

Management No. 3 in his separate written statement has taken a stand that the applicants were not engaged by him in the

out-let. The applicant workmen were working in the out-let being engaged by the previous contractors before he took-

over the management of the outlet. As per the agreement between him and the Management No. 1 he has no obligation to

engage the persons engaged previously under the out-going contractor. As there was no relationship of employer and

employee between him and the applicant workmen, the disputes are not maintainable against him. Thus, both the

Managements have taken a common stand that the applications are not maintained against them as the applicants were

never given appointment by them or there was any relationship of employer and employee between them and the

applicants.

4.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following common issues have been settled for proper adjudication

of the dispute raised in both the cases.

ISSUES

1.

Whether the applications filed under section 2-A(2) by the applicants are maintainable?

2.

Whether the alleged refusal of employment with effect from 2.1.2014 as stated by the 2nd party in their

applications are legal and justified?

3.

If not, what relief the applicants are entitled to?

The parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings and claim. Besides,

examining themselves the applicants have filed and exhibited certain documents like copy of the Bank pass book with

account number of the disputants, copy of the wage slip, copy of the provident fund slips of Anjali Das, Pranabendra

Dutta and Col. Pravakar Das, copy of the Health insurance cards issued to the disputants, copy of identity card, copy of

last wages slip of the year 2013 and copy of the letter issued to the Management No. 2 by the LEO (Central), Paradip,

which are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-7. To refute the claim the Managements have also examined common witnesses in

both the cases and relied upon documents like copy of P.F. ECR for 1/2014 and 2/2014, copy of the wage register of

1/2014 and 2/2014, copy of operatorship agreement with M/s. Anjali Das dated 19.11.2006 to 18.11.2007, copy of the

register of wages of Nov. 2006 to March, 2007, copy of Operatorship agreement with M/s. Pranabendra Dutta, copy of

pay slips of Srikanta Patra, copy of Coco Service provider agreement with M/s. Pranabendra Dutta, copy of appointment

letter of Srikant Patra issued by service provider, copy of P.F. form 6A annual 2009-2010, copy of service provider

agreement with M/s. Pranabendra Dutta, copy of P.F. form 6A Annual 2010-2011, copy of Service Provider Agreement

of Lt. Col. Pravakar Das, copy of E.P.F. wage register, copy of service provider agreement with Lt. Col. Prabhakar Das,

copy of the P.F. ECR for the months of 6/2012, 7/2012, 9/2012 etc. copy of service provider agreement with Col.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4901

S.K. Mohapatra, copy of ECR for the period dated 8/2013 and 10/2013, copy of ECR for 12/2013 and copy of the wage

slip which are marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-U.

FINDINGS

6.

For the sake of convenience all the issues are taken for consideration simultaneously and answered as follows:

7.

It is seen from the pleadings advanced by the applicant workmen and their statement given on sworn affidavit

towards their examination-in-chief that the workmen did not disclose in their statement of claim as well as in their sworn

affidavits that the outlet is being run by the contractors from time to time under a tender process adopted by the

Management No. 1. But, it is admitted by both the workmen that the outlet is being managed by different contractors

from time to time as it was given on contract basis. They have admitted that their wages were borne and paid by the

contractors through Bank Account. The wage bills filed by them are related to the period of different contractors like

Pranabendra Dutta and others. The EPF slips which are filed by the workmen and marked as Exhibits reveals that P.F.

contribution was paid by different persons namely Pravakar Das, Pranabendra Dutta and S.K. Mohapatra and they are

shown as employers. Though a number of documents have been filed none of them goes to show that the disputants were

ever engaged/employed by the Management No. 1 or Management No. 3. However, it is emerging only that the petrol

pump out-let belong to the Management No. 1, it was run through different contractors from time to time on the basis of

contract by inviting tender and the disputants were working as Salesmen in the outlet along with others from December,

2002 onwards and they were paid wages by the different contractors. No pleading or evidence has been advanced by the

workmen that the agreements drawn between the Management No. 1 and the contactors are sham and camouflage to

avoid the liabilities of an employer and they were working directly under the supervision and control of the Management

No. 1. It is not also pleaded specifically that the Management No. 1 was paying their wages or they were given

appointment by him. There being no relationship of employer and employee the Management No. 1 does not seem to

have any control over the employment or disengagement of the disputants. Similarly, the Management No. 3 cannot be

held to be the employer of the disputants. His role as a contractor came on 2.1.2014 when he took-over the outlet as a

contractor in a tender process. There is no clause in the agreements between the Management No. 1 and its contractors to

compel the incoming contractor to continue the service of the employees of the erstwhile/out-going contractor. That

being the position the applicants cannot be said to be the employees of either the Management No. 1 or Management No.

3. The contractor under whom the applicants were working prior to the Management being run by the new contractor is

only answerable to the retrenchment or disengagement if any, in violation to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

The Management No. 1 being presumed to be a principal employer is at best liable for non-payment of wages to the

applicant under the provisions of the Contract Labour Act. There is no claim by the workmen in this regard except

refusal of employment to them in the outlet.

8.

Further, it is emerging from the evidence of the Management No. 3 that he gave employment to the staff of

previous contractor as per his requirement. He is not duty bound to retain the persons engaged by the previous

contractor. Law is well settled that in order to establish a retrenchment or refusal of employment as illegal due to

violation of provisions of Section 25-F, burden lies on the employee/workman to establish his relationship with the

employer. Similarly, the applicant workmen are duty bound to prove that they were working continuously 240 days in a

calendar year preceding to their illegal termination and they were not paid any notice pay or retrenchment compensation

while being retrenched/disengaged in order to declare their retrenchment or disengagement as illegal. But, in the case at

hand there is no evidence to suggest that there was employer and employee relationship between the disputants and the

1st Party-Management in any point of time. Hence, doubt can be entertained regarding the maintainability of the dispute

against the 1st Party-Managements including the Management No. 1 in absence of any evidence that the applicants are the

employees of the Management No. 1 and the agreement between the Management No. 1 and Management No. 3 is sham

and camouflage to avoid the liabilities claimed by the disputants. Hence, the applicants have no relief against either the

Management No. 1 or Management No. 3.

9.

However, it is crystal clear from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that the same set of persons including

the present applicants were engaged in the outlet as Salesmen for a period of more than ten years before the Management

No. 3 took-over the outlet with effect from 2.1.2014. It is also emerging that the Management No. 3 retained the

engagement of same set of persons except the present applicants. It is not also in dispute that the disputants are senior to

some of the persons retained by the Contractor Management No. 3. They were unemployed suddenly as the new

contractor did not prefer their service. For the discussions and reasons made in supra the Tribunal has no authority to

declare the alleged retrenchment or refusal of employment as illegal and unjustified. However, keeping in view the long

period of service given by the applicants in the out-let the Managements have a moral obligation to consider the

claim/grievances of the applicants sympathetically and they are at liberty to take appropriate action in the matter

provided the disputants approach them. Accordingly, the cases are dismissed on account of the statement of claims of the

disputants being found devoid of any merit.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

4902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1195-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iqoksZÙkj

jsyos ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 65@2017½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1-07-2019 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41012@17@2016&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2019

S.O. 1195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of East North Railway, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 1.07.2019.

[No. L-41012/17/2016-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAKESH KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 65 of 2017

Between:

Shri D. P. Awasthi,

Zonal Organizing Secretary,

Rail Sewak Sangh,

49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow-226004.

And

Board Power Campaign,

Central Railway Provisional Officer,

Divisional Personal Officer,

East North Railway,

Ashok Marg,

Luciknow.

AWARD

1.

Central Government, Mol & Employment, New Delhi vide notification no.L-41012/17/2016-IR (B-I), dated

10.08.2017, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

“KYA PURVOTTAR RAIL PRASHASHAN, LUCKNOW DWARA SRI DINESH KUMAR TRIPATHI,

HELPER KHALASI, SE SKILLED TECHNICIAN-3 ME PADONNATI KI PARIKSHA MEIN SAFAL HONE

PAR USE PADONNATI NA DIYA JANA NYAYOCHIT AVAM VAID HAI? YADI NAHI TO KAMGAR KIS

RAHAT KO PANE KA HAQDAR HAI?”

2.

After receipt of reference order from the Ministry, registered notices dated 11.09.2017 and 15.04.2019 were

issued from the tribunal directing Shri D.P. Awasthi, Zonal Organizing Secretary, Rail Sewak Sangh, 49, Tilak Nagar,

Lucknow. to file claim petition supported with relevant documentary evidence by fixing dates for hearing of the case i.e.,

20.10.17, 19.01.18, 03.04.18, 01.05.18, 25.07.18, 28.09.18, 20.11.18, 18.01.19, 08.02.19, 25.03.19, 08.04.19 and from

the order sheet of the case it is also evident that lastly case was taken up for hearing on 06.05.19, but strange enough to

note that on none of the dates fixed in the case neither any representative of the Association / Union, raising the present

dispute on behalf of workman Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, appeared in the case nor any claim petition was filed in the

case. Moreover, non has approached the Tribunal on behalf of the opposite party as well; although notice was sent to it

earlier.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4903

3.

By a bare perusal of the records, it is evident that the Association raising the present dispute on behalf of the

workman, despite availing of sufficient and reasonable opportunities has palpably failed in discharging its obligation in

filing the claim petition in support of its case, therefore, it is abundantly clear that neither the Association nor the

workman is interested in prosecuting the present case.

4.

Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, the case is adjudicated against the Union / Association holding

that the Association/workman is not entitled for any relief for want of pleadings and proof.

5.

Award in the present case is as above.

Date :17.06.2019

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1196-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkQ egkjk"Vª ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 128@2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 02-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@97@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 128/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.07.2019.

[No. L-12012/97/2005-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/128/2005

Shri Rajeev Singh,

S/o Shri Umrao Singh,

R/o 246, Jiwaji Nagar,

PO R.K.Puri, Thatipur,

Gwalior (MP)

…Workman

Vs

Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra,

Regional Office, 1/14,

Administrative Zone.,

Bhopal (MP)

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of June 2019

1.

As per letter dated 16-11-2005 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,hereinafter referred to

by word ‘Act’,as per Notification No.L-12012/97/2005-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

4904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra in

terminating the services of Shri Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Umrao Singh w.e.f. 20.2.2003 is justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled for?”

2.

After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman filed statement of claim. According to

the workman, a member of SC community was registered with the employment exchange. The management called

names of registered unemployed persons for appointment in the bank from the Employment Exchange. His name was

sent by the Employment Exchange to the management alongwith names of other candidates after undergoing selection

process, he was placed 2nd in the merit list of selected candidates. Total 3 candidates were selected for appointment out of

20 candidates who undergone the selection process. After the selection process was over, the management OP No.1 sent

the list of selected candidates for approval to OP No.2. OP No.2 recommended Naresh Singh who was lower in the merit

of selected candidates for regular appointment and the applicant workman for appointment as additional staff which was

against rules and procedure was arbitrary. Hence inspite of being selected as higher on merit, applicant workman was

placed in appointment against additional staff vacancy whereas candidate junior to him in merit was offered appointment

against regular vacancy. The workman joined his job on May 2001 and had been in continuous employment of the Bank

till 20.2.03 and he was terminated by an oral order of OP No.2 without notice or compensation or enquiry which is

violation of Section 25-B & 25-F of the Act. It has also been alleged that candidate junior to him in selected merit has

been regularized and kept in service which is violation of Section 25-G & H of the Act. Management has further

violated Rule 73,77 & 78 of Industrial Dispute(Central) Rules 1957. Thus the termination is against law. Workman has

sought relief of setting aside of his termination and his reinstatement from the date of his termination with all service

benefits.

3.

In the Written Statement of defense, management has not disputed the fact but has added the caveat that the

vacancy was not reserved for SC community. How many candidates were called for interview and how many were

selected is not an issue to be looked into by this Tribunal. The advertisement was not for appointment on regular post.

The applicant workman was employed as a daily wager with the Bank not against any sanctioned post. Hence not entitled

to benefit of Section 25 of the Act as he has not been in continuous service of the Bank for a period of 240 days or more

in the year preceding the date of his termination. His allegation that junior to him has been regularized or continue in

service is also incorrect. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

4.

At the stage of evidence, workman filed his affidavit in his examination in chief. He was not cross examined by

the management because none was present on behalf of management to cross examine him hence opportunity of cross

examination was closed by my learned predecessor.

5.

Workman also filed photocopy of documents and an application on 10-12-2009 to direct the management to

produce the original of the documents before the Tribunal. Management did not produce any such document inspite of

order by this Tribunal.

6.

It also comes out from perusal of record that the management absented itself during the proceedings hence the

case proceeded exparte against management which was set aside on the application of management on 11-8-2015. Again

management absented and the case again proceeded exparte against the management.

7.

From the perusal of record, it comes out that the affidavit filed by workman is uncontroverted. Also that original

documents were not produced by management inspite of order. Hence there is nothing on record to disbelieve the

statement of workman wherein he has stated the allegation as mentioned above made by him in his statement of claim.

8.

Heard argument advanced by learned counsel for workman. None present for management.

In case Director Fisheries Terminal Department vs BhikubhaiMeghajibhaiChavda 2010(1)SCC47, referred to by

learned counsel for workman it has been observed that adverse inference may be drawn on the point that workman has

worked for more than 240 days continuously in the year preceding the date of his termination when the documents

regarding employment of the workman and payment have not been filed inspite of order of the Tribunal.

In another case Harjinder Singh Vs Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, (2010)3 SCC 192, referred to by

learned counsel for workman, it has been held that for applicability of Section 25-G of the Act, workman is not required

to prove that he had worked continuously for a period of 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. He

has only to prove that the employer violated the rule of last come first go without any reason.

Section 25 G & 25 H of the Act 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.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4905

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.

9.

The uncontroverted affidavit of the workman leads the Tribunal to draw the inference that he has successfully

proved the fact that he has been in continuous service of the management for a period of 240 days in the year preceding

the date of his termination and violation of Section 25G of the Act. Accordingly, his termination is against law and is

held unjustified and illegal.

10.

In the light of facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement

without backwages and benefits.

11.

In the result, award ex parteis passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra in terminating the

services of Shri Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Umrao Singh w.e.f. 20.2.2003 is illegal and unjustified.

(2)

Workman is entitled to relief of reinstatement but without backwages.

Dated: 11.6.2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1197-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

flfMadsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxykSj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 21@2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 02-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@176@2000&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.07.2019.

[No. L-12012/176/2000-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED : 25TH JUNE 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 21/2001

I Party

II Party

Sh. S. A. Ramesh Babu

No. 60, 10th Cross,

1st Main Road, Bovipalya,

Mahalakshmipuram

Bangalore (Karnataka) - 560086.

The General Manager (P)

Syndicate Bank, Head Office,

P.B. No.1,

Manipal (Karnataka) - 576119.

4906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/176/2000/IR(B-II) dated 28.02.2001/ 02.03.2001 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 management of Syndicate Bank is justified in terminating Shri S.A. Ramesh Babu, Data

Entry Operator? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1.

On receipt of the reference order both parties were procured; they filed their respective statements and led

evidence; after giving audience to both, my learned predecessor dismissed the reference. Aggrieved 1st Party workman

challenged the Award before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P No. 33953/2004 (L-TER) the writ petition was allowed.

The Award was set aside and the matter is remitted to consider the case in the light of the decision of the Apex Court.

2.

On receipt of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court the 2nd Party voluntarily appeared before this Tribunal.

Notice was issued by this Tribunal to the 1st Party in the address mentioned in the cause title of the claim statement, same

has returned unserved with the endorsement “NO SUCH PERSON”. Subsequently Sh. AGS who is the Learned Counsel

for the 1st Party on record filed memo of retirement along with the notice sent to the 1st Party and also the returned postal

cover bearing the endorsement “NO SUCH PERSON”. 1st Party has not turned up before this Tribunal after remind of

the case.

Sh. RU for the 2nd Party submitted his argument.

3.

As per the claim statement 1st Party joined the services in the Bank on 15.12.1983 as a Clerk cum Typist,

pursuant to a Departmental Enquiry a penalty was imposed on him, thereby reducing his basic pay for 2 stages for a

period of 3 years. He was issued another charge sheet dated 28.01.1999 on certain allegations; he submitted his reply to

the charge sheet. Enquiry was initiated by appointing Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a perverse report

finding the Disciplinary Authority after giving a personal hearing terminated him from service w.e.f 24.11.1999. The

appeal preferred thereon did not survive.

The 2nd Party justified the action in their counter statement.

4.

On the rival pleadings in respect of the domestic enquiry, this Tribunal framed an issue regarding the fairness of

the domestic enquiry.

5.

On 1st Party filing a memo conceded the fairness of the domestic enquiry, accordingly the issue is answered in

the affirmative.

6.

The allegation against the 1st Party workman was :

a)

He maintained an SB A/c No. 100096 at Gandhinagar Branch Bangalore wherein huge transactions are

noticed.

b)

He issued 9 cheques favouring 3rd Parties for amounts aggregating Rs 5,57,762/- during the period

15.10.1997 to 17.10.1998 which were dishonoured for want of funds in his SB A/c. The above act

constitutes gross misconduct vide Clause No. 19.5 of the Bipartite settlement; he is charged for

misconduct of “engaging in the trade / business outside the scope of his duties” vide Clause No. 19.5 (A)

of the Bipartite settlement.

The Charges were accompanied with the imputation of misconduct. The 1st Party submitted his reply to the charges.

7.

During the enquiry, the Chief Office Vigilance Unit was examined as the sole witness; he corroborated the

charge sheet allegations with documentary proof. It emerged during the cross examination that the SB A/c 100096 was

opened by the CSE long ago as SSB A/c and later the number got changed due to TMB of the Branch. On the allegation

of return of 28 cheques, he was punished by reduction of his basic pay by 2 stages for 3 years. There was no record to

prove that the 1st Party engaged in trade and business. All the cheque leaves issued to the CSE were received from the

Bank in the normal circumstances. One of the payees of the cheques had registered a case against him before the

Magistrate Court. The complainant had lent money to the CSE though he was an authorized money lender.

During his oral statement the CSE stated that during the relevant period his parent’s were not well and had to be

hospitalised; to meet the heavy expenditure he was forced to take loans from known people and relatives; he is not

engaged in trade or business.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4907

8.

The Enquiry Officer brushed aside the defence for the reason that he did not examine himself as a witness to

make himself available for cross examination and no witnesses are examined from his side. By observing that there are

about 75 cash remittances each more than five thousand and running into several thousands, still the CSE did not reveal

the source of those credits and there were several credits less than five thousand exceeding more than Rs. 5,00,000/-, 144

cheques were issued and 23 were returned for insufficient balance in the account, the Enquiry Officer inferred that the he

has other source of income. Furthermore he had not extended his co-operation to the Investigating Office and had not

given statement during investigation. It was noticed that on every alternative day he has used a cheque leaf. He had

given a request letter to the Branch on 28.07.1998 stating that unauthorized operations were going on in his account

without actually explaining what was that unauthorized operations. It was observed that there were huge deposit and

huge withdrawals for the relevant period of 40 months that took the Enquiry Officer to infer that the CSE suppressed the

genuineness and correctness of his transactions appearing in his SB A/c. Thus, the Enquiry Officer was driven to return

his finding to the 1st charge as conclusively proved.

9.

With regard to 2nd charge the defence was, the cheques numbers mentioned against Sl. No. 7, 8, and 9 of present

charge sheet were the subject matter in the earlier enquiry. The Enquiry Officer considered this aspect of the matter and

deleted those 3 cheques from the charge no. 2. By referring to a circular no 90/92/BC which contemplates Departmental

action for issue of cheques by the staff without maintaining sufficient balance in their accounts and CSE though punished

earlier for similar misconduct has repeated the misconduct, the Charge No. 2 was also held proved.

10.

The CSE was charged for misconduct of engaging in trade/business outside the scope of his duties vide Clause

No. 19.5(A) of the Bipartite Settlement. Unfortunately, except the huge transactions pertaining to his account nothing

surfaced during the enquiry. Issuing cheques without maintaining sufficient balance (9 no), cheques at Sl. No. 7,8 and 9

being the subject matter of earlier enquiry are now removed out of the purview of the enquiry of the Enquiry Officer.

The Hon’ble High Court has observed in respect of two transactions he had satisfied the cheque amount, in respect of

remaining three he had given stop payment order.

11.

On a careful reading of the enquiry report viz a viz the evidentiary material tabled before the Enquiry Officer,

would reflect that the findings is recorded on the basis of conjecture and surmises. The Investigating Officer has failed

to trace the origin and destination of the money transaction in his SB A/c. When the 1st Party was contending that the

amount were paid towards the maintenance amount that fell due to his Wife and also towards medical treatment of his

parent’s by raising loans, the Investigating Officer did not take pains to have a thorough investigation. Though the CSE

has not lead defence evidence, still it is required for the management to discharge their burden by placing the supporting

evidence in support of their charges. Though in the Departmental enquiries ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ is not the

scale for appreciation of evidence, it requires evidence heavier than ‘preponderance of probabilities’. When it was

alleged that many of the money transactions in his SB A/c was with his own colleagues no investigation was been done

in this regard and no other employee was brought to book. The enquiry report not standing on a firm and tangible

evidence is sceptical and fragile. The punishment order passed acting on such enquiry report is definitely not legal.

Hence, same requires intervention of this Authorities under the jurisdiction

of Section 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act.

12.

The punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and disproportionate viz a viz the heavy money

transactions in his S.B A/c are beyond the limit of his salary income and issuance of cheques without maintaining

sufficient amount in his S.B A/c in one or two instances. Wherefore, in my considered opinion it is a good case for

interference under the jurisdiction of 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act by tapering the punishment. After the remand of

the case from the Hon’ble High Court he has disappeared leaving this Tribunal to wonder whether he is still interested to

prosecute his case. Be that as it may be, he is aged 59 years. His reinstatement into service may not be of much help for

him. In the circumstance, ends of justice will be met if the dismissal order is set aside by the award of reinstatement with

the continuity of service and 25% of back wages.

AWARD

The reference is accepted.

The dismissal order passed against the 1st Party workman by the 2nd Party / Management of Syndicate Bank in

terminating the 1st Party workman Sh. S A Ramesh Babu, Data Entry Operator from service is not justified, hence set

aside.

The 2nd Party is directed to reinstate the 1st Party into service if he approaches them within 90 days of publication of the

award in the gazette.

4908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the purpose of calculating his terminal benefits on superannuation he shall be treated as in continuous service from

the date of his dismissal till the date of superannuation.

He is entitled for 25% of back wages.

(Dictated to o/s L D C, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 25th June, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1198-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj buySaM

okVjosl vkFkksZjVh vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydÙkk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 55@2013½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&32011@5@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Inland Waterways

Authority of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.07.2019.

[No. L-32011/5/2013-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 55 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Inland Waterways Authority of India

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Smt. Rituparna Majumder, learned counsel

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

Dated: 18th June, 2019

Industry: Inland Waterways

AWARD

By Order No.L-32011/5/2013-IR(B-II) dated 09.10.2013 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Inland Waterways Authority of India is justified in denying the

regularization of service of 59 contingent

workmen is legal and/or justified? What relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

2.

When the case was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the management was present. None,

however, was present for the union, though it had put in appearance earlier through the learned counsel. It transpires from

record that though this reference is pending in this Tribunal since 16.12.2013 and inspite of all the opportunities, the

statement of claim is not filed by the union. In absence of the statement of claim, the management does not want to file

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4909

written statement. Hence, this Tribunal is not in a position to proceed further with the case for deciding the issues

referred by the Government.

3.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present

in respect of the issues as mentioned in the schedule of the order of reference. Therefore, there exists no dispute for

adjudication.

4.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 18th June, 2019.

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1199-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

eS- fclok Hkkjrh dULVªD'ku] dksydÙkk iksVZ VªLV ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydÙkk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 10@2008½ dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&32012@1@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

Lkhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Biswa-Bharati

Construction, Kolkata Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02.07.2019.

[No. L-32012/1/2008-IR (B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 10 of 2008

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Biswa-Bharati Construction

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee, learned counsel

On behalf of the Workmen

: Mr. Tapan Kumar Jana, concerned work in person

Dated: 25th June, 2019

Industry: Port & Dock.

4910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No.L-32012/1/2008-IR(B-II) dated 11.04.2008 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Biswa-Bharati Construction, contractor of M/s. SGC India Pvt.

Ltd. at Haldia Dock Complex (Kolkata Port Trust) in dismissing Shri Tapan Kumar Jana, casual Sampler from

service isjustified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

2.

After receipt of above reference, notices were issued to the parties whereupon the workman concerned,

Shri Tapan Kumar Jana filed his statement of claim stating that at the relevant point of time he was serving as casual

Sampler of M/s Biswa-Bharat Construction, contractor of M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. at Haldia Dock Complex. It was

alleged that at the time of receiving salary by him for the month of July, 2007, he misbehaved with staff and therefore a

notice was issued against him on 14th August, 2007 which was received on 25th August, 2007. Simultaneously a

suspension order dated 20th August, 2007 was also issued which was received by the workman concerned on 25th August,

2007. The workman concerned protested the action of M/s. Biswa-Bharati Construction by his letter dated 27th August,

2007 to the Branch Manager of M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd.,Shri Chittaranjan Biswas. Having found no response of his

letter the workman concerned approached the Regional Labour Commissioner whereupon a conciliation proceeding was

initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In a joint discussion the management submitted that despite giving

enough opportunity to explain in respect of allegations leveled against the workman concerned, he could not make any

case in his defence and his behavior was incorrigible and as such he would not be taken back in employment. However,

the management could not produce any document in support of their contention even after seeking time from the

Assistant Labour Commissioner. It is further pleaded by the workman concerned that no chargesheet was issued to him,

nor a domestic enquiry was held before effecting dismissal of the workman from service which goes to show that he had

been retrenched from service which is void ab initio in view of non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. During conciliation proceeding the management of M/s. Biswa-Bharati Construction had agreed only to

induction of the workman concerned in the company for a job which was in no way inconsonance with the nature of

duties the workman performed at the time of termination. He has also pleaded that during his suspension period no

subsistence allowance was paid to him.

3.

The management of M/s. Biswa-Bharati Construction filed its written statement denying the allegations of the

workman concerned and pleaded inter alia that the management of the company never dismissed the workman concerned

from service. It is also pleaded that the reference order is defective. The Central Government cannot be the appropriate

Government for making the reference in question. Admittedly the concerned workman was an employee of a private

company and not in industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or in any controlled

industry. Thus the reference is not maintainable. The workman concerned was a casual sampler and in view of such

position, he has not acquired any status of employment like a permanent employee of the company. During conciliation

proceeding the management of the company agreed to allow the workman to resume his duties in a suitable job other

than casual sampler, but the workman did not agree to accept the proposal given by the company and demanded his

reinstatement as a sampler only. The workman concerned was in habit of making false complaint before various statutory

authorities. In July, 2006 he had lodged a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haldia alleging that pay slip

was issued to him without signature and seal of the company for the month of January, 2006, but the management of the

company satisfied the authorities. Thus the complaint of the workman concerned was found false. He had also made a

complaint to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldia regarding deduction of P.F. and E.S.I. contribution and

Professional Tax illegally from the monthly salary of the workman. It was also alleged in one of the complaint that after

recovery from illness he was not allowed to join his duties, but the fitness papers annexed with the complaint show that

he was a psychiatric patient. The workman concerned was getting medical treatment as per ESI Act. The attending

physician of the workman concerned had advised him to take psychiatric treatment and a proper fitness certificate was

required to allow him to work in the company as a sampler because the job of sampling is a very sensitive job. After

receipt of medical certificate he was allowed to resume his duties, but it was found that salary for the month of October

and November, 2006 was not withdrawn by him. The show cause notice dated 14th Aaugust, 2006 was issued to him for

his misbehavior with the office staff at the time of payment of salary for the month of July, 2007. Therefore, considering

the gravity of misconduct by the workman concerned, the company placed him under suspension with effect from

20th August, 2007 till further order. Despite receipt of show cause notice the workman did not submit any explanation.

The workman concerned straight way approached the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner and submitted

representation claiming himself as an employee of M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. He also claimed in his representation that

M/s. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. refused employment to the workman concerned and therefore, he prayed for his reinstatement.

Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal initiated the conciliation meeting, but after considering the

matter thought it fit not to proceed with the matter any further. But the workman concerned had suppressed this fact with

oblique motive. When the workman concerned failed to get any relief from the Labour Department of the State of West

Bengal, he approached the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) identifying himself as an employee of

SGS India Pvt. Ltd. This Tribunal cannot enquire whether Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4911

complied with or not as Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1947 for

convenience) is applicable only in case of retrenchment and not in the case of dismissal. The workman concerned is not

entitled for any relief.

4.

Shri Tapan Kumar Jana the concerned workman himself adduced evidence as WW-01. On behalf of

management, Shri Swapan Kumar Jana adduced evidence as MW-01. Apart from this, several documents have been filed

by both the parties which shall be considered at the relevant point of time.

5.

At the very outset of this Award, it would be just and proper to consider the issue of maintainability of this

reference as raised by the management. This issue of maintainability of reference on the ground that the Central

Government is not appropriate Government, was considered by this Tribunal vide its order dated 9th July, 2010 wherein it

was found that claim of non-maintainability of the reference is meritless. Against this order of the Tribunal Writ Petition

No. 23901 (W) of 2010 was filed by the management before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in which the Hon’ble

Court stayed the proceedings before this Tribunal. Subsequently, the stay order was modified to the effect that the

Tribunal can proceed with the matter, but shall not pass final order without leave of the Court. Thereafter, the Hon’ble

Court considering the fact that the Tribunal has almost concluded the proceeding, finally disposed of the above Writ

Petition with a direction to decide the issue raised before it on all the points. Thus, the issue of maintainability of this

reference has been left open by the Hon’ble Court to this Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal is again required to adjudicate

upon the issue of maintainability of the reference.

6.

So far as the issue of appropriate Government is concerned, Section 2(a) of the Act of 1947 defines appropriate

Government in relation to those disputes which fall within the purview of sub-clause (i) of Section 2(a), the Central

Government is the appropriate Government while in relation to all other disputes sub-clause (ii) provides that the State

Government would be the appropriate Government. Sub-clause (i) for the shake of convenience can be divided into three

parts. First part deals with an industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the

Central Government or by a railway company. The second part deals with an industrial dispute concerning any state

controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. Third part deals with industrial dispute

concerning various other establishments which are specified in sub-clause (i) of Section 2(a) of the Act of 1947.

7.

In the instant case the dispute between the workman and the management establishment is confined to the words

used under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act of 1947, i.e., “in relation to an industrial dispute concerning major port”. The

expression major port is defined by the Indian Ports Act, 1908 to mean any port which the Central Government may by

notification in the official gazette or may under any law for the time being in force have declared to be a major port. It is

not disputed that Haldia Dock Complex (Kolkata Port Trust) has been declared by the Central Government as major port.

It is also not disputed that the present dispute relates to an employee of a contractor engaged by the Haldia Dock

Complex for supply of man power. Now the question arises as to what is the ambit of the expression “in relation to an

industrial dispute concerning a major port”. The ambit and scope of this expression have been considered in several

decided cases. The expression “concerning a major port” emphasizes the existence of a nexus between the industrial

dispute and the major port. In Sylvester & Company v. Their workman, 2008-I-LLJ 546 (Bombay) Hon’ble Bombay

High Court has held if the nature of dispute is such as to appear a reasonable and rational relationship to a major port, the

element of nexus would be found to be present. In Sylvester & Company (supra) the company was carrying on business

of clearing and forwarding agent. The workman was engaged as a Dock Clerk. The management terminated the services

of the workman on the ground of loss of confidence. The Court held that since the dispute raised was with regard to the

retrenchment in the clearing and forwarding department and the godown department, the activities of which can be said

to be a major port, it would come within the scope of Section 2(a) of the Act of 1947 and the Central Government,

therefore, had authority to make the reference being the appropriate Government. In Continental Construction Pvt.

Ltd., Vishakhapatnam v. Government of India, 1977 Lab I.C. 1199 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Andhra

Pradesh High Court took note of the width of the expression “concerning” which is defined in Webstar’s Dictionary as

“relating to, regarding, respecting, about”. The Hon’ble Court noted that the expression “concerning” is a word of wide

amplitude and prima facie any industrial dispute affecting or connected with a major port would fall within the definition.

The Division Bench opined –

“We are however of the opinion that the word “concerning” must be construed in a reasonable manner and

referring to such industrial dispute which have got a proximate, intimate and real connection with the

corporation or authorities; mentioned in the said definition and not a connection which far fetched, remote or

hypothetical”.

On the facts of above cited case of Continental Construction (supra) the Division Bench held that the industrial dispute

between the company and its workmen was closely connected with the major port. The Appellant company was engaged

in the construction of break-waters and jetties in connection with the outer harbor at the Vishakhapatnam Port and any

dispute between the Appellant company and its workman was likely to affect the progress of the said work and would

directly affect the port. It is not necessary that the industrial dispute must concern the business of a major port. So long as

4912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

there was an industrial dispute concerning a major port and not necessarily the business of such major port, the second

part of the definition under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act of 1947 is satisfied.

8.

Now, coming back to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the concerned workman, Shri Tapan

Kumar Jana was working as a Sampler at Haldia Dock Complex. It is also not disputed by the management that the work

of Sampler is sampling of iron ore, cocking coal etc. at the time of loading and unloading operation of cargos berthed in

different berths/jetties of Haldia Dock Complex. Thus, although the workman was working in the establishment of M/s.

SGS Private Ltd. through sub-contractor, M/s. Biswa Bharati Construction, but the fact remains that he was deployed in

Haldia Dock Complex for the purposes of loading and unloading operation of cargos. Applying the above exposition of

law laid down in various case laws cited above, the dispute between the workman, Shri Tapan Kumar Jana and the

contractor, M/s. Biswa Bharati Construction would directly affect the work of port. Thus, there exists direct nexus

between the industrial dispute and Haldia Dock Complex, covered by the expression “concerning a major port”. In view

of above facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the Central Government is the appropriate Government

in relation to the present industrial dispute concerning the major port, i.e., Haldia Dock Complex and the objection raised

by the management to the maintainability of the reference is not sustainable.

9.

Now coming to the next point with regard to dismissal of the workman concerned, it has been alleged by the

workman, Shri Tapan Kumar Jana that his serviced has been dismissed without holding any domestic enquiry. Hence it

would amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947. Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947

defines retrenchment as follows: -

“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 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

(c)

Termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employerAnd the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(d)

Termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;”

10.

It is true that striking off the name of a workman from the rolls by the employer amounts to termination of

service and such termination is retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947, but where the

services of the workman is terminated as a measure of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, then it would

not come within the definition of retrenchment. In the present case the management has denied that services of the

workman concerned has been terminated or dismissed, but the management has not disclosed as to how the workman has

been kept out of employment. Though the management has not admitted or disclosed the fact of termination of the

workman concerned, but in reply of the allegations of the workman the management has averred in the written statement

that during conciliation proceedings the management had given proposal to induct the workman in service but the

workman insisted on his reinstatement only to the post of Sampler which was not agreeable to the management. Thus

from the averments of written statement itself termination of service of the workman is established. In paragraph 14 of its

written statement also it has beenstated that “Tribunal cannot enquire whether Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 has been complied with or not, which is required only in case of ‘Retrenchment’ and not in case of ‘Dismissal’ as

referred.” Thus the management by way of implication has admitted that the workman was dismissed from service. This

fact is also substantiated by the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata dated 9/25.01.2008 in

which the submission of the contractor, M/s. Biswa Bharati Construction during conciliation proceeding were recorded.

The report says that according to the contractor the action taken by them was justified and the service of Shri Tana had

been dismissed only because of continuous misbehavior and indiscipline in the establishment. Thus from the version of

the contractor itself it is clear that the services of the workman concerned was dismissed on account of his misbehavior

and indiscipline. Dismissal itself is imposed as a measure of punishment in a disciplinary action. Therefore, such

dismissal or termination does not come within the definition of retrenchment.

11.

It is admitted case of the management that before dismissal of the workman concerned no domestic enquiry was

held. The management in its written statement has pleaded issue of show cause notice to the workman concerned on the

ground that at the time of payment of salary for the month of July, 2007 on 13th August, 2007, he misbehaved with office

staff and others. It is also mentioned in the written statement that in the past also he had shown such type of behavior.

The exact words used in the written statement would highlight the facts.

“Considering the gravity of the misconduct the management of the company thought it prudent to place him

under order of suspension with effect from 20th August, 2007 till further order and that was duly communicated

to the workman concerned. It is the matter of record that the concerned workman even inspite of receipt of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4913

show cause notice dated 14th August, 2007 did not care to submit any explanation thereon, which is absolutely

undesirable and uncalled for.”

12.

Thus from the above quoted lines it is clear that the management has dismissed the services of the workman

concerned on account of misconduct. In such a case, it was obligatory on the part of the management to hold enquiry and

give proper opportunity to the workman concerned to defend him. But the management did not issue any chargesheet,

nor held any enquiry and put the workman concerned under suspension and thereafter dismissed him. Even subsistence

allowance was not paid.

13.

No enquiry amounts to a defective enquiry. In such a case, the management may be given opportunity to adduce

evidence with respect to proper enquiry, but the management has not pleaded for such an opportunity to adduce evidence

on the point of enquiry. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankar Chakraborty v. Britannia Biscuits Company, (1979) 3

SCC 371 has observed in following words:

“It is for the employer to ask for such opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct and once

such prayer is made in any form, i.e., orally or by application or in the pleading, the same cannot be denied.”

14.

Thus in absence of any prayer for opportunity to lead evidence, the employer is not entitled for any opportunity

in this respect and the dismissal of the workman, Shri Tapan Kumar Jana is illegal. Consequently he is entitled for

reinstatement, but without back wages as the workman has not pleaded in his statement of claim that he was not gainfully

employed.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 25th June, 2019

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1200-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

fnYyh baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k% 35@2016½

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20013@02@2019&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No-2, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 35 of 2016) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Private Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-20013/02/2019-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

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. 35/2016

Date of Passing Award- 13th February, 2019

Between:

Shri Rampal,

S/o Shri Chandrapal,

Hindustan Engineering and General Majdoor Union (Reg. 4479)

Head Office : D-2/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi.

… Workman

4914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

1.

M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.

Terminal No.3, IGI Airport, New Delhi-37.

… Managements

2.

M/s. Avon Facility Management Services Ltd.

B-1/1-1, First Floor, Mohan Cooperative

Industrial Estate New Delhi-44.

3.

M/s. Updater Services Ltd.

212, First Floor, Okhla Industrial

Area Phase-3 New Delhi-20.

Appearances:-

Shri Kailash Kumar , Advocate

: For the Workman.

Shri Digvijay Rai & Chetna Rai, Advocate : For the Management.

AWARD

This is an application filed by the workman/claimant invoking the jurisdiction of this tribunal u/s 2-A of the ID Act.

Praying the relief of reinstatement alongwith back wages by management No. 1.

The facts alleged by the workman/claimant is that he was engaged in the service of management No. 1 i.e. DIAL in the

year 2010. At the time of induction to work, he was not given an appointment letter. The Management No. 1 directed him

to work under management No. 2 and 3 who were having contract for work with the management No. 1. But workman

was under the direct employment of management No. 1, since the said management had no registration under the contract

labour abolition act 1970 for engagement of person through contractor. Not only that the contractors i.e. management No.

2 and 3 had no license for engaging labourers. The workman was often alleging and demanding payment of equal wage

other benefits like PF, ESI earned leave etc. The grievance of the workman since was not considered by the management

No. 1, on 26.10.2013 he made a general demand alongwith other employees before The Labour Commissioner. The

management gave reply on 28.08.2014 after which a conciliation proceeding started. Though the management no. 1

participated, the conciliation failed. The conciliation officer submitted a failure report. While the matter stood thus on

1.09.2013 the management No. 3 transferred the service of the workman to management No. 2 and no transfer order was

handed over. However, the workman reported for a duty with management No. 2. On 18.09.2014 a domestic enquiry was

conducted against the workman. He appeared and demanded documents In support of the allegation. Instead of providing

him documents the management No. 2 closed the enquiry on the same day and on 30.10.2014 by serving a letter on him

his service was terminated.

At the time of such termination neither the workman was served with a notice of termination nor any termination

compensation was paid to him. Hence by filing this petition he has prayed for reinstatement of service with back wages.

Being noticed management No. 1 appeared and filed a written statement denying its relationship as employer with the

workman. It took a plea that the management No. 1 is a Pvt. Ltd., company and a lessee of the IGI Airport Delhi. For

operation and the management of the airport the company has engaged several contractors who have their own

employees to carry out the work as per the contract. No salary was ever paid by management No. 1 to the workman nor

was any appointment letter issued. By filing the agreement executed between management No.1 and management No 2

and 3separely this management No. 1 prayed for deletion of its name from the proceeding.

Management No. 2 and 3 on receipt of notice appeared and filed separate written statement. The management No. 3

stated that the contention of the claim petition is all false. His specific stand is that at the time of alleged termination the

workman was not the employee of management No. 3 nor any termination order was passed at his instance.

Management No.2 has stated that the workman was working under him and engaged in IGI Airport Delhi. But he was

found involved in illegal unruly activities for which a chargesheet was served on him on 08.08.2014. The reply submitted

by the workman was not found satisfactory. Hence, the enquiring officer scheduled the enquiry to 17.09.2014 and the

workman was asked to report for work. When he did not turn up to join the duty, for the illegal activities order was

passed discharging him from service by letter dated 30.10.2014. The other plea of management No. 2 is that no illegality

has been committed for passing the order. Thereby he prayed for rejection of the prayer.

On the rival pleading of the parties

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4915

ISSUES

1. Whether the claim of the claimant is maintainable in view of various preliminary objections?

2. Whether the termination of the claimant is unjust, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement in service alongwith back wages?

4. Relief.

When the matter was fixed for evidence to be adduced by the workman he failed to attend the court proceeding. Several

adjournments were allowed for his appearance and examination as a witness. At last the A/R for the workman on

18.12.2018 informed that despite repeated effort he is not able to establish contact with the claimant. The evidence for

the workman was thus closed. The management No. 1,2 and 3 did not wish to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

It is a decided principle of adjudication that a person asserting existence of the particular fact need to prove the same by

oral or documentary evidence. In this proceeding though the workman has alleged about illegal termination and sought

for the relief of the reinstatement and back wages, he failed to substantiate or prove the same. In absence of evidence to

prove the pleadings this tribunal is left with no option than dismissing the claim petition filed under 2-A of the Industrial

Dispute Act by passing this no claim award. Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The claim petition be and the same is dismissed for want of proof and a no claim award is hereby passed. Consign the

record to the record room.

This reference is accordingly answered.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1201-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bafMxks ,;jykbal fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydkrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k % 02@2015½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@02@2015&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata (Ref.

No. 02 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management

of M/s. Indigo Airlines Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28.06.2019.

[No. L-11012/02/2015-IR (CM-I)

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 02 of 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Indigo Airlines Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

:

None

On behalf of the Workmen

:

None

4916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated: 24th June, 2019

Industry: Civil Aviation.

AWARD

By Order No.L-11012/02/2015-IR(CM-I) dated 05.02.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. J.P. Aviation Services Ltd. as contractor working in the

premises of M/s. Indigo Airlines Ltd. as principal employer in terminating the services of two no. of contract

workers namely Shri Sujit Ghosh working as driver since 2010 and Shri Sanjib Dey working as loader since

2008 without assigning any reason and without following provisions of law in respect of retrenchment under

I.D. Act, 1947 was justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled?’’

3.

When the case was taken up for hearing on 20.06.2019, none appeared for the parties concerned. It transpires

from record that though this reference is pending in this Tribunal since 16.02.2015 and inspite of all the opportunities,

neither the union has filed its statement of claim, nor the managements have filed its written statement to proceed further

with the case.

3.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present

in respect of termination of the workmen concerned as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore, there exists no

dispute for adjudication.

5.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 24th June, 2019

JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1202-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k % 2@2014½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@74@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 2 of 2014) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. E.C.L their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-20012/74/2013-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference: No. 2/2014

Employer in relation to the management of Mugma Area of M/S ECL,

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4917

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated :31.05.2019

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/74/2013-IR(C-I) dated 03-01-2014 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kumardhubi Colliery of M/s. ECL in not properly fixing the

pay of Sri R.L.Roy after promotion from foreman to the post of Foreman Incharge is fair and justified?”

To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and the representative of sponsoring union had appeared for

one date, but subsequently he left appearing before the Tribunal. Management has been present through lawyer.

Thereafter one regd. notices was again issued to the workman but even then no one appeared on behalf of the

workman. Case is pending since long and workman is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman has lost

his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1203-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k % 134@1999½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@12@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 134 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-20012/12/1999-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 134/1999

Employer in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri D. K.Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry- Coal

Dated: 30.05.2019

4918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/12/1999-IR(C-I) dated 04/06/1999 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Rashtriya Koyla Mazdoor Union to give annual increments from 1989 to 1995

to the following workmen and to give pay protection & refix their wages is correct justified? If yes, what

relief they are entitled to?”

List of workmen

1. Sh. Serfullah

2. Sh. Nageshwar Chamar

3. Sh. Mangal Bhuia

4. Sh. Neresh Mochi

5. Sh. Aklu Ram

6. Sh. Vijay Shankar

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

the workmen left appearing before the Tribunal. Subsequently two regd. notices were issued to the union but even then

no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Moreover both of the notice of the Union was returned.. Case is pending

since long. so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.

Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1204-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k % 139@1999½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@86@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 139 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-20012/86/1999-IR (C-I)

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 139/1999

Employer in relation to the management of Block II Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry-Coal

Dated: 31.05.2019

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4919

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/86/1999-IR(C-I) dated 04/06/1999 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S BCCL in not regularizing Smt Punia Kamin and 70

Others as per the list enclosed is legal justified? If not what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”

List of workmen

1.

Punia Kamin

2. Chando Bai

3. Budhani Kamin

4. Jhulsia Kamin

5.

Dhan Bai

6. Lal Bai

7. Gariban Bai

8. Kaili Kamin

9.

Durgi Kamin

10. Sumitry Kamin

11. Bhanu Mati Kamin

12. Krishnia Bai

13. Hiramati Bai

14. Koshilya Bai No.2

15. Bodhin Bai

16. Parbati Kamin

17. Sd/- 18. Sd/-

19. Sd/- 20. Sd/-

21. Sd/- 22. Saro Kamin 23.Sd/- 24. Sd/-

25. Sd/- 26. Gulabia Bhuini

27. Bachla Bhuini

28. Rajmunia Kamin

29. Sd/-

30. Nanki Moni

31. Kunti Kamin

32. Bachan Bai

33. Dulwa Bhuini

34. Chand Kalwa Kamin

35. Lakhani Kamin

36. Panwa Bhuini

37. Marchhi Kamin

38. Shanti Kamin

39. Mangri Kamin

40 Radhia Kamin

41. Kamali Kamin No.1

42. Basuki Kamin

43. Shanti Kamin

44. Mangri Kamin-2

45. Jogshari Kamin

46. Babi Kamin

47. Upasi Kamin

48. Kajali Kamin

49. Rajabala Kamin

50. Jhalwa Kamin

51. Gulaichi Kamin

52, Murti Kamin

53. Kabalesia Kamin

54. Sd/- 55. Sd/-

56. Sd/-

57. Sd//-

58/- Samundri Kamin

59. Parbati Kamin

60. Rajmatia Kamin

61. Budhmania Kamin

62. Sd/- 63. Sd/-

64. Sd/-

65/- Gurbani Kamin

66. Nahar Bai

67. Sosan Kamin

68. Jira Bai

69. Ful Bai

70. Jagani Kamin

71 Chhabia Kamin

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but

subsequently the workmen left appearing before the Tribunal. Subsequently two regd. Notices were

issued to the workman but even then no one appeared on behalf of the workman. Moreover both of the

notice of the union is returned back . Case is pending since long. so, it is felt that workmen has lost his

interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1205-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k % 143@1997½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@100@1996&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

4920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 143 of 1997) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-20012/100/1996-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.1947

Ref. No. 143 of 1997

Employer in relation to the management of Jogidih Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

Present: Shri D. K.Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers: None

For the Workman.: None

State :- Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 31.05.2019

AWARD

By order No. L-20012 /100 /1996/IR (C-I) dt.24.07.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for the payment of difference of wages to Shri Ramdhar Singh, Paresh

Singh, Aswani Kumar Singh, Madan Singh, Rajeshwar Singh-1, Ragho Singh, Allauddin Ansari, G.T.

Nandan, Md. Samsad, Sitaram Singh, Md. Suddque, Ram Vyas, Ram Nath pandey, Mundrika Prasad

and Samasud Alam for their operating higher capacity showel during the period 14.01.1991 to 25.11.1992

is legal and justified? If no, to what relief are these workmen entitled?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed, but after issuance of two regd. notices, none of the parties

appeared before this Tribunal. Shri S.C.Gour, Vice President of the Sponsoring Union has verbally submitted that

workman is not interested in contesting the case. Case is pending since long. It appears that the workmen has lost his

interest to resolve the matter. Hence “No Dispute” Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1206-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k % 156@1999½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@136@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 6] 2019@vk"kk<+ 15] 1941

4921

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 156 of 1999) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-20012/136/1999-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 156/1999

Employer in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri D. K. Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri S.N.Ghosh, Advocate

For the workman. :- None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated: 30.05.2019

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/136/1999-IR(C-I) dated 16/07/1999 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bararee Colliery is not regularizing Sri Ajay Kumar Rajak as

Magazine clerk is proper? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen entitled and which date?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and both parties appeared for certain dates, but subsequently

the workmen left appearing before the Tribunal. Subsequently two regd. Notices were issued but even then no one

appeared on behalf of the workman. Case is pending since long, so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve

the matter. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2019

dk-vk- 1207-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch-lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k % 202@2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-06-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20012@269@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

4922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6, 2019/ASADHA 15, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2019

S.O. 1207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,

Dhanbad (Ref. No. 202 of 2001) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.06.2019.

[No. L-20012/269/2001-IR (C-I)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947

Reference: No. 202/2001

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present: Shri D.K.Singh, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

For the workman. : None

State : Jharkhand.

Industry-Coal

Dated : 30.05.2019

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/269/2001-IR(C-I) dated 18/09/2001 the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the RCMS from the management of BCCL, Sijua Area for regularization of Sh.

Vinod Singh , Auto Fitter helper after one year in the grade and thereafter in grade “D” as auto fitter is

justified? If so to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date?”

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed and subsequently management is appeared through lawyer but

none appeared on behalf sponsoring union before this Tribunal. The case is pending since long and workman is not

appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman has lost his interest to resolve the matter. Hence No Dispute Award

is passed. Communicate.

D. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed

by ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2019.07.19

15:54:11 +05'30'