3602 GI/2019
(5561)
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- 30]
ubZ fnYyh] tqykbZ 21—tqykbZ 27] 2019] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 30—Jko.k 5] 1941
No. 30]
NEW DELHI, JULY 21—JULY 27, 2019, SATURDAY/ASADHA 30— SRAVANA—5, 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)
काᳶमक
काᳶमक
काᳶमक
काᳶमक, लोक िशकायत तथा पᱶशन मंᮢालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पᱶशन मंᮢालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पᱶशन मंᮢालय
लोक िशकायत तथा पᱶशन मंᮢालय
(काᳶमक और ᮧिशᭃण िवभाग)
(काᳶमक और ᮧिशᭃण िवभाग)
(काᳶमक और ᮧिशᭃण िवभाग)
(काᳶमक और ᮧिशᭃण िवभाग)
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1319
1319
1319
1319.—कᱶᮤीय सरकार एतद᳇ारा ᳰद᭨ ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭ थापना अिधिनयम, 1946 (1946 का अिधिनयम
सं या 25) कᳱ धारा 5 कᳱ उपधारा (1) के साथ पᳯठत धारा 6, ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए उᱫराखंड रा᭔ य
सरकार, गृह अनुभाग-I, कᳱ ᳰदनांक 29 अᮧैल 2014 कᳱ सहमित सं 1078/ एस एस-1-/2014-9(3) 2014, देहरादून
᳇ारा ᮧा᳙ सहमित से उᱫराखंड के िचᳰक᭜सा ᭭वा᭭᭝य एवं पᳯरवार क᭨याण िवभाग, उᱫराखंड मᱶ एन.आर.एच.एम.,
आर.सी.एच. कायᭅᮓम के अंतगᭅत उपकᱶᮤᲂ हेतु ᮓय ᳰकये गये ᳰकट- 'ए' एवं ᳰकट- 'बी' तथा आशा ᳰकट से स᭥बंिधत दवाएं आᳰद
जो ᮟग वेयर हाउस, ᱨड़कᳱ मᱶ रखी गयी थी, के कालातीत होने के ᮧकरण के अ᭠वेषण तथा उपरोᲦ उि᭨लिखत अपराध के
स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ या स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ ᮧयास, दु᭬ᮧेरणा तथा षड़यंᮢ तथा उसी सं᳞वहार के ᮓम मᱶ या उ᭠हᱭ त᭝यᲂ से उ᭞धृत ᳰकसी अ᭠य
अपराध या अपराधᲂ के अ᭠वेषण के स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ ᳰद᭨ली िवशेष पुिलस ᭭थापना के सद᭭यᲂ कᳱ शिᲦयᲂ और ᭃेᮢािधकार का
िव᭭तार स᭥पूणᭅ उᱫराखंड रा᭔य के स᭥ब᭠ध मᱶ करती है ।
[फा. सं. 228/32/2014-एवीडी-II]
एस.पी.आर. िᮢ पाठी, अवर सिचव
5562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019
S.O. 1319.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Uttarakhand, Home Section-1, Dehradun vide Notification No. 1078/XX-1-2014-9(3)2014 dated
29.04.2014, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the
whole of the State of Uttarakhand for investigation of the issue of drugs purchased in the kit ‘Á’ and ‘B’ and drugs etc.
of the ASHA kit under the RCH programme in the department of Medical Health & Family Welfare, Uttarakhand, which
were stored in Drug Warehouse, Roorkee and got expired and further related matters to the issue and attempts, abetment
and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence (offences)
committed in the course of the same transaction or/and arising out of the same facts of the said case.
[F. No. 228/32/2014-AVD-II]
S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
रा᳦ीय तकनीकᳱ अनुसंधान संगठन
रा᳦ीय तकनीकᳱ अनुसंधान संगठन
रा᳦ीय तकनीकᳱ अनुसंधान संगठन
रा᳦ीय तकनीकᳱ अनुसंधान संगठन
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1320
1320
1320
1320.—सावᭅजिनक पᳯरसर (अनािधकृत क᭣जे से िन᭬कासन) अनुभाग-3 (अिधिनयम 1971) मᱶ दी गयी
शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए भारत सरकार ᮰ी मयूर गु᳙ा, वै᭄ािनक-ई, (समूह-अ अिधकारी) को अधोिलिखत कायᭅ के िलए
संपदा अिधकारी िनयुᲦ करती है तथा संपदा अिधकारी को िनदᱷिशत ᳰकया जाता है ᳰक वह ᮧदत कᳱ गयी शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग
करᱶगे और बताए गए अिधिनयम के तहत अपनी िज᭥मेदारी का िनवᭅहन सभी सावᭅजिनक पᳯरसरᲂ (ᳰद᭨ली व ᳰद᭨ली से बाहर)
के िलए जो ᳰक अ᭟यᭃ एन.टी.आर.ओ. के िनयंᮢण मᱶ हᱹ।
[फा. सं. IV(D)/10/07/2019-2069]
के. संजयन, िनदेशक (ᮧशासन)
NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2019
S.O. 1320.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupations) Act 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Govt. hereby appoints Shri Mayur Gupta, Scientist ‘E’/ ADD, a class-I
Officer of the Government to be the Estate Officer for the purpose of the said act and directs that the Estate Officer shall
exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said act in respect of
all public premises under the control of the Chairman, NTRO at New Delhi and outstation offices.
[F. No. IV(D)/10/07/2019-2069]
K. SANJAYAN, Director (Admin)
आयुष मंᮢालय
आयुष मंᮢालय
आयुष मंᮢालय
आयुष मंᮢालय
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 29 मई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1321
1321
1321
1321.—कᱶᮤीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग) िनयम 1976 (यथा संशोिधत
1987) के िनयम 10 के उप-िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मᱶ, आयुष मंᮢालय के ᮧशासिनक िनयंᮢणाधीन िन᭥ निलिखत कायाᭅलय,
िजसके शत ᮧितशत कमᭅचारीवृ᭠ द ने ᳲहदी का कायᭅसाधक ᭄ान ᮧा᭡ त कर िलया है, को एतद᳇ारा अिधसूिचत करती हᱹ:-
‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ᭃेᮢीय यूनानी िचᳰक᭜ सा
ᭃेᮢीय यूनानी िचᳰक᭜ सा
ᭃेᮢीय यूनानी िचᳰक᭜ सा
ᭃेᮢीय यूनानी िचᳰक᭜ सा अनुसंधान सं᭭ था
अनुसंधान सं᭭ था
अनुसंधान सं᭭ था
अनुसंधान सं᭭ थान, , , , मुंबई
मुंबई
मुंबई
मुंबई’’’’’’’’
[सं. ई-11018/1/2018-आयुष (रा.भा.)]
पी. एन. र᭛ जीत कुमार, संयु त सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5563
MINISTRY OF AYUSH
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2019
S.O. 1321.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the
Union) Rules. 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the
administrative control of the Ministry of AYUSH, wherein cent percent officials have acquired the working knowledge
of Hindi:
‘‘Regional Research Institute of Unani Medicine, Mumbai”
[No. E-11018/1/2018-AYUSH (O.L.)]
P. N. RANJIT KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
उपभोᲦा
उपभोᲦा
उपभोᲦा
उपभोᲦा मामले
मामले
मामले
मामले, , , , खा᳒
खा᳒
खा᳒
खा᳒ और
और
और
और सावᭅजिनक
सावᭅजिनक
सावᭅजिनक
सावᭅजिनक िवतरण
िवतरण
िवतरण
िवतरण मंᮢालय
मंᮢालय
मंᮢालय
मंᮢालय
(खा᳒
खा᳒
खा᳒
खा᳒ और
और
और
और सावᭅजिनक
सावᭅजिनक
सावᭅजिनक
सावᭅजिनक िवतरण
िवतरण
िवतरण
िवतरण िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग
िवभाग)
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1322
1322
1322
1322.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10
के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मᱶ उपभोᲦा मामले, खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण मंᮢालय (खा᳒ और सावᭅजिनक िवतरण
िवभाग) के ᮧशासिनक िनयंᮢणाधीन िन᳜िलिखत कायाᭅलयᲂ, िजनके 80 ᮧितशत से अिधक कमᭅचारीवृ᭠द ने िह᭠दी का
कायᭅसाधक ᭄ान ᮧा᳙ कर िलया है, को राजपᮢ मᱶ अिधसूिचत करती है:-
1.
कᱶᮤीय भंडारण िनगम,
सᱶᮝल वेयरहाउस,
मालीवाड़ा पीईजी मैससᭅ ल᭯मी ए᭛ड कंपनी, कॉनकॉनᭅ के पीछे, दौलताबाद रेलवे ᭭टेशन के पास,
मालीवाड़ा, औरंगाबाद – 431001
2.
कᱶᮤीय भंडारण िनगम,
सᱶᮝल वेयरहाउस,
अ᭥बड़ – 2 बी - 72, एम.आई.डी.सी., अ᭥बड़ – 2, नािसक – 422010
3.
कᱶᮤीय भंडारण िनगम,
सᱶᮝल वेयरहाउस,
मुंडीपार, एम.आई.डी.सी., ᭡लॉट न᭥बर – बी 28-29, पो᭭ट – दखानी, गᲂᳰदया – 441614
[सं. ई-11011/1/2008-िह᭠दी]
कमल दᱫा, संयुᲦ सिचव
5564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1322.— 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 hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Deptt. of Food & Public Distribution), whereof more than
80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
1.
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse,
Maliwada PEG Ms. Laxmi & Company, Behind CONCORN, Near by Daulatabad Railway Station, Maliwada,
Aurangabad - 431001
2.
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse,
Ambad –II B-72, IMDC, Ambad –II, Nasik - 422010
3.
Central Warehousing Corporation,
Central Warehouse,
Mundipaar, IMDC, Plot No. B 28-29, Post Dakhaani, Gondia - 441614
[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]
KAMAL DATTA, Jt. Secy.
नागर िवमानन मंᮢालय
नागर िवमानन मंᮢालय
नागर िवमानन मंᮢालय
नागर िवमानन मंᮢालय
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1323
1323
1323
1323.—भारतीय िवमानप᭜ तन ᮧािधकरण अिधिनयम, 1994 (1994 का सं या 55) के खंड 3 और खंड 5
᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शिᲦयᲂ का उपयोग करते ᱟए कᱶᮤ सरकार एतारा ᮰ी गोᳲवदराजन शेखर को त᭜काल ᮧभाव से तीन वषᲄ कᳱ
अविध अथवा आगामी आदेशᲂ तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय िवमानप᭜ तन ᮧािधकरण के बोडᭅ पर गैर-सरकारी ᭭वतंᮢ सद᭭ य
(अंशकािलक) के ᱨप मᱶ िनयु त करती है ।
[फा. सं. एवी-24015/4/2015-एएआई-एमओसीए]
पी. जे. थॉमस, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1323.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 and Section 5 of the Airports Authority of India
Act, 1994 (No.55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoint Shri Govindarajan Sekar as Non-Official
Independent Member (part time) on the Board of Airports Authority of India with immediate effect for a period of three
years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. AV-24015/4/2015-AAI-MOCA]
P. J. THOMAS, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5565
कोयला मंᮢालय
कोयला मंᮢालय
कोयला मंᮢालय
कोयला मंᮢालय
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ.
आ.
आ.
आ. 1324
1324
1324
1324.—के᭠ ᮤीय सरकार को यह ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक, इससे उपाब अनुसूची मᱶ उि᭨ ल िख त पᳯरᭃेᮢ कᳱ भूिम
मᱶ कोयला अिभᮧा᭡ त ᳰकए जाने कᳱ संभावना है ;
और, रेखांक संया एनयूपीपीएल/पीएस/4(1)/002/2019, तारीख 26 मई, 2019 को उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम
का ᭃेᮢ अ᭠तᳶव᳥ ᳰकया गया है, का िनरीᭃण मुय महा ᮧबंधक (भूिव᭄ानी/ᮧभारी पचवाड़ा साउथ कोयला ᭣ लॉक), नेयवेली
उ᭜ तर ᮧदेश पावर िलिमटेड, नजदीक धोिबया ᭭कूल, बाबुपाड़ा, िजला दुमका, झारखंड के कायाᭅलय मᱶ या मुय महाᮧबंधक
(अ᭠वेषण ᮧभाग), सᱶᮝल माईन ᭡लाᳲनग ए᭛ड िडजाइन इ᭠᭭टी᭒यूट िलिमटेड, गᲂदवाना ᭡लेस, कांके रोड, रांची (झारखंड) के
कायाᭅलय मᱶ या कोयला िनयंᮢक, 1, काउंिसल हाऊस ᭭ᮝीट, कोलकाता – 700001 के कायाᭅलय मᱶ या िजलािधकारी, िजला
दुमका- 814101 (झारखंड) के कायाᭅलय मᱶ ᳰकया जा सकता है ;
अत:, अब, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, कोयला धारक ᭃेᮢ (अजᭅन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957(1957 का 20) (िजसे इसमᱶ
इसके प᳟ात् उᲦ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कᳱ धारा 4 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, उ त
अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ कोयले का पूवᱷᭃण करने के अपने आशय कᳱ नोᳯटस देती है ;
उपरोᲦ उि᭨लिखत अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब कोई ᭪ यि त, -
(i)
भूिम के संपूणᭅ या ᳰकसी भाग या उᲦ भूिम मᱶ या उसके ऊपर ᳰकसी अिधकार के अजᭅन पर आᭃेप कर सकेगा ; या
(ii) उ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 4 कᳱ उप-धारा (3) के अधीन कᳱ गयी ᳰकसी कायᭅवाही से ᱟई या होने वाली संभािवत
ᳰकसी ᭃित के िलए अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 6 के अधीन ᮧितकर का दावा कर सकेगा ; या
(iii) उ त अिधिनयम कᳱ पूवᱷᭃण अनु᭄ि᭡ तयᲂ के ᮧभावहीन होने के संबंध मᱶ धारा 13 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) के अधीन या
खनन पᲵे ᮧभावहीन होने के िलए उ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 13 कᳱ उप-धारा (4) के अधीन ᮧितकर का दावा कर
सकेगा और उसे उ त अिधनयम कᳱ धारा 13 कᳱ उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) मᱶ िविन᳸द᭬ ट मदᲂ के संबंध
मᱶ उपगत ᭪ यय को दᳶशत करने के िलए पूवᲃ त भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचᮢᲂ, चाटᲄ और अ᭠ य द᭭ तावेजᲂ को
पᳯरद᭜ त कर सकेगा,
इस अिधसूचना के राजपᮢ मᱶ ᮧकाशन कᳱ तारीख से न᭣बे ᳰदन के भीतर, मु य महाᮧबंधक (भूिव᭄ानी/ᮧभारी पचवाड़ा
साउथ कोयला ᭣ लॉक), नेयवेली उ᭜ तर ᮧदेश पावर िलिमटेड, नजदीक धोिबया ᭭कूल, बाबुपाड़ा, िजला दुमका, झारखंड के
कायाᭅलय को भेजेगᱶ।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
पचवाड़ा साउथ ᭣ लॉक
राजमहल कोलफᳱ᭨ ड
िजला दुमका, झारखंड
[ रेखांक संया एनयूपीपीएल/पीएस/4(1)/002/2019, तारीख 26 मई, 2019 ]
ᮓ.
सं.
ᮕाम का
नाम
पटवारी
स᳸कल
सं या /
थाना
सं या
तहसील
िजला
ᭃेᮢ हे टेयर मᱶ
(लगभग)
कुल
ᳯट᭡पण
रैयती
सरकारी भूिम
गैर-वन
वन
1.
मᱟलडाबर
18
गोपीकंदर
दुमका
26.241
1.855
115.177
143.273
भाग
5566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
कुंडपहाड़ी
19
गोपीकंदर
दुमका
149.753
38.984
213.970
402.707
भाग
3.
िचᱨᳰदह
20
गोपीकंदर
दुमका
101.178
9.100
58.742
169.020
भाग
कुल ᭃेᮢ:
277.172
49.939
387.889
715.000
कुल ᭃेᮢ: 715.000 हे टेयर (लगभग)
या 1766.765 एकड़ (लगभग)
सीमा वणᭅन :
सीमा वणᭅन :
सीमा वणᭅन :
सीमा वणᭅन :
क – ख : रेखा, िब᭠ दु ‘क’ के मᱟलडाबर ᮕाम (सं या 18) से आरंभ होती है और मᱟलडाबर ᮕाम (सं या 18) के िब᭠ दु ‘ख’ पर
िमलती है । रेखा ‘क-ख’ ᭣ लॉक कᳱ पि᭫ चमी सीमा िनधाᭅᳯरत करती है ।
ख-ख1: रेखा, िब᭠ दु ‘ख’ के मᱟलडाबर ᮕाम (सं या 18) से आरंभ होती है और मᱟलडाबर ᮕाम (सं या 18) के िब᭠ दु ‘ख1’
पर िमलती है । रेखा ‘ख-ख1’ ᭣ लॉक कᳱ पि᭫ चमी सीमा िनधाᭅᳯरत करती है ।
ख1 –ग : रेखा, ‘ख1-ग’ के मᱟलडाबर ᮕाम (सं या 18) के िब᭠ दु ‘ख1’ से आरंभ होती है और मᱟलडाबर ᮕाम (सं या 18) के
िब᭠ दु ‘ग’ पर िमलती है । रेखा ‘ख1-ग’ ᭣ लॉक कᳱ पि᭫ चमी सीमा िनधाᭅᳯरत करती है ।
ग – घ : रेखा, ‘’ग-घ’’ मᱟलडाबर ᮕाम (सं या 18) के िब᭠ दु ‘ग’ से आरंभ होती है और िचᱨᳰदह ᮕाम पर िमलती है । रेखा
‘ग-घ’ ᭣ लॉक कᳱ उ᭜ तरी सीमा को िनधाᭅᳯरत करती है जोᳰक बंसोली नदी के दिᭃणी ᳰकनारे के सामा᭠ तर है ।
घ – ड. : रेखा, ‘घ-ड.’ िचᱨᳰदह ᮕाम (सं या 20) के िब᭠ दु ‘घ’ से आरंभ होती है और िचᱨᳰदह ᮕाम (सं या 20) के िब᭠ दु ‘ड.’
पर िमलती है, जोᳰक ᭣ लॉक कᳱ पूवᱮ सीमा है ।
ड. – च : रेखा, ‘ड.-च’ के िब᭠ दु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ होती है और िचᱨᳰदह ᮕाम (सं या 20) के िब᭠ दु ‘च’ पर िमलती है जोᳰक ᭣ लॉक
कᳱ दिᭃणी और दिᭃणी-पूवᱮ सीमा है ।
च – छ : रेखा, ‘च-छ’ िचᱨडीह ᮕाम (सं या 20) के िब᭠ दु ‘च’ से आरंभ होती है और कुंडपहाड़ी ᮕाम (सं या 19) के िब᭠ दु ‘छ’
पर िमलती है, और ᭣ लॉक कᳱ दिᭃणी सीमा िनधाᭅᳯरत करती है ।
छ – क : रेखा, ‘छ-क’ कुंडपहाड़ी ᮕाम (सं या 19) के िब᭠ दु ‘छ’ से आरंभ होती है और मᱟलडाबर ᮕाम (सं या 18) के िब᭠ दु
‘क’ पर िमलती है । रेखा ‘छ-क’ ᭣ लॉक कᳱ दिᭃणी और दिᭃण-पूवᱮ सीमा िनधाᭅᳯरत करती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015/20/2015-एलए ए᭛ड आईआर/खंड-I]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019
S.O. 1324.—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 NUPPL/PS/4(1)/002/2019, dated the 26th May, 2019 containing details
of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Chief General Manager
(Geology/incharge Pachwara South Coal Block), Neyveli Uttar Pradesh Power Limited, Near Dhobia School, Babupara,
District Dumka, Jharkhand or 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 at the office of the District Collector, District Dumka-814101,
Jharkhand.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5567
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the 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 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 clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of
the said Act,
to the office of the Chief General Manager (Geology/incharge Pachwara South Coal Block), Neyveli Uttar Pradesh
Power Limited, Near Dhobia School, Babupara, District Dumka, Jharkhand, within a period of ninety days from the date
of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
Pachwara South Block
Rajmahal Coalfield
District Dumka, Jharkhand
[Plan bearing number NUPPL/PS/4(1)/002/2019, dated the 26th May, 2019 ]
Sl.
No.
Name of the
village
Patwari/
Circle
number/
Thana
number
Tehsil
District
Area in hectares
(approximately)
Total
Remarks
Raiyati
Government Land
Non-
Forest
Forest
1.
Mahuldabar
18
Gopikander
Dumka
26.241
1.855
115.177
143.273
Part
2.
Kundapahadi
19
Gopikander
Dumka
149.753
38.984
213.970
402.707
Part
3.
Chirudih
20
Gopikander
Dumka
101.178
9.100
58.742
169.020
Part
Total Area :
277.172
49.939
387.889
715.000
Total Area :715.000 hectares (approximately)
or 1766.765 acres (approximately)
Boundary description:
A-B
The line starts from point ‘A’ in Mahuldabar village (No. 18) and ends at point ‘B’ in
Mahuldabar village (No.18). The line A-B forms the western boundary of the block.
B-B1
The line starts from point ‘B’ in Mahuldabar village (No. 18) and ends at point ‘B1’ in
Mahuldabar Village (No.18). The line ‘B-B1’ forms the western boundary of the block.
B1-C
The line ‘B1-C’ starts from point ‘B1’ in the Mahuldabar village (No.18) and ends point ‘C’
in Mahuldabar village (No. 18). The line ‘B1-C’ forms the western boundary of the block.
C-D
The line ‘C-D’ starts from point ‘C’ in the Mahuldabar village (No.18) and ends at Chirudih
village the line ‘C-D’ forms the northern boundary of the block running parallel to Bansoli
nadi southern bank.
D-E
The line ‘D-E’ starts from point ‘D’, in the Chirudih Village (No. 20) and ends at points ‘E’
Chirudih Village (No. 20) is a eastern foundary of the block.
5568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
E-F
The line ‘E-F’ starts from point ‘E’ at ends at point ‘F’ in the Chirudih village (No.20) and
forms the southern and south-eastern boundary of the block.
F-G
The line ‘F-G’ starts from point ‘F’ in the Chirudih village (No.20) and ends at point ‘G’ in
the kundapahadi village (No.19) and forms the southern boundary of the block.
G-A
The line ‘G-A’ starts at point ‘G’ in Kundapahadi village (No.19) and ends at point ‘A’ in the
village (No.18). The line ‘G-A’ forms the southern and south eastern boundary of the block.
[F. No. 43015/20/2015-LA&IR/Vol.-I]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ , Dy Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1325
1325
1325
1325.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को यह ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक इसके उपाब अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत पᳯरᭃेᮢ कᳱ भूिम मᱶ से
कोयला अिभᮧा᳙ होने कᳱ संभावना है;
और, उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम के ᭃेᮢ मᱶ अंतᳶव᳥ करने वाला रेखांक संयांक आरईवी /01/2019, तारीख
25 अᮧैल, 2019 का िनरीᭃण सᱶᮝल कोल फᳱ᭨᭙स िलिमटेड (भूिम और राज᭭व िवभाग), दरभंगा हाउस, राँची – 834029
(झारख᭛ड) के कायाᭅलय मᱶ या महाᮧबंधक, सᱶᮝल कोलफᳱ᭨᭙स िलिमटेड, कोतरे – बसंतपुर -पचमो ᭃेᮢ, िजला रामगढ़ और
बोकारो (झारख᭛ड) या महाᮧबंधक (खोज ᮧभाग) आर.आई.-III, के᭠ᮤीय खान योजना एवं िडजाईन सं᭭थान िलिमटेड,
गᲂडवाना पैलेस, कांके रोड, राँची (झारखंड) के कायाᭅलय मᱶ या कोयला िनयंᮢक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस ᭭ᮝीट, कोलकाता-
700001 के कायाᭅलय मᱶ ᳰकया जा सकता है ;
अत:, अब, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, कोयला धारक ᭃेᮢ (अजᭅन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957(1957 का 20) (िजसे इसमᱶ
इसके प᳟ात् उᲦ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) कᳱ धारा 4 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, उ त
अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ कोयले का पूवᱷᭃण करने के अपने आशय कᳱ नोᳯटस देती है ;
उपरोᲦ उि᭨लिखत अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब कोई ᭪ यि त, -
(i)
भूिम के संपूणᭅ या ᳰकसी भाग या उᲦ भूिम मᱶ या उसके ऊपर ᳰकसी अिधकार के अजᭅन पर आᭃेप कर सकेगा ;
अथवा
(ii) उ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 4 कᳱ उप-धारा (3) के अधीन कᳱ गयी ᳰकसी कायᭅवाही से ᱟई या होने वाली संभािवत
ᳰकसी ᭃित के िलए अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 6 के अधीन ᮧितकर का दावा कर सकेगा ; अथवा
(iii) उ त अिधिनयम कᳱ पूवᱷᭃण अनु᭄ि᭡ तयᲂ के ᮧभावहीन होने के संबंध मᱶ धारा 13 कᳱ उप-धारा (1) के अधीन या
खनन पᲵे ᮧभावहीन होने के िलए उ त अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 13 कᳱ उप-धारा (4) के अधीन ᮧितकर का दावा कर
सकेगा और उसे उ त अिधनयम कᳱ धारा 13 कᳱ उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) मᱶ िविन᳸द᭬ ट मदᲂ कᳱ बाबद्
उपगत ᭪ यय को उपदᳶशत करने के िलए पूवᲃ त भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचᮢᲂ, चाटᲄ और अ᭠ य द᭭ तावेजᲂ को
पᳯरद᭜ त कर सकेगा,
इस अिधसूचना के राजपᮢ मᱶ ᮧकाशन कᳱ तारीख से न᭣बे ᳰदन के भीतर महाᮧबंधक, सᱶᮝल कोलफᳱ᭨᭙स िलिमटेड,
कोतरे – बसंतपुर - पचमो ᭃेᮢ, िजला रामगढ़ और बोकारो (झारख᭛ड) या महाᮧबंधक, सᱶᮝल कोलफᳱ᭨᭙स िलिमटेड, भूिम
और राज᭭व िवभाग, दरभंगा हाउस, राँची – 834029 (झारख᭛ड) के कायाᭅलय को भेजᱶगे ।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5569
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
कोतरे बसंतपुर पचमो ओ.सी.पी.
िजला रामगढ़ और बोकारो (झारख᭛ड)
[ रेखांक संया आरईवी /01/2019, तारीख 25 अᮧैल, 2019 ]
ᮓ.सं.
ᮕाम
थाना सं.
थाना
िजला
ᭃेᮢ
ᳯट᭡पिणयां
हेटेयर मᱶ
एकड़ मᱶ
1.
बसंतपुर
105
मांडू
रामगढ़
107.24
265.00
भाग
2.
कोतरे
106
मांडू
रामगढ़
253.33
626.00
भाग
3.
ᱟरदाग
28
गोिमया
बोकारो
15.38
38.00
भाग
4.
पचमो
27
गोिमया
बोकारो
32.26
79.71
भाग
5.
पुरनापानी
25
गोिमया
बोकारो
20.43
50.48
भाग
कुल :
428.64
हेटेयर
(लगभग)
1059.19
एकड़
(लगभग)
सीमा - वणᭅन:
क-ख-ग-घ-ड.-च--छ-ज-झ-
ञ-ट-ठ-क
-
रेखा, िब᭠दु ‘क’ से आरंभ होती है और िब᭠दु ख-ग-घ-ड.-च--छ-ज-झ- ञ-ट और ‘ठ’ से
गुजरते ᱟए और आरंिभक िब᭠दु ‘क’ पर िमलती है ।
क-ख-ग-घ-ड.-च--छ
-
रेखा, िब᭠दु ‘क’ से आरंभ होती है और िब᭠दु ख-ग-घ-ड. और ‘च’ से गुजरते ᱟए और
िब᭠दु ‘छ’ पर िमलती है, जोᳰक कोतरे बसंतपुर पचमो ओसीपी के पᳯरयोजना ᳯरपोटᭅ के
अनुसार नए अजᭅन कᳱ सीमा है ।
छ-ज-झ-ञ-ट
-
रेखा, िब᭠दु ‘छ’ से आरंभ होती है और िब᭠दु ज-झ-ञ और ‘ट’ (पचमो, ᱟरदाग और
कोतरे ᮕामᲂ के भाग) {कोयला धारक ᭃेᮢ अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 9(1) के अधीन का. आ.
2082, तारीख 30 जून, 1981 के तहत अिधᮕहण सीमा} से गुजरते ᱟए और िब᭠दु
‘ट’ पर िमलती है ।
ट-ठ-क
-
रेखा, िब᭠दु ‘ट’ से आरंभ होती है और िब᭠दु ‘ठ’ और ‘क’ (कोतरे और बसंतपुर ᮕामᲂ के
भाग) {कोयला धारक ᭃेᮢ अिधिनयम कᳱ धारा 9(1) के अधीन का. आ. 981(अ),
तारीख 22 ᳰदस᭥बर, 1980 के तहत अिधᮕहण सीमा} से गुजरते ᱟए और आरंिभक
िब᭠दु ‘क’ पर िमलती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015/15/2018-एलए ए᭛ड आईआर]
राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019
S.O. 1325.—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 Rev/01/2019, dated the 25th April, 2019, containing details of the areas
of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and
Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central
5570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Coalfields Limited, Kotre-Basantpur-Pachmo Area, Districts Ramgarh and Bokaro (Jharkhand) or at the office of the
Deputy Commissioner, Districts Ramgarh and Bokaro (Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration
Division), RI- III, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at
the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700 001;
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 land described in the said Schedule.
Any person 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
action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof; or
(iii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting 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 clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of
the said Act,
to the office of the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Kotre-Basantpur-Pachmo Area, Districts Ramgarh and
Bokaro (Jharkhand) or General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Darbhanga House,
Ranchi- 834029 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official
Gazette.
SCHEDULE
KOTRE BASANTPUR PACHMO OCP
DISTRICT- RAMGARH AND BOKARO (JHARKHAND)
[ Plan bearing number Rev/01/2019, dated the 25th April, 2019]
Sl.
No.
Village
Thana
number
Thana
District
Area
Remarks
In hectares
In acres
1.
Basantpur
105
Mandu
Ramgarh
107.24
265.00
Part
2.
Kotre
106
Mandu
Ramgarh
253.33
626.00
Part
3.
Hurdag
28
Gomia
Bokaro
15.38
38.00
Part
4.
Pachmo
27
Gomia
Bokaro
32.26
79.71
Part
5.
Purnapani
25
Gomia
Bokaro
20.43
50.48
Part
Total :
428.64
hectares
(approxi-
mately)
1059.19 acres
(approxi-
mately)
Boundary Description :
A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-A
-
Line starts from point ‘A’and passes through points B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K and L
and meets at starting point ‘A’.
A-B-C-D-E-F-G
-
Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes through points B-C-D-E and F and meets at
point ‘G’, which is new acquisition boundary as per project report of Kotre
Basantpur Pachmo OCP.
G H- I-J-K
-
Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes through points H- I-J and K (part village of
Pachmo, Hurdag and Kotre) {Acquisition boundary line of Hurdag Block under
section 9(1) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
number S.O. 2082, dated 30th June, 1981} and meets at point ‘K’.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5571
K-L-A
-
Line starts from point ‘K’ and passes through points L and A part village of
Kotre and Basantpur (Acquisition Boundary Line of Basantpur Block under
section 9(1) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957,
number S.O. 981(E), dated the 22nd December, 1980 and meets at starting point
‘A’.
[F. No. 43015/15/2018-LA&IR]
RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.
पेᮝोिलयम और ᮧाकृितक गैस मंᮢालय
ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2019
dk
dk
dk
dk-vk
vkvk
vk- 1326
1326
1326
1326-&dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd yksdfgr esa ;g vko’;d gS fd gkbZMª¨dkcZu ds ifjogu ds
fy, eaqnzk-HkVhaMk foLr`frdj.k ikbiykbu =xMh ls xqankyk rd ds ekxZ is vsp-ih-lh-vsy- feRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk]
ftYyk-dPN] jkT; xqtjkr }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,A
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ,slh ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, vko’;d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe esa tks bl ls mikCk) vuqlph
esa of.kZr gS] vkSj ftlesa mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh gS mldk j{k.k gsrq mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962
dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/akdkj dk vtZu djus ds
vius vk’k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS%
dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwPkh esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks bl vf/klwpuk esa ;qDr Hkkjr ds jkti= dh
izfr;ka lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k djk nh tkrh gSa] bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds fy, mlesa
mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds lacU?k esa Jh vs
Jh vs
Jh vs
Jh vs- dsdsdsds- oLrkuh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh vsp
oLrkuh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh vsp
oLrkuh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh vsp
oLrkuh] l{ke izkf/kdkjh vsp-ihihihih-lh
lhlh
lh-vsy
vsy
vsy
vsy- feRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ft
feRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ft
feRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ft
feRry ikbiykbUl fyfeVsM] eaqnzk] ftyk
yk
yk
yk
dPN] xqtjkr ,oa izkar vf/kdkjh eaqnzk]
dPN] xqtjkr ,oa izkar vf/kdkjh eaqnzk]
dPN] xqtjkr ,oa izkar vf/kdkjh eaqnzk]
dPN] xqtjkr ,oa izkar vf/kdkjh eaqnzk] dks fyf[kr :i eas vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
vuqlwph
ftyk % dPN
jkT; % xqtjkr
vuqa
ua-
EkkStk@xzke
rglhy
losZ@Cyksd@la
¼IyksV la½
lc-Mho
la-
{ks=Qy
gsDVs;j
vkjs
oxZ
hVj
1
2
3
4
5
1
=xMh
ekaMoh
Govt. 237
-
02
79
85
238
-
00
59
57
239
-
00
85
61
240
-
00
92
29
241
-
00
57
63
257
-
00
00
20
258
-
00
16
20
259
-
00
91
88
261
-
00
12
38
262
-
00
12
68
263
-
00
03
42
Govt.260
-
00
49
20
Govt.265
-
00
55
07
270
-
00
01
63
Govt.260
-
00
16
68
266
-
00
21
07
267
-
00
00
75
5572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
=xMh pkyq
ekaMoh
Govt.260
-
00
10
61
219
-
00
76
79
220
-
00
30
40
218
-
00
52
82
Govt. 226
-
00
57
86
201
-
00
74
44
Govt. 226
-
00
59
46
200
-
00
51
39
Govt. 226
-
00
20
92
Govt. 197
-
00
04
07
2
ukuk HkkMh;k
ekaMoh
River
-
00
60
91
305
1
00
04
06
553P Govt.
-
00
50
40
305
1
00
25
95
305
2
00
29
07
304
-
00
53
76
308
-
00
30
24
307
1
00
31
01
307
2
00
33
31
309/1
P 1
00
00
20
309/1
P 2
309
2
00
05
76
311
3
00
52
12
310
1
00
66
76
310
2
Govt. 553
P 1
01
60
37
287
-
00
07
82
288
-
00
75
71
289
-
00
57
14
Govt. 553
P 1
00
04
06
290
1
00
33
04
290
2
00
23
10
Road
-
00
10
86
280/P 1
P 1
00
00
20
280/P 1
P 2
280/P 1
P 3
280
P2
268
-
00
78
83
266
-
00
00
20
267
-
00
53
97
Road
-
00
17
02
264
-
00
55
71
263
-
00
48
44
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5573
1
2
3
4
5
ukuk HkkMh;k pkyq
ekaMoh
262
-
00
09
74
Govt. 553
P 1
00
32
16
257
1
00
66
27
Govt. 553
P 1
01
99
67
122
-
00
46
78
120
-
00
03
40
121
-
00
74
42
3
dkaMkxjk eksVk
eaqnzk
379
-
00
11
89
Road
-
00
20
75
380
-
00
65
11
385
1
00
47
70
385
2
387
-
00
45
75
388
-
00
00
84
390
2
00
38
26
386
1
00
01
04
390
1
00
55
88
396
-
00
31
34
395
-
00
24
93
394
1
00
48
62
394
2
394
3
393
1
00
09
35
402
-
00
04
56
393
3
00
50
20
Road
-
00
08
18
517P Govt.
-
02
06
71
490
-
00
00
20
491
-
00
01
60
Road
-
00
01
28
503
2
00
06
38
504
-
00
54
75
512
-
00
22
59
513
3
00
20
67
513
2
00
17
12
513
1
00
24
04
511
-
00
02
75
Road
-
00
07
36
17
1
00
18
09
17
2
00
12
92
18
1
00
32
73
19
-
00
20
81
24
-
00
09
60
5574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
dkaMkxjk eksVk pkyq
eaqnzk
21
1
00
12
82
22
1
00
53
37
21
2
00
09
05
21
3
00
04
46
21
4
00
00
66
11
3
00
12
14
Road
-
00
10
68
517 P Govt.
-
00
32
64
Chalta No. 2
-
00
39
08
Road
-
00
05
17
127
-
00
91
98
126 / 1
P 1
00
12
57
126 / 1
P 2
126/2
-
Govt.
-
00
26
21
Road
-
00
06
76
Govt.
-
00
39
85
130
-
00
35
17
Govt.
-
00
69
38
185
-
00
22
87
187
4
00
13
64
187
3
00
22
97
187
2
00
18
16
187
1
00
25
19
188
-
00
13
08
189
-
00
85
38
Govt.
-
00
23
77
179
-
00
89
14
177
-
00
36
38
Road
-
00
08
12
220
-
00
40
10
221
1
00
35
22
260
1
00
08
01
222
-
00
50
69
223
-
00
59
20
248
-
00
78
55
247
-
00
11
90
244
-
00
81
80
245
-
00
00
20
243
-
01
36
64
240
-
00
51
37
Road
-
00
01
58
4
f’kjkpk
eaqnzk
295
P 1
00
28
45
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5575
1
2
3
4
5
f’kjkpk
eaqnzk
206
00
61
67
295
P 1
00
48
71
231
-
00
56
08
232
-
00
24
76
234
-
00
64
54
235
-
00
86
47
238
-
00
96
90
295
P 1
00
16
01
268
1
00
24
82
268
2
00
00
20
283
-
00
32
82
284
-
00
27
21
285
-
00
26
37
286
2
00
46
16
295
P 1
00
17
14
39 / 3 /
P 1
00
19
29
Cart Track
39 / 3 /
P 2
00
00
82
39 / 3 /
P 1
00
02
71
39 / 2
P 1
00
32
57
Cart Track
-
00
06
74
39 / 2 /
P 1
00
25
40
40
-
00
18
48
41
-
01
16
00
42
-
00
05
43
74
-
00
65
37
73
2
00
24
01
73
1
00
07
01
73
3
00
12
30
73
4
00
03
17
61
-
01
23
54
60
-
00
15
42
59
5
00
15
31
59
4
00
60
31
5
ns’kyij
eaqnzk
304
-
00
39
83
303
-
00
25
48
306
P 1
00
13
00
306
P 2
302
00
18
85
306
P 1
00
06
07
306
P 2
309
-
00
48
82
310
-
01
44
91
311/ 1
P 1
00
15
92
5576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
ns’kyij
eaqnzk
311
P 2
Road
-
00
07
99
299
1
00
25
08
299
2
00
23
63
298
-
00
59
27
284
-
01
54
44
283
1
01
48
63
283
2
281
-
01
07
53
279
-
00
68
21
275
-
00
00
90
278
P 1
01
03
48
278
P 2
Cart Track
-
00
04
29
276
-
00
45
86
Road
-
00
06
41
241
2
00
00
86
219
1
00
43
04
219 / 1
P 1
219
2
00
15
12
Road
-
00
11
64
217
-
00
78
23
218
-
00
17
32
06
eksVh Hkqtij
eaqnzk
Govt.713
-
03
43
54
437
-
00
00
20
713
30
00
03
44
713
27
00
55
21
Govt.713
-
01
62
75
Gauchar.727
-
01
83
48
439
-
00
02
01
Gauchar.732
-
02
41
39
472
2
00
09
03
413
-
00
58
93
Gauchar.713
9
00
31
45
Gauchar.728
-
01
94
56
468
-
00
47
24
469
-
00
22
54
Govt.713
-
00
44
09
442
4
00
30
80
442
3
00
00
20
713 Road
-
00
12
65
Govt.443 P
4
00
11
05
443
3
00
28
10
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5577
1
2
3
4
5
eksVh Hkqtij
eaqnzk
446
-
00
14
89
445
-
00
97
80
444
-
00
00
20
Road
-
00
07
77
713 Gauchar
-
02
47
32
398
-
00
53
72
396
2
00
29
18
396
1
00
62
07
397
-
00
85
99
395
1
00
09
08
395
2
386
1
00
64
83
386
2
387
-
00
90
08
379
-
00
66
63
388
-
00
00
20
378/1
P 1
00
25
53
378/1
P 2
378
2
378
P 3
378
P 4
333
-
00
50
59
329
-
00
78
06
330
-
00
37
89
331
P 1
00
41
61
322/1
P 1
00
53
31
322
1
00
00
20
321
-
00
62
88
Road
-
00
03
87
320
-
00
00
89
236
P 1
00
01
40
236
P 2
236
3
221
P 1
00
20
66
221
P 2
233
-
00
05
44
220
-
00
90
72
7
Izkkxij-2
eaqnzk
Govt.
-
00
18
25
30
-
00
71
86
29
P1
00
59
82
29
P2
29
P3
Govt.
-
00
46
13
5578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
Izkkxij-2
eaqnzk
28
P 1
01
10
57
28
P 2
28
P 3
27
-
00
46
99
26
-
00
29
96
Govt.
-
00
26
87
25
-
00
59
78
24
-
00
65
84
Govt.
-
00
79
57
65
P 6
00
56
46
Govt.
-
03
84
91
22
P 1
00
10
40
22
P 2
18
-
00
11
43
17
1
00
36
16
17
3
00
08
40
17
2
00
21
72
8
Ckjk;k
eaqnzk
River
-
00
90
52
462
-
00
14
57
461
-
00
14
51
463
-
00
28
70
460
-
00
10
13
465
-
00
18
89
Canal 509
-
00
31
98
370
-
00
02
33
371
-
00
31
22
372
-
00
32
21
373
-
00
36
55
368
-
00
03
23
365
-
00
44
88
364
-
00
48
22
361
-
00
00
67
363
-
00
24
78
362
-
00
18
20
Road 502
-
00
08
85
354
-
00
59
06
353
-
00
15
64
352
-
00
19
12
348
-
00
50
37
349
-
00
23
78
340
-
00
11
65
341
-
00
00
20
339
-
01
01
96
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5579
1
2
3
4
5
Ckjk;k
eaqnzk
357
-
00
07
84
Road 494
-
00
14
80
315
-
00
13
60
Road 492
-
00
31
09
Govt.314
-
00
18
01
Govt.313
-
00
00
20
310
-
00
02
01
493
-
00
12
92
312
-
01
04
53
311
-
00
70
22
308
-
00
04
48
302
-
01
15
95
301
-
00
23
22
300
-
00
44
78
293
-
00
96
73
288
-
00
00
20
289
-
00
00
20
292
-
00
88
75
291
-
00
33
23
9
Izkkxij-1
eaqnzk
218
-
00
49
34
219
-
00
43
19
229
-
00
34
81
232
-
00
32
33
231
-
01
01
26
230
-
00
00
20
10
VksMk
eaqnzk
44 River
-
00
78
81
Govt. 6
-
01
14
16
11
Hkksjkjk
eaqnzk
344
-
00
00
20
347
-
01
07
11
390 Road
-
00
14
29
348
-
00
62
32
349
-
00
11
37
350
-
00
35
11
351
-
00
30
20
352
-
00
15
03
353
-
00
50
48
354
-
00
25
47
355
-
00
26
97
356
-
00
46
76
322
-
00
14
14
321
-
00
35
92
320
-
00
36
27
319
-
00
23
02
360
-
00
03
60
5580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
Hkksjkjk pkyq
eaqnzk
318
-
00
47
78
317 Road
-
00
02
99
286
-
00
03
06
287
-
00
31
07
288
-
00
23
76
317 Road
-
00
11
17
283
-
00
10
46
289
-
00
34
91
282
-
00
00
13
290
-
00
65
41
291
-
00
00
20
292
-
00
00
20
293
-
00
00
22
378
-
00
00
55
377
-
00
02
78
12
fojkuh;k
eaqnzk
Gauchar.352
-
00
26
40
Road
-
00
07
49
351
-
00
65
97
349
-
00
08
00
Govt.348
-
00
02
29
345
-
00
00
45
346
-
00
44
98
344
-
00
25
29
343
-
00
21
65
13
xqankyk
eaqnzk
528
-
00
91
78
527
-
00
03
21
529
1
00
52
79
529
2
252
-
00
02
03
530
-
00
51
88
531
P 1
00
17
89
531
P 2
544
-
00
69
28
543
1
00
51
38
N.H.Road543/1
P 1
00
16
34
543
1
00
19
62
551
-
00
03
44
550
1
00
65
30
Road
-
00
19
23
547
-
00
00
20
548
-
00
00
20
549
-
00
80
46
554
-
00
86
19
555
P 1
00
51
41
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5581
1
2
3
4
5
xqankyk pkyq
eaqnzk
555
P 2
555
2
Road
-
00
07
61
17
P 1
00
17
15
17
P 2
16
-
00
90
20
6
-
00
84
97
7
-
00
24
98
Cart Track
-
00
12
64
7
-
00
10
38
Govt.
-
01
10
57
94
2
00
46
75
95
-
00
06
06
133
-
00
72
28
132
-
00
39
51
Road
-
00
09
23
134
-
00
19
90
138
-
01
26
68
Govt.
-
00
16
99
200
-
00
02
20
201
-
01
43
23
206
-
00
65
94
Road
-
00
10
03
384
-
00
67
27
385
-
00
02
86
388
-
00
42
19
389
-
00
52
82
390
-
00
00
06
388
-
00
12
24
391
-
00
36
64
382
-
00
29
44
Cart Track
-
00
06
02
378
1
00
85
52
Govt.
-
00
25
21
376
-
00
03
17
215
-
00
83
06
215
P 1
215
P 2
214/1
00
03
94
214/2
14
=xMh
ekaMoh
Govt
-
56
12
04
[Qk- la- vkj&12031@2@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&26406]
'kkUruq /kj] voj lfpo
5582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019
S.O. 1326.—Where as it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest and
safety that for the Transportation of Hydrocarbon through Mundra – Bathinda Extension Pipeline from Tragadi to
Gundala route, a pipeline should be laid by HPCL-Mittal Pipelines Limited, Mundra, Dist. Kutch, Gujarat.
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of protection of the said pipeline, it is necessary
to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule
annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its
intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said Schedule may submit objection in writing to
Shri A. K. Vastani, Competent Authority, HPCL-Mittal Pipelines Limited, Mundra, Dist. Kutch, Gujarat and Prant
Officer, Mundra, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section
(1) of Section 3 of the said Act, is published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : KUTCH
STATE : GUJARAT
Sr.
No.
Village
Tehsil
Survey Number
Sub.Div.
No.
Area
Ha.
Are
Sq.Mt.
1
2
3
4
5
1
Tragadi
Mandvi
Govt. 237
-
02
79
85
238
-
00
59
57
239
-
00
85
61
240
-
00
92
29
241
-
00
57
63
257
-
00
00
20
258
-
00
16
20
259
-
00
91
88
261
-
00
12
38
262
-
00
12
68
263
-
00
03
42
Govt. 260
-
00
49
20
Govt. 265
-
00
55
07
270
-
00
01
63
Govt. 260
-
00
16
68
266
-
00
21
07
267
-
00
00
75
Govt. 260
-
00
10
61
219
-
00
76
79
220
-
00
30
40
218
-
00
52
82
Govt. 226
-
00
57
86
201
-
00
74
44
Govt. 226
-
00
59
46
200
-
00
51
39
Govt. 226
-
00
20
92
Govt. 197
-
00
04
07
2
Nana Bhadiya
Mandavi
River
-
00
60
91
305
1
00
04
06
Govt. 553 P.
-
00
50
40
305
1
00
25
95
305
2
00
29
07
304
-
00
53
76
308
-
00
30
24
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5583
1
2
3
4
5
Nana Bhadiya
Mandavi
307
1
00
31
01
307
2
00
33
31
309/1
P 1
00
00
20
309/1
P 2
309
2
00
05
76
311
3
00
52
12
310
1
00
66
76
310
2
Govt. 553
P 1
01
60
37
287
-
00
07
82
288
-
00
75
71
289
-
00
57
14
Govt. 553
P 1
00
04
06
290
1
00
33
04
290
2
00
23
10
Road
-
00
10
86
280/P 1
P 1
00
00
20
280/P 1
P 2
280/P 1
P 3
280
P2
268
-
00
78
83
266
-
00
00
20
267
-
00
53
97
Road
-
00
17
02
264
-
00
55
71
263
-
00
48
44
262
-
00
09
74
Govt. 553
P 1
00
32
16
257
1
00
66
27
Govt. 553
P 1
01
99
67
122
-
00
46
78
120
-
00
03
40
121
-
00
74
42
3
Kandagara Mota
Mundra
379
-
00
11
89
Road
-
00
20
75
380
-
00
65
11
385
1
00
47
70
385
2
387
-
00
45
75
388
-
00
00
84
390
2
00
38
26
386
1
00
01
04
390
1
00
55
88
396
-
00
31
34
395
-
00
24
93
394
1
00
48
62
394
2
394
3
393
1
00
09
35
402
-
00
04
56
393
3
00
50
20
Road
-
00
08
18
Govt.517 P.
-
02
06
71
490
-
00
00
20
491
-
00
01
60
Road
-
00
01
28
503
2
00
06
38
504
-
00
54
75
512
-
00
22
59
5584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
Kandagara Mota
Mundra
513
3
00
20
67
513
2
00
17
12
513
1
00
24
04
511
-
00
02
75
Road
-
00
07
36
17
1
00
18
09
17
2
00
12
92
18
1
00
32
73
19
-
00
20
81
24
-
00
09
60
21
1
00
12
82
22
1
00
53
37
21
2
00
09
05
21
3
00
04
46
21
4
00
00
66
11
3
00
12
14
Road
-
00
10
68
Govt.517 P.
-
00
32
64
Chalta No.2
-
00
39
08
Road
-
00
05
17
127
-
00
91
98
126 / 1
P 1
00
12
57
126 / 1
P 2
126/2
-
Govt.
-
00
26
21
Road
-
00
06
76
Govt.
-
00
39
85
130
-
00
35
17
Govt.
-
00
69
38
185
-
00
22
87
187
4
00
13
64
187
3
00
22
97
187
2
00
18
16
187
1
00
25
19
188
-
00
13
08
189
-
00
85
38
Govt.
-
00
23
77
179
-
00
89
14
177
-
00
36
38
Road
-
00
08
12
220
-
00
40
10
221
1
00
35
22
260
1
00
08
01
222
-
00
50
69
223
-
00
59
20
248
-
00
78
55
247
-
00
11
90
244
-
00
81
80
245
-
00
00
20
243
-
01
36
64
240
-
00
51
37
Road
-
00
01
58
4
Shiracha
Mundra
295
P 1
00
28
45
206
00
61
67
295
P 1
00
48
71
231
-
00
56
08
232
-
00
24
76
234
-
00
64
54
235
-
00
86
47
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5585
1
2
3
4
5
Shiracha
Mundra
238
-
00
96
90
295
P 1
00
16
01
268
1
00
24
82
268
2
00
00
20
283
-
00
32
82
284
-
00
27
21
285
-
00
26
37
286
2
00
46
16
295
P 1
00
17
14
39 / 3
P 1
00
19
29
Cart Track
39 / 3
P 2
00
00
82
39 / 3
P 1
00
02
71
39 / 2
P 1
00
32
57
Cart Track
-
00
06
74
39 / 2
P 1
00
25
40
40
-
00
18
48
41
-
01
16
00
42
-
00
05
43
74
-
00
65
37
73
2
00
24
01
73
1
00
07
01
73
3
00
12
30
73
4
00
03
17
61
-
01
23
54
60
-
00
15
42
59
5
00
15
31
59
4
00
60
31
5
Deshalpar
Mundra
304
-
00
39
83
303
-
00
25
48
306
P 1
00
13
00
306
P 2
302
00
18
85
306
P 1
00
06
07
306
P 2
309
-
00
48
82
310
-
01
44
91
311 / 1
P 1
00
15
92
311
P 2
Road
-
00
07
99
299
1
00
25
08
299
2
00
23
63
298
-
00
59
27
284
-
01
54
44
283
1
01
48
63
283
2
281
-
01
07
53
279
-
00
68
21
275
-
00
00
90
278
P 1
01
03
48
278
P 2
Cart Track
-
00
04
29
276
-
00
45
86
Road
-
00
06
41
241
2
00
00
86
219
1
00
43
04
219 / 1
P 1
219
2
00
15
12
Road
-
00
11
64
5586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
Deshalpar
Mundra
217
-
00
78
23
218
-
00
17
32
06
Moti Bhujpar
Mundra
Govt. 713
-
03
43
54
437
-
00
00
20
713
30
00
03
44
713
27
00
55
21
Govt. 713
-
01
62
75
GAUCHAR-727
-
01
83
48
439
-
00
02
01
GAUCHAR-732
-
02
41
39
472
2
00
09
03
413
-
00
58
93
GAUCHAR-713
9
00
31
45
GAUCHAR-728
-
01
94
56
468
-
00
47
24
469
-
00
22
54
Govt.-713
-
00
44
09
442
4
00
30
80
442
3
00
00
20
713 Road
-
00
12
65
Govt.-443 P.
4
00
11
05
443
3
00
28
10
446
-
00
14
89
445
-
00
97
80
444
-
00
00
20
Road
-
00
07
77
713 Gauchar
-
02
47
32
398
-
00
53
72
396
2
00
29
18
396
1
00
62
07
397
-
00
85
99
395
1
00
09
08
395
2
386
1
00
64
83
386
2
387
-
00
90
08
379
-
00
66
63
388
-
00
00
20
378/1
P 1
00
25
53
378/1
P 2
378
2
378
P 3
378
P 4
333
-
00
50
59
329
-
00
78
06
330
-
00
37
89
331
P 1
00
41
61
322/1
P 1
00
53
31
322
1
00
00
20
321
-
00
62
88
Road
-
00
03
87
320
-
00
00
89
236
P 1
00
01
40
236
P 2
236
3
221
P 1
00
20
66
221
P 2
233
-
00
05
44
220
-
00
90
72
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5587
1
2
3
4
5
7
Pragpar-2
Mundra
Govt.
-
00
18
25
30
-
00
71
86
29
P1
00
59
82
29
P2
29
P3
Govt.
-
00
46
13
28
P 1
01
10
57
28
P 2
28
P 3
27
-
00
46
99
26
-
00
29
96
Govt.
-
00
26
87
25
-
00
59
78
24
-
00
65
84
Govt.
-
00
79
57
65
P 6
00
56
46
Govt.
-
03
84
91
22
P 1
00
10
40
22
P 2
18
-
00
11
43
17
1
00
36
16
17
3
00
08
40
17
2
00
21
72
8
Baraya
Mundra
River
-
00
90
52
462
-
00
14
57
461
-
00
14
51
463
-
00
28
70
460
-
00
10
13
465
-
00
18
89
Canal 509
-
00
31
98
370
-
00
02
33
371
-
00
31
22
372
-
00
32
21
373
-
00
36
55
368
-
00
03
23
365
-
00
44
88
364
-
00
48
22
361
-
00
00
67
363
-
00
24
78
362
-
00
18
20
Road 502
-
00
08
85
354
-
00
59
06
353
-
00
15
64
352
-
00
19
12
348
-
00
50
37
349
-
00
23
78
340
-
00
11
65
341
-
00
00
20
339
-
01
01
96
357
-
00
07
84
Road 494
-
00
14
80
315
-
00
13
60
Road 492
-
00
31
09
Govt.-314
-
00
18
01
Govt.-313
-
00
00
20
310
-
00
02
01
493
-
00
12
92
312
-
01
04
53
311
-
00
70
22
5588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
Baraya
Mundra
308
-
00
04
48
302
-
01
15
95
301
-
00
23
22
300
-
00
44
78
293
-
00
96
73
288
-
00
00
20
289
-
00
00
20
292
-
00
88
75
291
-
00
33
23
9
Pragpar-1
Mundra
218
-
00
49
34
219
-
00
43
19
229
-
00
34
81
232
-
00
32
33
231
-
01
01
26
230
-
00
00
20
10
Toda
Mundra
44 River
-
00
78
81
Govt.6
-
01
14
16
11
Bhorara
Mundra
344
-
00
00
20
347
-
01
07
11
390 Road
-
00
14
29
348
-
00
62
32
349
-
00
11
37
350
-
00
35
11
351
-
00
30
20
352
-
00
15
03
353
-
00
50
48
354
-
00
25
47
355
-
00
26
97
356
-
00
46
76
322
-
00
14
14
321
-
00
35
92
320
-
00
36
27
319
-
00
23
02
360
-
00
03
60
318
-
00
47
78
317 Road
-
00
02
99
286
-
00
03
06
287
-
00
31
07
288
-
00
23
76
317 Road
-
00
11
17
283
-
00
10
46
289
-
00
34
91
282
-
00
00
13
290
-
00
65
41
291
-
00
00
20
292
-
00
00
20
293
-
00
00
22
378
-
00
00
55
377
-
00
02
78
12
Viraniya
Mundra
GAUCHAR-352
-
00
26
40
Road
-
00
07
49
351
-
00
65
97
349
-
00
08
00
Govt.-348
-
00
02
29
345
-
00
00
45
346
-
00
44
98
344
-
00
25
29
343
-
00
21
65
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5589
1
2
3
4
5
13
Gundala
Mundra
528
-
00
91
78
527
-
00
03
21
529
1
00
52
79
529
2
252
-
00
02
03
530
-
00
51
88
531
P 1
00
17
89
531
P 2
544
-
00
69
28
543
1
00
51
38
N.H.Road543/1
P 1
00
16
34
543
1
00
19
62
551
-
00
03
44
550
1
00
65
30
Road
-
00
19
23
547
-
00
00
20
548
-
00
00
20
549
-
00
80
46
554
-
00
86
19
555
P 1
00
51
41
555
P 2
555
2
Road
-
00
07
61
17
P 1
00
17
15
17
P 2
16
-
00
90
20
6
-
00
84
97
7
-
00
24
98
Cart Track
-
00
12
64
7
-
00
10
38
Govt.
-
01
10
57
94
2
00
46
75
95
-
00
06
06
133
-
00
72
28
132
-
00
39
51
Road
-
00
09
23
134
-
00
19
90
138
-
01
26
68
Govt.
-
00
16
99
200
-
00
02
20
201
-
01
43
23
206
-
00
65
94
Road
-
00
10
03
384
-
00
67
27
385
-
00
02
86
388
-
00
42
19
389
-
00
52
82
390
-
00
00
06
388
-
00
12
24
391
-
00
36
64
5590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
Gundala
Mundra
382
-
00
29
44
Cart Track
-
00
06
02
378
1
00
85
52
Govt.
-
00
25
21
376
-
00
03
17
215
-
00
83
06
215
P 1
215
P 2
214/1
00
03
94
214/2
14
Tragadi
Mandvi
Govt
-
56
12
04
[F. No. R-12031/2/2018-OR-I/E-26406]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 11 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 1327
. 1327
. 1327
. 1327.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार के लोकिहत मᱶ यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक उडीसा रा᭔य मᱶ पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर- हि᭨दया से पेᮝोिलयम उ᭜ पादᲂ के पᳯरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड के ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन
िबछाई जानी चािहए।
और के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ऐसी भूिम मᱶ जो इससे
उपाब अनुसूची मे वᳶणत है और िजसमᱶ उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧ᭭ ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार का अजᭅन ᳰकया
जाए।
अत: अब के᭠ᮤीय सरकार पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाइ᭠ स (भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार का अजᭅन) अिधिनयम 1962
(1962 का 50) कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन
करने के अपने आशय कᳱ घोषणा करती है।
कोई ᳞िᲦ जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब है उस ताᳯरख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के राजपᮢ ᳰक
ᮧितया साधारण जनता को उपल᭣ध करा दी जाती है इᲥᳱस ᳰदन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए
उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन के स᭥ ब᭠ ध मᱶ ᮰ी िबमल ᮧसाद मोहंती, सᭃम ᮧािधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनाथपुर-ह᭨ दीआ
ᮧाँडट पाइपलाइन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग, Ფाटᭅर संया बी/2, इंिडयन ऑयल
आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉस: कुᱧदा, बालासोर -756056 (ओिडशा) को िलिखत ᱨप से आᭃेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसू
अनुसू
अनुसू
अनुसूची
ची
ची
ची
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल कॉपᲃ
कॉपᲃ
कॉपᲃ
कॉपᲃरेशन
रेशन
रेशन
रेशन िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सो
सो
सो
सोमनाथपुर
मनाथपुर
मनाथपुर
मनाथपुर - ह᭨दीआ
ह᭨दीआ
ह᭨दीआ
ह᭨दीआ पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइन पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला :-
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य :- ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ᮓ.संसंसंसं
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
हाल
हाल
हाल
हाल ᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
कुल
कुल
कुल
कुल अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
(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
सोरो
गुड सं 241
618
00
01
37
619
00
03
54
621/6194
00
02
53
621/6195
00
00
34
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5591
(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)
सोरो
गुड सं 241
506/6190
00
00
54
506
00
00
51
506/6189
00
00
10
622
00
06
55
678
00
00
83
679
00
00
23
677
00
00
74
676
00
02
00
682/6159
00
01
90
682
00
01
03
681
00
00
51
683
00
00
03
689
00
00
35
504
00
04
01
498
00
01
04
200
00
06
68
201
00
02
41
202
00
00
36
205
00
01
20
207
00
01
68
208
00
06
49
233
00
04
18
224
00
00
06
232
00
02
83
264
00
06
21
269
00
00
22
268
00
00
74
267
00
02
60
266
00
02
14
85
00
01
72
94
00
03
91
101
00
02
29
103
00
01
67
105
00
02
96
115
00
03
41
5592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
सोरो
गुड सं 241
116
00
06
45
117
00
03
09
123
00
01
56
124
00
01
38
125
00
01
68
127
00
03
38
128
00
01
24
129
00
01
85
130
00
00
72
131
00
03
41
132
00
00
81
141
00
02
84
142
00
00
10
140
00
02
21
893
00
00
89
892
00
00
20
894
00
01
70
895
00
00
67
896
00
00
10
897
00
02
14
890
00
01
35
1469
00
01
56
1471
00
03
03
1470
00
00
13
1464
00
02
60
1472
00
01
06
1463
00
07
54
1503
00
00
61
1540
00
00
94
1504
00
01
97
1538
00
02
83
1536
00
01
17
1547
00
00
10
1553
00
04
04
1595
00
00
05
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5593
(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)
सोरो
गुड सं 241
1554
00
04
70
1555
00
00
80
1556
00
01
65
1592
00
01
57
1583
00
01
97
1584
00
01
20
1581
00
01
57
1585
00
01
57
1586
00
00
81
1588
00
00
09
1587
00
01
40
1651
00
03
63
1652
00
01
75
1654
00
00
04
1656
00
02
71
1655
00
00
09
1657
00
02
02
1649
00
00
13
1648
00
03
29
1646
00
00
28
1661
00
00
11
1644
00
03
65
1643
00
00
41
1641
00
02
76
1687
00
02
04
1688
00
03
83
1689
00
00
46
1196
00
03
69
1696
00
00
96
1695
00
01
32
1697
00
03
08
1180
00
01
90
1177
00
05
39
2526
00
01
52
2527
00
00
06
5594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
सोरो
गुड सं 241
2528
00
02
26
2529
00
01
70
2533
00
02
01
2532
00
03
54
2530
00
00
10
2531
00
03
63
2581
00
01
79
2537
00
00
05
2580
00
03
26
2582
00
03
05
2611
00
02
84
2613
00
00
24
2615
00
07
50
2619
00
00
15
2620
00
00
32
2621
00
00
33
2622
00
00
37
2623
00
00
58
2626
00
00
47
2628
00
00
30
2627
00
01
08
2625
00
01
47
2630
00
00
33
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29478]
शा᭠ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019
S. O. 1327.—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-Haldia, pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha 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 Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5595
Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division,
Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT :
BALASORE
STATE:
ODISHA
S. No.
Name of Tehsil
Name of Village
Plot No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
SORO
GUR No. 241
618
00
01
37
619
00
03
54
621/6194
00
02
53
621/6195
00
00
34
506/6190
00
00
54
506
00
00
51
506/6189
00
00
10
622
00
06
55
678
00
00
83
679
00
00
23
677
00
00
74
676
00
02
00
682/6159
00
01
90
682
00
01
03
681
00
00
51
683
00
00
03
689
00
00
35
504
00
04
01
498
00
01
04
200
00
06
68
201
00
02
41
202
00
00
36
205
00
01
20
207
00
01
68
208
00
06
49
233
00
04
18
224
00
00
06
232
00
02
83
264
00
06
21
269
00
00
22
268
00
00
74
267
00
02
60
266
00
02
14
85
00
01
72
94
00
03
91
101
00
02
29
103
00
01
67
105
00
02
96
115
00
03
41
116
00
06
45
117
00
03
09
123
00
01
56
124
00
01
38
125
00
01
68
127
00
03
38
128
00
01
24
129
00
01
85
130
00
00
72
5596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
SORO
GUR No. 241
131
00
03
41
132
00
00
81
141
00
02
84
142
00
00
10
140
00
02
21
893
00
00
89
892
00
00
20
894
00
01
70
895
00
00
67
896
00
00
10
897
00
02
14
890
00
01
35
1469
00
01
56
1471
00
03
03
1470
00
00
13
1464
00
02
60
1472
00
01
06
1463
00
07
54
1503
00
00
61
1540
00
00
94
1504
00
01
97
1538
00
02
83
1536
00
01
17
1547
00
00
10
1553
00
04
04
1595
00
00
05
1554
00
04
70
1555
00
00
80
1556
00
01
65
1592
00
01
57
1583
00
01
97
1584
00
01
20
1581
00
01
57
1585
00
01
57
1586
00
00
81
1588
00
00
09
1587
00
01
40
1651
00
03
63
1652
00
01
75
1654
00
00
04
1656
00
02
71
1655
00
00
09
1657
00
02
02
1649
00
00
13
1648
00
03
29
1646
00
00
28
1661
00
00
11
1644
00
03
65
1643
00
00
41
1641
00
02
76
1687
00
02
04
1688
00
03
83
1689
00
00
46
1196
00
03
69
1696
00
00
96
1695
00
01
32
1697
00
03
08
1180
00
01
90
1177
00
05
39
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5597
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
SORO
GUR No. 241
2526
00
01
52
2527
00
00
06
2528
00
02
26
2529
00
01
70
2533
00
02
01
2532
00
03
54
2530
00
00
10
2531
00
03
63
2581
00
01
79
2537
00
00
05
2580
00
03
26
2582
00
03
05
2611
00
02
84
2613
00
00
24
2615
00
07
50
2619
00
00
15
2620
00
00
32
2621
00
00
33
2622
00
00
37
2623
00
00
58
2626
00
00
47
2628
00
00
30
2627
00
01
08
2625
00
01
47
2630
00
00
33
[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 11 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का.आ. . . . 1328
1328
1328
1328.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार के लोकिहत मᱶ यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक ओिडशा रा᭔य मᱶ पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर-ह᭨ दीआ से पेᮝोिलयम उ᭜ पादᲂ के पᳯरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड के ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन
िबछाई जानी चािहए।
और के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ऐसी भूिम मᱶ जो इससे
उपाब अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत है और िजस मᱶ उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧ᭭ ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन ᳰकया जाए।
अत: अब के᭠ᮤीय सरकार पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाइ᭠ स भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन अिधिनयम 1962 (1962 का
50) कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उपधारा 1 ᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन करने के अपने
आशय कᳱ घोषणा करती है।
कोई ᳞िᲦ जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब है उस ताᳯरख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से भारत के राजपᮢ ᳰक
ᮧितया साधारण जनता को उपल᭣ध करा दी जाती है इᲥᳱस ᳰदन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए
उसमे उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन के स᭥ ब᭠ ध मᱶ ᮰ी िबमल ᮧसाद मोहंती, सᭃम ᮧािधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनाथपुर-ह᭨ दीआ
ᮧाँडट पाइपलाइन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग, Ფाटᭅर संया बी/2,इंिडयन ऑयल
आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉस : कुᱧदा, बालासोर -756056 (ओिडशा) को िलिखत ᱨप से आᭃेप भेज सकेगा।
5598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल कॉ
कॉ
कॉ
कॉपᲃ
पᲃ
पᲃ
पᲃरेशन
रेशन
रेशन
रेशन िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर – ह᭨ दी
᭨ दी
᭨ दी
᭨ दीआ ᮧाँडट
ᮧाँडट
ᮧाँडट
ᮧाँडट पा
पा
पा
पाइपलाइ
इपलाइ
इपलाइ
इपलाइन पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला-
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य :- ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ᮓ.संसंसंसं
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
(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
रेमुना
पटरा - 250
1
00
01
49
2
00
00
15
2
रेमुना
िहराᳯटकरी - 227
1423
00
03
27
1422
00
04
80
863
00
01
09
859
00
05
98
868
00
11
00
3
रेमुना
पहाडपुर - 217
214
00
05
54
179
00
00
76
183
00
03
36
181
00
00
02
182
00
01
88
184
00
00
11
180
00
04
02
166
00
03
33
185
00
00
13
165
00
06
52
160
00
02
74
159
00
09
26
157
00
12
73
156
00
06
82
155
00
06
19
150
00
01
32
149
00
01
77
148
00
01
04
147
00
01
36
144
00
02
77
146
00
07
02
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5599
(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)
रेमुना
पहाडपुर - 217
145
00
00
80
78
00
06
54
24
00
06
97
23
00
01
27
16
00
00
20
18
00
00
20
19
00
00
20
20
00
04
06
17
00
07
24
4
रेमुना
हि᭨दया - 77
1523
00
10
79
1490
00
00
03
1491
00
03
92
1492
00
06
03
1480
00
00
01
1479
00
04
74
5
रेमुना
पादाबडगाँ - 44
3185/3054
00
00
04
6
रेमुना
बडपाल - 88
1486
00
00
05
7
बालासोर
खाननगर - 210
1925/2047
00
00
20
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29478]
शा᭠ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019
S. O. 1328.—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 –Haldia, a pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha 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 Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent
Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division,
Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.
5600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PRODUCT PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT : BALASORE
STATE:
ODISHA
Sl. No.
Name of Tehsil
Name of Village
Plot No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
REMUNA
PATARA - 250
1
00
01
49
2
00
00
15
2
REMUNA
HIRATIKIRI - 227
1423
00
03
27
1422
00
04
80
863
00
01
09
859
00
05
98
868
00
11
00
3
REMUNA
PAHADAPUR - 217
214
00
05
54
179
00
00
76
183
00
03
36
181
00
00
02
182
00
01
88
184
00
00
11
180
00
04
02
166
00
03
33
185
00
00
13
165
00
06
52
160
00
02
74
159
00
09
26
157
00
12
73
156
00
06
82
155
00
06
19
150
00
01
32
149
00
01
77
148
00
01
04
147
00
01
36
144
00
02
77
146
00
07
02
145
00
00
80
78
00
06
54
24
00
06
97
23
00
01
27
16
00
00
20
18
00
00
20
19
00
00
20
20
00
04
06
17
00
07
24
4
REMUNA
HALADIA - 77
1523
00
10
79
1490
00
00
03
1491
00
03
92
1492
00
06
03
1480
00
00
01
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5601
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
REMUNA
HALADIA - 77
1479
00
04
74
5
REMUNA
PADABADAGAN - 44
3185/3054
00
00
04
6
REMUNA
BADPAL - 88
1486
00
00
05
7
BALASORE
KHANNAGAR - 210
1925/2047
00
00
20
[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 11 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 1329
. 1329
. 1329
. 1329.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार के लोकिहत मᱶ यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक उडीसा रा᭔ य मᱶ पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर-ह᭨ दीआ से पेᮝोिलयम उ᭜ पादᲂ के पᳯरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड के ᳇ारा पाईप लाइन
िबछाई जानी चािहए।
और के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक ऐसी भूिम मᱶ जो इससे
उपाब अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत है और िजसमᱶ उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧ᭭ ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन ᳰकया जाए।
अत: अब, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइप लाई᭠ स (भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन) अिधिनयम 1962 (1962
का 50) कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन करने के
अपने आशय कᳱ घोषणा करती है।
कोई ᳞िᲦ जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भुिम मᱶ िहतब है उस ताᳯरख से िजस को इस अिधसूचना से भारत के राजपᮢ ᳰक
ᮧितया साधारण जनता को उपल᭣ध करा दी जाती है इᲥᳱस ᳰदन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए
उसमᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन के स᭥ ब᭠ ध मᱶ ᮰ी िबमल ᮧसाद मोहंती, सᭃम ᮧािधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनाथपुर-ह᭨ दीआ
ᮧाँडट पाइपलाईन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाईन ᮧभाग, Ფाटᭅर संया बी/2,इंिडयन ऑयल
आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉस: कुᱧदा, बालासोर- 756056 (ओिडशा) को िलिखत ᱨप से आᭃेपभेज सकेगा।
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल कॉ
कॉ
कॉ
कॉपᲃ
पᲃ
पᲃ
पᲃरेशन
रेशन
रेशन
रेशन िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर – ह᭨ दी
᭨ दी
᭨ दी
᭨ दीआ पाइपलाईन
पाइपलाईन
पाइपलाईन
पाइपलाईन पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला :-
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य :- ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ᮓ.संसंसंसं
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
हाल
हाल
हाल
हाल ᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
कुल
कुल
कुल
कुल अिधᮕिहत
िधᮕिहत
िधᮕिहत
िधᮕिहत ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
(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
बालासोर
कुअँरपुर - 288
220
00
01
33
216
00
10
82
210
00
00
80
182
00
00
01
184
00
04
98
185
00
01
54
186
00
01
97
5602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
बालासोर
कुअँरपुर - 288
205
00
01
04
187
00
00
20
204
00
04
92
192
00
03
88
196
00
02
29
195
00
01
07
302
00
00
47
303
00
00
42
304
00
00
53
544
00
01
02
536
00
02
73
537
00
02
25
532
00
01
40
531
00
01
29
525
00
06
55
519
00
02
59
514
00
00
38
513
00
03
72
512
00
00
04
562
00
01
51
565
00
06
49
569
00
04
89
568
00
04
80
695
00
00
39
570
00
00
19
571
00
02
12
688
00
03
82
692
00
00
20
691
00
05
31
691/1567
00
00
61
689
00
07
39
685
00
04
46
669
00
00
60
670
00
05
16
668
00
04
18
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5603
(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)
बालासोर
कुअँरपुर - 288
667
00
03
49
666
00
02
03
2
बालासोर
चंडीपुर - 278
403/525
00
01
93
403
00
00
20
421
00
03
39
422
00
00
10
418
00
00
37
419
00
02
60
420
00
01
93
416
00
00
18
413
00
00
46
414
00
02
04
415
00
00
67
410
00
02
31
356
00
03
14
357
00
04
32
354
00
00
45
352/508
00
02
56
352
00
00
31
350
00
03
81
349
00
00
63
348
00
01
37
3
बालासोर
भीमपुर - 279
162
00
04
48
161
00
02
98
157
00
02
55
156
00
02
51
149
00
04
41
145
00
04
28
143
00
01
85
136
00
02
94
137
00
01
54
130
00
03
07
130/4385
00
02
83
104
00
00
81
105
00
01
43
5604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
बालासोर
भीमपुर - 279
106
00
00
11
107
00
03
51
108
00
02
29
121
00
00
20
111
00
00
21
110
00
00
52
90/4585
00
00
20
109
00
04
21
90
00
00
20
89
00
01
67
88
00
02
11
87
00
00
34
80
00
02
96
78
00
01
58
77
00
02
37
62
00
02
40
61
00
00
33
51
00
02
36
54
00
01
58
55
00
01
67
56
00
02
37
36
00
00
71
35
00
02
98
34
00
01
52
22
00
03
26
25
00
07
18
29
00
00
16
26
00
03
28
27
00
02
20
268
00
01
45
275
00
04
87
276
00
03
03
1
00
00
72
4
बालासोर
छेलीआपदा - 277
491
00
03
24
492
00
02
99
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5605
(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)
बालासोर
छेलीआपदा - 277
493
00
02
51
494
00
01
02
446
00
02
22
448
00
00
96
447
00
00
84
449
00
00
07
450
00
02
12
455
00
00
05
451/521
00
03
59
451/522
00
00
10
451
00
02
51
452
00
02
93
453
00
01
30
408
00
00
79
453/552
00
00
03
407
00
03
81
405
00
01
39
414
00
02
44
415
00
01
76
404
00
03
64
344
00
02
43
341
00
04
76
340
00
01
48
338
00
03
37
337
00
02
28
310
00
03
35
311
00
00
06
313
00
00
04
312
00
03
04
309
00
00
12
315
00
04
88
5
बालासोर
गोिब᭠ दा - 212
971
00
08
10
970
00
01
39
965
00
00
20
962
00
00
20
5606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
बालासोर
गोिब᭠ दा - 212
961
00
00
20
980
00
07
94
981
00
05
03
982
00
00
46
983
00
07
40
987
00
02
05
988
00
05
64
1015
00
00
32
1069
00
06
76
1070
00
01
20
1071
00
09
36
1461
00
01
04
1458
00
08
88
1457
00
03
52
1456
00
01
51
1454
00
04
13
1453
00
04
76
1355
00
00
31
1244
00
08
30
1245
00
07
48
1249
00
12
35
1246
00
00
20
6
बालासोर
कंटाबिनया - 224
28
00
05
74
27
00
02
90
26
00
05
89
25
00
00
09
17
00
00
22
16
00
00
15
2
00
02
24
3/152
00
00
30
3
00
18
73
4
00
02
08
7
बालासोर
खंडाहार - 216
1017
00
13
14
1011
00
01
63
1018
00
00
01
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5607
(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)
बालासोर
खंडाहार - 216
1010
00
09
52
1006
00
00
77
1007
00
06
10
1005
00
01
56
1004
00
06
19
1068
00
01
02
1104
00
07
04
1103
00
05
21
1105
00
00
20
1106
00
04
71
1124
00
16
67
1120
00
05
21
1123
00
00
14
1122
00
06
19
1121
00
02
02
1131
00
04
35
8
बालासोर
नयापारा - 213
1118
00
02
04
1119
00
04
47
1120
00
02
31
1276
00
09
52
1122
00
00
02
1123
00
11
19
1124
00
00
29
1127
00
00
34
1126
00
04
00
1125
00
07
65
1068
00
01
79
1067
00
01
96
1066
00
02
37
823
00
09
73
840
00
03
29
839
00
05
23
838
00
00
59
835
00
08
76
833
00
01
30
5608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
बालासोर
नयापारा - 213
721
00
00
02
836
00
03
74
876
00
00
49
877
00
00
46
878
00
03
18
879
00
02
77
881
00
08
05
885
00
07
77
9
बालासोर
राइसुआँ - 127
1744
00
03
58
1747
00
05
56
1746
00
02
23
1766
00
10
74
1767
00
01
35
1726
00
05
09
1725
00
08
41
1784
00
03
24
1785
00
03
99
1710
00
00
20
1787
00
04
58
1793
00
06
48
1694
00
11
04
1698
00
04
94
1696
00
00
10
1695
00
00
10
1682
00
00
02
1687
00
00
10
1683
00
02
36
1684
00
02
16
1680
00
00
08
1638
00
08
35
1639
00
00
71
1640
00
00
20
1646
00
00
99
1642
00
01
00
1641
00
01
51
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5609
(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)
10
10
10
10
बालासोर
शाहाजानगर - 276
48/1684
00
01
96
42
00
01
62
47
00
02
38
45
00
01
84
44
00
02
06
44/1792
00
00
10
43
00
01
96
41
00
02
21
37
00
00
05
38
00
02
73
36
00
01
64
36/1495
00
00
83
35
00
01
17
34
00
01
39
33
00
00
80
21
00
00
04
22
00
02
91
23
00
02
79
24
00
00
10
16
00
07
10
15
00
03
38
8
00
00
20
9
00
04
32
7
00
09
79
4
00
02
88
1
00
01
04
11
11
11
11
बालासोर
जयदेबकसपा-274
2282
00
00
56
2283
00
10
22
2284
00
04
28
2285
00
02
58
2286
00
00
20
12
12
12
12
बालासोर
आगमउदा - 206
681
00
07
83
682
00
07
63
686
00
04
89
687
00
04
79
5610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
बालासोर
आगमउदा - 206
653
00
00
43
614
00
05
98
613
00
07
41
612
00
00
20
601
00
04
38
607/709
00
01
42
607
00
05
44
608
00
03
64
606
00
01
14
569
00
00
31
502
00
10
88
503
00
03
36
504
00
02
40
557
00
00
89
556
00
09
94
555
00
02
15
543
00
04
48
538
00
04
76
530
00
01
44
13
13
13
13
बालासोर
ओलाओल - 226
19
00
00
05
20
00
01
74
24
00
01
45
21
00
01
79
22
00
00
20
17
00
08
39
23
00
03
18
14
14
14
14
बालासोर
कादमउदा - 207
473
00
02
80
474
00
05
15
471
00
00
20
470
00
02
61
426
00
00
16
468
00
04
03
467
00
01
32
427
00
01
47
428
00
00
26
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5611
(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)
बालासोर
कादमउदा - 207
465
00
02
55
431
00
09
24
432
00
01
28
433
00
00
44
434
00
06
34
437
00
01
20
436
00
01
57
435
00
03
49
443
00
02
41
441
00
00
20
442
00
04
27
447
00
08
85
15
15
15
15
बालासोर
बरहमपुर - 208
1092
00
01
38
1116
00
08
65
1115
00
01
92
1111
00
06
96
1112
00
01
33
1110
00
03
59
1103
00
00
28
1104
00
02
39
1105
00
00
78
1039
00
00
53
1007
00
00
69
1005
00
05
73
1006
00
00
75
1003
00
05
92
1002
00
03
12
16
16
16
16
बालासोर
काद - 209
7
00
00
57
6
00
09
11
1
00
03
35
2
00
04
27
17
17
17
17
बालासोर
िमᳯरिगमु᭛डी - 201
1128
00
00
58
1129
00
08
09
1138
00
06
69
1133
00
11
49
5612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
बालासोर
िमᳯरिगमु᭛डी - 201
1134
00
01
00
1043
00
10
55
1040
00
03
91
1041
00
00
66
1038
00
04
65
1037
00
03
84
1035
00
07
13
1021
00
00
53
1014
00
05
15
1015
00
00
20
1017
00
07
03
940
00
02
57
18
18
18
18
बालासोर
ᱟजा - 194
1
00
01
51
16
00
00
10
14
00
02
49
13
00
09
22
12
00
00
10
11
00
03
75
32
00
03
25
31
00
01
21
33
00
00
17
42
00
05
81
37
00
01
40
38
00
07
52
39
00
00
66
19
19
19
19
बालासोर
शिᲦराम - 200
337
00
00
60
316
00
05
43
317
00
04
65
318
00
00
34
314
00
05
22
319
00
03
09
313
00
06
88
322
00
01
28
185
00
00
20
181
00
07
95
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5613
(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)
बालासोर
शिᲦराम - 200
180
00
04
91
179
00
04
57
173
00
00
39
161
00
07
10
162
00
00
60
170
00
00
41
169
00
02
92
168
00
02
30
165
00
01
84
164
00
01
96
163
00
05
27
151
00
01
43
379
00
01
69
20
20
20
20
बालासोर
आंको - 199
2240
00
00
67
2241
00
03
60
2242
00
03
30
2243
00
03
66
2247
00
02
78
2248
00
10
53
2249
00
00
76
2004
00
06
98
2003
00
00
12
2002
00
13
37
1999
00
00
31
2001
00
04
22
1991
00
00
45
1957
00
01
30
1966
00
03
48
1958
00
07
29
1951
00
05
18
1949
00
03
11
1947
00
00
71
1948
00
06
03
21
21
21
21
बालासोर
मइँिषयाली - 186
115
00
00
96
111
00
00
22
5614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
बालासोर
मइँिषयाली - 186
116
00
05
16
110
00
02
97
108
00
00
54
45
00
03
14
46
00
01
80
48
00
05
46
49
00
05
17
51
00
01
01
52
00
15
27
53
00
01
80
54
00
00
10
37
00
15
56
24
00
06
06
20
00
05
64
19
00
02
47
3
00
01
89
2
00
01
99
1
00
01
34
22
22
22
22
बालासोर
टोलकिडहा - 196
1
00
00
20
5
00
00
20
6
00
00
20
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29478]
शा᭠ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019
S. O. 1329.–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-Haldiaa a, pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha 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 Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent
Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division,
Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5615
SCHEDULE
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT :
BALASORE
STATE:
ODISHA
Sl. No.
Name of Tehsil
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
BALASORE
KUANRPUR - 288
220
00
01
33
216
00
10
82
210
00
00
80
182
00
00
01
184
00
04
98
185
00
01
54
186
00
01
97
205
00
01
04
187
00
00
20
204
00
04
92
192
00
03
88
196
00
02
29
195
00
01
07
302
00
00
47
303
00
00
42
304
00
00
53
544
00
01
02
536
00
02
73
537
00
02
25
532
00
01
40
531
00
01
29
525
00
06
55
519
00
02
59
514
00
00
38
513
00
03
72
512
00
00
04
562
00
01
51
565
00
06
49
569
00
04
89
568
00
04
80
695
00
00
39
570
00
00
19
571
00
02
12
688
00
03
82
692
00
00
20
691
00
05
31
691/1567
00
00
61
689
00
07
39
685
00
04
46
669
00
00
60
670
00
05
16
668
00
04
18
667
00
03
49
666
00
02
03
2
BALASORE
CHANDIPUR - 278
403/525
00
01
93
403
00
00
20
421
00
03
39
422
00
00
10
418
00
00
37
419
00
02
60
5616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BALASORE
CHANDIPUR - 278
420
00
01
93
416
00
00
18
413
00
00
46
414
00
02
04
415
00
00
67
410
00
02
31
356
00
03
14
357
00
04
32
354
00
00
45
352/508
00
02
56
352
00
00
31
350
00
03
81
349
00
00
63
348
00
01
37
3
BALASORE
BHIMPUR - 279
162
00
04
48
161
00
02
98
157
00
02
55
156
00
02
51
149
00
04
41
145
00
04
28
143
00
01
85
136
00
02
94
137
00
01
54
130
00
03
07
130/4385
00
02
83
104
00
00
81
105
00
01
43
106
00
00
11
107
00
03
51
108
00
02
29
121
00
00
20
111
00
00
21
110
00
00
52
90/4585
00
00
20
109
00
04
21
90
00
00
20
89
00
01
67
88
00
02
11
87
00
00
34
80
00
02
96
78
00
01
58
77
00
02
37
62
00
02
40
61
00
00
33
51
00
02
36
54
00
01
58
55
00
01
67
56
00
02
37
36
00
00
71
35
00
02
98
34
00
01
52
22
00
03
26
25
00
07
18
29
00
00
16
26
00
03
28
27
00
02
20
268
00
01
45
275
00
04
87
276
00
03
03
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5617
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
00
00
72
4
BALASORE
CHHELIAPADA - 277
491
00
03
24
492
00
02
99
493
00
02
51
494
00
01
02
446
00
02
22
448
00
00
96
447
00
00
84
449
00
00
07
450
00
02
12
455
00
00
05
451/521
00
03
59
451/522
00
00
10
451
00
02
51
452
00
02
93
453
00
01
30
408
00
00
79
453/552
00
00
03
407
00
03
81
405
00
01
39
414
00
02
44
415
00
01
76
404
00
03
64
344
00
02
43
341
00
04
76
340
00
01
48
338
00
03
37
337
00
02
28
310
00
03
35
311
00
00
06
313
00
00
04
312
00
03
04
309
00
00
12
315
00
04
88
5
BALASORE
GOBINDA - 212
971
00
08
10
970
00
01
39
965
00
00
20
962
00
00
20
961
00
00
20
980
00
07
94
981
00
05
03
982
00
00
46
983
00
07
40
987
00
02
05
988
00
05
64
1015
00
00
32
1069
00
06
76
1070
00
01
20
1071
00
09
36
1461
00
01
04
1458
00
08
88
1457
00
03
52
1456
00
01
51
1454
00
04
13
1453
00
04
76
1355
00
00
31
1244
00
08
30
1245
00
07
48
5618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BALASORE
GOBINDA - 212
1249
00
12
35
1246
00
00
20
6
BALASORE
KANTABANIA - 224
28
00
05
74
27
00
02
90
26
00
05
89
25
00
00
09
17
00
00
22
16
00
00
15
2
00
02
24
3/152
00
00
30
3
00
18
73
4
00
02
08
7
BALASORE
KHANDAHARA - 216
1017
00
13
14
1011
00
01
63
1018
00
00
01
1010
00
09
52
1006
00
00
77
1007
00
06
10
1005
00
01
56
1004
00
06
19
1068
00
01
02
1104
00
07
04
1103
00
05
21
1105
00
00
20
1106
00
04
71
1124
00
16
67
1120
00
05
21
1123
00
00
14
1122
00
06
19
1121
00
02
02
1131
00
04
35
8
BALASORE
NAYAPARA - 213
1118
00
02
04
1119
00
04
47
1120
00
02
31
1276
00
09
52
1122
00
00
02
1123
00
11
19
1124
00
00
29
1127
00
00
34
1126
00
04
00
1125
00
07
65
1068
00
01
79
1067
00
01
96
1066
00
02
37
823
00
09
73
840
00
03
29
839
00
05
23
838
00
00
59
835
00
08
76
833
00
01
30
721
00
00
02
836
00
03
74
876
00
00
49
877
00
00
46
878
00
03
18
879
00
02
77
881
00
08
05
885
00
07
77
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5619
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
9
BALASORE
RAISUAN - 127
1744
00
03
58
1747
00
05
56
1746
00
02
23
1766
00
10
74
1767
00
01
35
1726
00
05
09
1725
00
08
41
1784
00
03
24
1785
00
03
99
1710
00
00
20
1787
00
04
58
1793
00
06
48
1694
00
11
04
1698
00
04
94
1696
00
00
10
1695
00
00
10
1682
00
00
02
1687
00
00
10
1683
00
02
36
1684
00
02
16
1680
00
00
08
1638
00
08
35
1639
00
00
71
1640
00
00
20
1646
00
00
99
1642
00
01
00
1641
00
01
51
10
BALASORE
SAHAJANAGAR - 276
48/1684
00
01
96
42
00
01
62
47
00
02
38
45
00
01
84
44
00
02
06
44/1792
00
00
10
43
00
01
96
41
00
02
21
37
00
00
05
38
00
02
73
36
00
01
64
36/1495
00
00
83
35
00
01
17
34
00
01
39
33
00
00
80
21
00
00
04
22
00
02
91
23
00
02
79
24
00
00
10
16
00
07
10
15
00
03
38
8
00
00
20
9
00
04
32
7
00
09
79
4
00
02
88
1
00
01
04
11
BALASORE
JAYDEBKASAPA - 274
2282
00
00
56
2283
00
10
22
2284
00
04
28
2285
00
02
58
2286
00
00
20
12
BALASORE
AGAMAUDA - 206
681
00
07
83
5620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BALASORE
AGAMAUDA - 206
682
00
07
63
686
00
04
89
687
00
04
79
653
00
00
43
614
00
05
98
613
00
07
41
612
00
00
20
601
00
04
38
607/709
00
01
42
607
00
05
44
608
00
03
64
606
00
01
14
569
00
00
31
502
00
10
88
503
00
03
36
504
00
02
40
557
00
00
89
556
00
09
94
555
00
02
15
543
00
04
48
538
00
04
76
530
00
01
44
13
BALASORE
ALAOL - 226
19
00
00
05
20
00
01
74
24
00
01
45
21
00
01
79
22
00
00
20
17
00
08
39
23
00
03
18
14
BALASORE
KADAMOUDA - 207
473
00
02
80
474
00
05
15
471
00
00
20
470
00
02
61
426
00
00
16
468
00
04
03
467
00
01
32
427
00
01
47
428
00
00
26
465
00
02
55
431
00
09
24
432
00
01
28
433
00
00
44
434
00
06
34
437
00
01
20
436
00
01
57
435
00
03
49
443
00
02
41
441
00
00
20
442
00
04
27
447
00
08
85
15
BALASORE
BERHAMPUR - 208
1092
00
01
38
1116
00
08
65
1115
00
01
92
1111
00
06
96
1112
00
01
33
1110
00
03
59
1103
00
00
28
1104
00
02
39
1105
00
00
78
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5621
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BALASORE
BERHAMPUR - 208
1039
00
00
53
1007
00
00
69
1005
00
05
73
1006
00
00
75
1003
00
05
92
1002
00
03
12
16
BALASORE
KADA - 209
7
00
00
57
6
00
09
11
1
00
03
35
2
00
04
27
17
BALASORE
MIRIGIMUNDI - 201
1128
00
00
58
1129
00
08
09
1138
00
06
69
1133
00
11
49
1134
00
01
00
1043
00
10
55
1040
00
03
91
1041
00
00
66
1038
00
04
65
1037
00
03
84
1035
00
07
13
1021
00
00
53
1014
00
05
15
1015
00
00
20
1017
00
07
03
940
00
02
57
18
BALASORE
HUJA - 194
1
00
01
51
16
00
00
10
14
00
02
49
13
00
09
22
12
00
00
10
11
00
03
75
32
00
03
25
31
00
01
21
33
00
00
17
42
00
05
81
37
00
01
40
38
00
07
52
39
00
00
66
19
BALASORE
SAKTIRAM - 200
337
00
00
60
316
00
05
43
317
00
04
65
318
00
00
34
314
00
05
22
319
00
03
09
313
00
06
88
322
00
01
28
185
00
00
20
181
00
07
95
180
00
04
91
179
00
04
57
173
00
00
39
161
00
07
10
162
00
00
60
170
00
00
41
169
00
02
92
168
00
02
30
165
00
01
84
164
00
01
96
5622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BALASORE
SAKTIRAM - 200
163
00
05
27
151
00
01
43
379
00
01
69
20
BALASORE
ANKO - 199
2240
00
00
67
2241
00
03
60
2242
00
03
30
2243
00
03
66
2247
00
02
78
2248
00
10
53
2249
00
00
76
2004
00
06
98
2003
00
00
12
2002
00
13
37
1999
00
00
31
2001
00
04
22
1991
00
00
45
1957
00
01
30
1966
00
03
48
1958
00
07
29
1951
00
05
18
1949
00
03
11
1947
00
00
71
1948
00
06
03
21
BALASORE
MAINSIALI - 186
115
00
00
96
111
00
00
22
116
00
05
16
110
00
02
97
108
00
00
54
45
00
03
14
46
00
01
80
48
00
05
46
49
00
05
17
51
00
01
01
52
00
15
27
53
00
01
80
54
00
00
10
37
00
15
56
24
00
06
06
20
00
05
64
19
00
02
47
3
00
01
89
2
00
01
99
1
00
01
34
22
BALASORE
TOLAKADIHA - 196
1
00
00
20
5
00
00
20
6
00
00
20
[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 11 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 1330
1330
1330
1330.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार के लोकिहत मᱶ यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक उडीसा रा᭔ य मᱶ पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर-ह᭨ दीआ से पेᮝोिलयम उ᭜ पादᲂ के पᳯरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड के ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन
िबछाई जानी चािहए।
और के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक ऐसी भूिम मᱶ जो इससे
उपाब अनुसूची मे वᳶणत है और िजसमᱶ उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧ᭭ ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन ᳰकया जाए।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5623
अत: अब के᭠ᮤीय सरकार पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ᭠ स (भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन) अिधिनयम 1962 (1962
का 50) कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन करने के
अपने आशय कᳱ घोषणा करती है।
कोई ᳞िᲦ जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब है उस ताᳯरख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से यु त भारत के राजपᮢ
कᳱ ᮧितयां साधारण जनता को उपल᭣ध करा दी जाती हᱹ इᲥᳱस ᳰदन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के
िलए उसमᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन के स᭥ ब᭠ ध मᱶ ᮰ी िबमल ᮧसाद मोहंती, सᭃम ᮧािधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनाथपुर-
ह᭨ दीआ पाइपलाइन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग, वाटᭅर संया बी/2,इंिडयन ऑयल
आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉस: कुᱧदा, बालासोर -756056 (ओिडशा) को िलिखत ᱨप से आᭃेप भेज सकेगा।
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल कॉ
कॉ
कॉ
कॉपᲃ
पᲃ
पᲃ
पᲃरेशन
रेशन
रेशन
रेशन िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर - ह᭨दीआ
ह᭨दीआ
ह᭨दीआ
ह᭨दीआ पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइन पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला :-
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य :- ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ᮓ.संसंसंसं.
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव
गॉव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
हाल
हाल
हाल
हाल ᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
कुल
कुल
कुल
कुल अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
(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
बहानगा
पᳯटमु᭛डा - 249
142
00
00
92
71
00
03
87
70
00
00
05
238
00
00
85
46
00
01
33
52
00
01
92
47
00
02
49
48
00
04
54
5
00
03
11
4
00
02
64
2
बहानगा
ᳰदयानपाही - 252
219
00
02
83
220
00
03
93
217
00
00
05
216
00
06
82
223
00
05
31
209
00
00
32
207
00
02
48
206
00
04
17
205
00
02
90
204
00
02
87
200
00
03
08
201
00
00
43
5624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
ᳰदयानपाही - 252
199
00
06
19
154
00
06
99
153
00
04
48
152
00
02
42
151
00
00
20
1
00
00
74
3
बहानगा
बिलᳰकितरान - 253
770
00
01
03
769
00
00
80
581
00
01
67
584
00
02
51
585
00
02
88
590
00
04
31
591
00
03
37
594
00
03
98
593
00
00
46
596
00
03
46
598
00
02
07
600
00
01
67
607
00
06
31
606
00
01
03
605
00
01
97
470
00
03
51
454
00
06
46
455
00
03
34
456
00
00
88
457
00
02
24
458/797
00
00
64
460
00
01
61
438
00
00
18
436
00
05
56
434
00
01
31
305
00
00
61
345
00
01
14
346
00
07
12
347
00
00
18
348
00
01
08
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5625
बहानगा
बिलᳰकितरान - 253
349
00
00
91
603
00
00
20
4
बहानगा
छातुबाटी - 255
141
00
00
81
169
00
00
57
294
00
02
03
290
00
02
96
295
00
00
43
289
00
10
37
285
00
04
86
286
00
01
54
283
00
00
08
284
00
12
67
223
00
00
75
276
00
02
25
275
00
01
46
272
00
01
77
274
00
02
35
273
00
02
41
267
00
04
88
268
00
00
05
262
00
03
56
263
00
00
06
260
00
02
39
256
00
00
05
257
00
04
14
258
00
02
26
5
बहानगा
झडता - 88
626
00
00
46
627
00
01
36
633
00
00
84
634
00
00
76
635
00
00
55
637
00
07
99
638
00
01
22
640
00
01
21
639
00
07
98
645
00
03
60
5626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6
बहानगा
पोडािडहा - 258
1234
00
02
18
1237
00
01
06
1236
00
01
08
1241
00
00
55
1240
00
02
11
1239
00
00
10
1244
00
01
97
1223
00
02
34
1222
00
00
22
1208
00
02
89
1217
00
01
25
1216
00
00
96
1215
00
00
53
1213
00
00
41
1214
00
01
21
907
00
02
05
909
00
02
67
827
00
00
46
7
बहानगा
सहसपुरा - 90
2927
00
01
83
2926
00
00
67
2925
00
00
53
2924
00
02
71
2888
00
00
48
8
बहानगा
रणभंजपुर - 92
7
00
00
72
8
00
01
48
2/408
00
00
83
6
00
04
96
2
00
01
36
5
00
01
81
2/407
00
01
30
4
00
01
31
3
00
00
15
9
बहानगा
रहाणीगंज - 128
923
00
02
00
924
00
03
92
930
00
01
58
932
00
06
37
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5627
बहानगा
रहाणीगंज - 128
933
00
02
04
961
00
02
35
955
00
05
50
954
00
05
22
952
00
01
18
951
00
07
25
979
00
00
05
981
00
03
26
982
00
02
51
983
00
02
08
989
00
04
17
986
00
00
07
988
00
05
39
992
00
00
12
993
00
04
14
861
00
00
05
860
00
16
10
833
00
03
65
834
00
00
74
831
00
03
22
835
00
00
66
836
00
00
87
830
00
02
88
829
00
04
29
827
00
01
95
488
00
04
45
10
10
10
10
बहानगा
अंजी - 342
1339
00
00
80
1335
00
04
54
1336
00
01
17
1338
00
03
95
1341
00
06
60
1343
00
00
08
1342
00
02
61
1346
00
04
67
1347
00
00
12
1352
00
03
40
5628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
अंजी - 342
1353
00
01
14
1351
00
03
14
2792
00
00
59
1350
00
00
61
2792/2954
00
02
61
2791
00
01
88
2794
00
03
34
2790/2927
00
02
06
2790/2928
00
01
97
2789
00
00
40
2804
00
02
01
2805
00
03
49
2819
00
00
05
2821
00
01
82
2824
00
00
28
2825
00
01
35
2779
00
02
74
2780
00
00
13
2776
00
01
65
2771
00
01
14
2770
00
03
62
2769
00
00
38
2768
00
04
91
2767
00
03
43
2840
00
00
05
2766
00
00
75
2762
00
02
68
2761
00
00
36
2760
00
01
61
2634
00
16
82
2484
00
01
50
2482
00
02
09
2481
00
01
74
2480
00
04
31
2479
00
01
83
2478
00
00
41
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5629
बहानगा
अंजी - 342
2463
00
04
16
2467
00
00
94
2465
00
00
13
2466
00
00
72
2464
00
06
34
2412
00
00
05
2413
00
00
49
2414
00
04
31
2408
00
01
21
2405
00
01
19
2407
00
01
80
2406
00
01
43
2383
00
03
56
2382
00
01
28
2381
00
05
99
2368
00
06
48
2339
00
01
89
2340
00
00
85
2356
00
00
05
2341
00
00
95
2341/2941
00
00
44
2349
00
01
02
2355
00
01
53
2352
00
08
17
2351
00
00
33
2245
00
02
75
2243
00
00
05
2242
00
02
48
2235
00
00
03
2238
00
04
73
2237
00
02
89
2236
00
02
09
2483
00
00
20
2353
00
00
20
11
11
11
11
बहानगा
का᭠हेइओगालपुर - 89
677
00
01
94
713
00
03
43
5630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
का᭠हेइओगालपुर - 89
714
00
01
01
712
00
03
42
708
00
02
42
684
00
00
73
685
00
01
38
686
00
07
52
689
00
00
37
690
00
00
73
691
00
00
43
673
00
04
86
694
00
00
12
672
00
01
93
744
00
00
28
745
00
03
53
746
00
01
86
743
00
00
23
747
00
01
57
757
00
03
17
765
00
01
93
764
00
01
15
763
00
02
15
762
00
01
36
791
00
05
14
787
00
04
09
786/1070
00
04
42
781
00
11
50
780
00
04
66
776
00
00
05
778
00
06
18
777
00
02
79
893
00
02
28
895
00
05
93
892
00
00
61
894
00
06
05
890
00
01
18
897
00
07
15
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5631
बहानगा
का᭠हेइओगालपुर - 89
898
00
00
42
899
00
03
14
900
00
02
09
914
00
05
06
913
00
03
83
908
00
05
69
909
00
00
91
940
00
01
70
907
00
03
30
941
00
06
12
942
00
00
69
12
12
12
12
बहानगा
करंजािब᭠दा - 86
1855
00
00
76
1852
00
00
99
1854/1945
00
00
82
1854
00
02
02
1853
00
03
51
1849
00
00
06
1847
00
01
89
1848
00
02
01
1759
00
07
62
1760
00
02
80
1761
00
03
05
1747
00
00
05
1748
00
02
44
1746
00
06
22
1744
00
00
94
1743
00
01
04
1742
00
02
75
1689
00
07
15
1692
00
07
01
1691
00
02
31
1695
00
01
36
1696
00
00
90
1697
00
00
25
1698
00
00
99
1702
00
03
39
5632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
करंजािब᭠दा - 86
1703
00
03
35
1749
00
00
20
1206
00
05
83
1072
00
00
05
1205
00
03
23
1204
00
03
03
1202
00
02
79
1201
00
03
85
1169
00
03
03
1170
00
03
03
1171
00
03
55
1172
00
03
24
1198
00
00
05
1197
00
04
05
1176
00
03
59
1175
00
00
05
978
00
04
93
977
00
02
54
976
00
02
48
975
00
01
48
974
00
02
12
707
00
08
87
708
00
02
09
710
00
05
23
712
00
01
66
900
00
01
84
901
00
00
21
899
00
01
99
735
00
01
38
734
00
00
53
733
00
00
57
732
00
01
51
738
00
00
32
740
00
01
75
739
00
00
49
746
00
01
76
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5633
बहानगा
करंजािब᭠दा - 86
747
00
00
24
750
00
05
69
745
00
00
99
744/1957
00
00
30
751
00
00
29
756
00
01
12
758
00
04
95
759
00
02
24
281
00
00
25
282
00
03
44
283
00
02
59
285
00
02
93
286
00
02
96
294
00
03
47
297
00
03
99
292
00
00
77
253
00
01
01
251
00
02
56
247
00
02
68
246
00
00
21
235
00
03
06
234
00
03
37
215
00
00
50
214
00
05
44
211
00
00
12
210
00
01
04
209
00
03
17
199
00
00
30
158
00
00
80
104
00
02
53
105
00
03
71
89
00
02
71
106
00
00
72
107
00
15
17
108
00
02
49
109/1994
00
02
39
5634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
करंजािब᭠दा - 86
110
00
00
05
113
00
07
27
12
00
01
67
973
00
00
10
88
00
00
10
13
13
13
13
बहानगा
डोलपुर - 87
832
00
05
45
818
00
00
62
831
00
03
12
830
00
05
80
829
00
05
29
828
00
03
32
824
00
09
15
798
00
02
84
799
00
01
31
800
00
01
20
793
00
00
15
14
14
14
14
बहानगा
फतेपुर - 83
904
00
01
15
908
00
04
37
909
00
02
82
910
00
01
72
911
00
02
22
912
00
03
30
913
00
00
05
919
00
02
94
921
00
01
36
853
00
00
05
851
00
04
50
852
00
00
29
848
00
02
61
847
00
03
24
846/991
00
00
05
843
00
00
98
844
00
02
13
842
00
02
48
841
00
02
41
840
00
01
91
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5635
बहानगा
फतेपुर - 83
832
00
00
94
830
00
05
39
829
00
00
73
827
00
05
77
824
00
00
89
823
00
00
31
820
00
00
20
15
15
15
15
बहानगा
नारणाबाड - 60
1367
00
07
48
1382
00
00
59
1381
00
00
51
1368
00
00
48
1379
00
01
14
1378
00
01
12
1369
00
00
05
1377
00
04
61
1387
00
08
76
1375
00
03
25
1392
00
00
75
16
16
16
16
बहानगा
नुआपुर - 64
1178
00
06
82
1185
00
02
51
1186
00
03
29
1187
00
01
32
1172
00
05
10
1168
00
01
04
1166
00
00
05
1169
00
00
33
1167
00
01
63
1120
00
00
60
1119
00
10
66
1126
00
04
08
1131
00
03
67
1132
00
02
40
1111
00
01
84
1108
00
01
87
1107
00
02
45
1106
00
01
63
5636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
नुआपुर - 64
292
00
02
45
297
00
06
41
299
00
04
04
299/4057
00
01
67
300
00
04
09
235
00
02
30
236
00
02
84
253
00
01
44
252
00
06
66
251
00
02
78
248
00
01
44
250
00
01
23
249
00
00
83
34
00
03
46
35
00
02
79
36/4095
00
01
76
36
00
02
08
38
00
02
45
39/4078
00
01
39
39
00
03
26
43
00
05
54
17
00
02
98
45
00
03
58
48
00
00
56
10
00
00
97
9
00
01
90
7
00
00
22
8
00
00
46
17
17
17
17
बहानगा
शालग़ॉ - 62
1297
00
02
69
1290
00
03
19
1291
00
02
19
1293
00
02
31
1292
00
00
26
1225
00
03
06
1226
00
02
06
1223
00
01
18
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5637
बहानगा
शालग़ॉ - 62
1222
00
01
80
1221
00
02
84
1203
00
19
90
1196
00
00
65
1201
00
04
33
1199
00
02
26
1160
00
06
64
1200
00
00
72
484
00
01
07
485
00
01
39
483
00
00
23
474
00
01
25
475
00
01
17
473
00
05
07
429
00
00
08
472
00
01
10
465
00
00
75
430
00
00
90
464
00
01
39
431
00
00
90
432
00
00
63
463
00
03
37
437
00
06
56
438
00
01
99
439
00
02
58
440
00
02
82
399
00
04
91
400
00
02
24
401
00
01
99
232
00
07
86
234
00
00
90
233
00
00
82
226
00
07
17
225
00
01
97
224
00
01
65
222
00
01
80
5638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
शालग़ॉ - 62
219
00
02
34
218
00
01
03
216
00
01
85
185
00
04
76
183/1424
00
01
24
183/1423
00
01
07
183/1425
00
00
92
183
00
03
70
142
00
01
27
141
00
07
86
140
00
13
64
138
00
02
49
18
18
18
18
बहानगा
क᭨याणी - 84
1311
00
01
30
1310
00
04
66
1309
00
03
44
1301
00
12
71
1283
00
05
53
1282
00
01
08
1281
00
03
59
1280
00
03
12
1285
00
02
83
1279
00
05
27
1278
00
04
93
1277
00
00
22
1275
00
03
32
1276
00
00
65
601
00
00
29
602
00
01
53
605
00
04
62
603
00
01
03
604
00
11
25
608
00
00
39
610
00
05
33
595
00
04
26
596
00
03
55
594
00
01
36
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5639
बहानगा
क᭨याणी - 84
593
00
06
20
585
00
01
29
586
00
04
02
414
00
14
61
417
00
09
30
416
00
02
02
415
00
02
38
400
00
01
11
399
00
01
27
394
00
01
41
393
00
00
80
396
00
01
63
384
00
00
47
385
00
04
69
372
00
02
90
373
00
02
02
374
00
01
77
375
00
01
89
198
00
02
70
197
00
01
64
196
00
02
37
195
00
02
38
161
00
03
69
160
00
03
52
159
00
03
21
156
00
05
74
155
00
01
10
83
00
00
50
82
00
00
99
81
00
00
49
34
00
02
45
35
00
02
15
32
00
00
24
31
00
02
18
29
00
06
50
376
00
00
20
5640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
क᭨याणी - 84
194
00
00
20
584
00
00
20
19
19
19
19
बहानगा
ओडसाल - 61
756
00
02
67
755
00
00
92
754
00
00
95
753
00
00
97
750
00
01
01
749
00
03
65
751
00
00
71
747
00
00
38
748
00
03
64
707
00
01
33
739/3345
00
04
53
708
00
01
92
708/3369
00
01
79
738
00
07
33
739
00
03
90
733
00
00
48
731
00
01
62
730
00
00
06
729
00
05
03
732
00
00
05
728
00
04
27
542
00
09
77
541
00
00
07
537
00
02
87
536
00
04
26
535
00
02
65
525
00
05
93
524
00
00
05
20
20
20
20
बहानगा
ᮩम्हपुर - 257
619
00
04
56
613
00
01
67
614
00
00
21
612
00
04
07
611
00
00
12
529
00
13
87
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5641
बहानगा
ᮩम्हपुर - 257
528
00
03
81
525
00
02
79
527
00
02
19
468
00
14
96
526
00
00
28
464
00
03
33
465
00
02
18
411
00
08
37
406
00
08
11
403
00
02
44
402
00
02
82
401
00
00
42
395
00
03
05
319
00
06
16
358
00
02
56
357
00
02
29
327
00
00
35
356
00
00
14
356/1245
00
03
83
328
00
00
55
331
00
00
06
330
00
02
46
332
00
02
37
333
00
00
05
335
00
01
38
334
00
01
44
337
00
02
99
206
00
00
91
336
00
00
05
199
00
00
76
200
00
00
78
198
00
00
61
197
00
01
43
5642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
बहानगा
ᮩम्हपुर - 257
180
00
01
85
49
00
02
35
50
00
02
47
176
00
00
54
175
00
02
16
169
00
01
26
174
00
00
09
170
00
03
49
157
00
00
60
171
00
00
23
156
00
02
46
152
00
00
79
155
00
01
97
154
00
02
43
140
00
00
34
141
00
00
51
153
00
00
03
142
00
00
50
143
00
02
21
127
00
02
17
108
00
03
09
126
00
00
05
109
00
03
73
111
00
00
17
110
00
01
21
113
00
00
90
96
00
07
47
98
00
03
04
99
00
00
89
992
00
01
94
993
00
02
00
994
00
01
19
995
00
01
36
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5643
बहानगा
ᮩम्हपुर - 257
996
00
02
71
997
00
02
71
1002
00
02
01
1002/1220
00
01
10
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29478]
शा᭠ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019
S. O. 1330.—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-Haldiaa pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha 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 Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent
Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division,
Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.
SCHEDULE
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT :
BALASORE
STATE:
ODISHA
Sl. No.
Name of Tehsil
Name of Village
Plot No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
BAHANAGA
PATIMUNDA - 249
142
00
00
92
71
00
03
87
70
00
00
05
238
00
00
85
46
00
01
33
52
00
01
92
47
00
02
49
48
00
04
54
5
00
03
11
4
00
02
64
2
BAHANAGA
DIANPAHI - 252
219
00
02
83
220
00
03
93
217
00
00
05
216
00
06
82
223
00
05
31
209
00
00
32
207
00
02
48
206
00
04
17
205
00
02
90
5644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BAHANAGA
DIANPAHI - 252
204
00
02
87
200
00
03
08
201
00
00
43
199
00
06
19
154
00
06
99
153
00
04
48
152
00
02
42
151
00
00
20
1
00
00
74
3
BAHANAGA
BALIKITIRAN - 253
770
00
01
03
769
00
00
80
581
00
01
67
584
00
02
51
585
00
02
88
590
00
04
31
591
00
03
37
594
00
03
98
593
00
00
46
596
00
03
46
598
00
02
07
600
00
01
67
607
00
06
31
606
00
01
03
605
00
01
97
470
00
03
51
454
00
06
46
455
00
03
34
456
00
00
88
457
00
02
24
458/797
00
00
64
460
00
01
61
438
00
00
18
436
00
05
56
434
00
01
31
305
00
00
61
345
00
01
14
346
00
07
12
347
00
00
18
348
00
01
08
349
00
00
91
603
00
00
20
4
BAHANAGA
CHHATUBATI - 255
141
00
00
81
169
00
00
57
294
00
02
03
290
00
02
96
295
00
00
43
289
00
10
37
285
00
04
86
286
00
01
54
283
00
00
08
284
00
12
67
223
00
00
75
276
00
02
25
275
00
01
46
272
00
01
77
274
00
02
35
273
00
02
41
267
00
04
88
268
00
00
05
262
00
03
56
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5645
BAHANAGA
CHHATUBATI - 255
263
00
00
06
260
00
02
39
256
00
00
05
257
00
04
14
258
00
02
26
5
BAHANAGA
JHADATA - 88
626
00
00
46
627
00
01
36
633
00
00
84
634
00
00
76
635
00
00
55
637
00
07
99
638
00
01
22
640
00
01
21
639
00
07
98
645
00
03
60
6
BAHANAGA
PORADIHA - 258
1234
00
02
18
1237
00
01
06
1236
00
01
08
1241
00
00
55
1240
00
02
11
1239
00
00
10
1244
00
01
97
1223
00
02
34
1222
00
00
22
1208
00
02
89
1217
00
01
25
1216
00
00
96
1215
00
00
53
1213
00
00
41
1214
00
01
21
907
00
02
05
909
00
02
67
827
00
00
46
7
BAHANAGA
SAHASPURA - 90
2927
00
01
83
2926
00
00
67
2925
00
00
53
2924
00
02
71
2888
00
00
48
8
BAHANAGA
RANABHANJPUR - 92
7
00
00
72
8
00
01
48
2/408
00
00
83
6
00
04
96
2
00
01
36
5
00
01
81
2/407
00
01
30
4
00
01
31
3
00
00
15
9
BAHANAGA
RAHANIGANJA - 128
923
00
02
00
924
00
03
92
930
00
01
58
932
00
06
37
933
00
02
04
961
00
02
35
955
00
05
50
954
00
05
22
952
00
01
18
951
00
07
25
979
00
00
05
981
00
03
26
982
00
02
51
5646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BAHANAGA
RAHANIGANJA - 128
983
00
02
08
989
00
04
17
986
00
00
07
988
00
05
39
992
00
00
12
993
00
04
14
861
00
00
05
860
00
16
10
833
00
03
65
834
00
00
74
831
00
03
22
835
00
00
66
836
00
00
87
830
00
02
88
829
00
04
29
827
00
01
95
488
00
04
45
10
BAHANAGA
ANJI - 342
1339
00
00
80
1335
00
04
54
1336
00
01
17
1338
00
03
95
1341
00
06
60
1343
00
00
08
1342
00
02
61
1346
00
04
67
1347
00
00
12
1352
00
03
40
1353
00
01
14
1351
00
03
14
2792
00
00
59
1350
00
00
61
2792/2954
00
02
61
2791
00
01
88
2794
00
03
34
2790/2927
00
02
06
2790/2928
00
01
97
2789
00
00
40
2804
00
02
01
2805
00
03
49
2819
00
00
05
2821
00
01
82
2824
00
00
28
2825
00
01
35
2779
00
02
74
2780
00
00
13
2776
00
01
65
2771
00
01
14
2770
00
03
62
2769
00
00
38
2768
00
04
91
2767
00
03
43
2840
00
00
05
2766
00
00
75
2762
00
02
68
2761
00
00
36
2760
00
01
61
2634
00
16
82
2484
00
01
50
2482
00
02
09
2481
00
01
74
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5647
BAHANAGA
ANJI - 342
2480
00
04
31
2479
00
01
83
2478
00
00
41
2463
00
04
16
2467
00
00
94
2465
00
00
13
2466
00
00
72
2464
00
06
34
2412
00
00
05
2413
00
00
49
2414
00
04
31
2408
00
01
21
2405
00
01
19
2407
00
01
80
2406
00
01
43
2383
00
03
56
2382
00
01
28
2381
00
05
99
2368
00
06
48
2339
00
01
89
2340
00
00
85
2356
00
00
05
2341
00
00
95
2341/2941
00
00
44
2349
00
01
02
2355
00
01
53
2352
00
08
17
2351
00
00
33
2245
00
02
75
2243
00
00
05
2242
00
02
48
2235
00
00
03
2238
00
04
73
2237
00
02
89
2236
00
02
09
2483
00
00
20
2353
00
00
20
11
BAHANAGA
KANHEIOGALPUR - 89
677
00
01
94
713
00
03
43
714
00
01
01
712
00
03
42
708
00
02
42
684
00
00
73
685
00
01
38
686
00
07
52
689
00
00
37
690
00
00
73
691
00
00
43
673
00
04
86
694
00
00
12
672
00
01
93
744
00
00
28
745
00
03
53
746
00
01
86
743
00
00
23
747
00
01
57
757
00
03
17
765
00
01
93
764
00
01
15
763
00
02
15
5648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BAHANAGA
KANHEIOGALPUR - 89
762
00
01
36
791
00
05
14
787
00
04
09
786/1070
00
04
42
781
00
11
50
780
00
04
66
776
00
00
05
778
00
06
18
777
00
02
79
893
00
02
28
895
00
05
93
892
00
00
61
894
00
06
05
890
00
01
18
897
00
07
15
898
00
00
42
899
00
03
14
900
00
02
09
914
00
05
06
913
00
03
83
908
00
05
69
909
00
00
91
940
00
01
70
907
00
03
30
941
00
06
12
942
00
00
69
12
BAHANAGA
KARANJABINDHA - 86
1855
00
00
76
1852
00
00
99
1854/1945
00
00
82
1854
00
02
02
1853
00
03
51
1849
00
00
06
1847
00
01
89
1848
00
02
01
1759
00
07
62
1760
00
02
80
1761
00
03
05
1747
00
00
05
1748
00
02
44
1746
00
06
22
1744
00
00
94
1743
00
01
04
1742
00
02
75
1689
00
07
15
1692
00
07
01
1691
00
02
31
1695
00
01
36
1696
00
00
90
1697
00
00
25
1698
00
00
99
1702
00
03
39
1703
00
03
35
1749
00
00
20
1206
00
05
83
1072
00
00
05
1205
00
03
23
1204
00
03
03
1202
00
02
79
1201
00
03
85
1169
00
03
03
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5649
BAHANAGA
KARANJABINDHA - 86
1170
00
03
03
1171
00
03
55
1172
00
03
24
1198
00
00
05
1197
00
04
05
1176
00
03
59
1175
00
00
05
978
00
04
93
977
00
02
54
976
00
02
48
975
00
01
48
974
00
02
12
707
00
08
87
708
00
02
09
710
00
05
23
712
00
01
66
900
00
01
84
901
00
00
21
899
00
01
99
735
00
01
38
734
00
00
53
733
00
00
57
732
00
01
51
738
00
00
32
740
00
01
75
739
00
00
49
746
00
01
76
747
00
00
24
750
00
05
69
745
00
00
99
744/1957
00
00
30
751
00
00
29
756
00
01
12
758
00
04
95
759
00
02
24
281
00
00
25
282
00
03
44
283
00
02
59
285
00
02
93
286
00
02
96
294
00
03
47
297
00
03
99
292
00
00
77
253
00
01
01
251
00
02
56
247
00
02
68
246
00
00
21
235
00
03
06
234
00
03
37
215
00
00
50
214
00
05
44
211
00
00
12
210
00
01
04
209
00
03
17
199
00
00
30
158
00
00
80
104
00
02
53
105
00
03
71
89
00
02
71
106
00
00
72
5650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BAHANAGA
KARANJABINDHA - 86
107
00
15
17
108
00
02
49
109/1994
00
02
39
110
00
00
05
113
00
07
27
12
00
01
67
973
00
00
10
88
00
00
10
13
BAHANAGA
DOLPUR - 87
832
00
05
45
818
00
00
62
831
00
03
12
830
00
05
80
829
00
05
29
828
00
03
32
824
00
09
15
798
00
02
84
799
00
01
31
800
00
01
20
793
00
00
15
14
BAHANAGA
FATEPUR - 83
904
00
01
15
908
00
04
37
909
00
02
82
910
00
01
72
911
00
02
22
912
00
03
30
913
00
00
05
919
00
02
94
921
00
01
36
853
00
00
05
851
00
04
50
852
00
00
29
848
00
02
61
847
00
03
24
846/991
00
00
05
843
00
00
98
844
00
02
13
842
00
02
48
841
00
02
41
840
00
01
91
832
00
00
94
830
00
05
39
829
00
00
73
827
00
05
77
824
00
00
89
823
00
00
31
820
00
00
20
15
BAHANAGA
NARANABAR - 60
1367
00
07
48
1382
00
00
59
1381
00
00
51
1368
00
00
48
1379
00
01
14
1378
00
01
12
1369
00
00
05
1377
00
04
61
1387
00
08
76
1375
00
03
25
1392
00
00
75
16
BAHANAGA
NUAPUR - 64
1178
00
06
82
1185
00
02
51
1186
00
03
29
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5651
BAHANAGA
NUAPUR - 64
1187
00
01
32
1172
00
05
10
1168
00
01
04
1166
00
00
05
1169
00
00
33
1167
00
01
63
1120
00
00
60
1119
00
10
66
1126
00
04
08
1131
00
03
67
1132
00
02
40
1111
00
01
84
1108
00
01
87
1107
00
02
45
1106
00
01
63
292
00
02
45
297
00
06
41
299
00
04
04
299/4057
00
01
67
300
00
04
09
235
00
02
30
236
00
02
84
253
00
01
44
252
00
06
66
251
00
02
78
248
00
01
44
250
00
01
23
249
00
00
83
34
00
03
46
35
00
02
79
36/4095
00
01
76
36
00
02
08
38
00
02
45
39/4078
00
01
39
39
00
03
26
43
00
05
54
17
00
02
98
45
00
03
58
48
00
00
56
10
00
00
97
9
00
01
90
7
00
00
22
8
00
00
46
17
BAHANAGA
SALAGAN - 62
1297
00
02
69
1290
00
03
19
1291
00
02
19
1293
00
02
31
1292
00
00
26
1225
00
03
06
1226
00
02
06
1223
00
01
18
1222
00
01
80
1221
00
02
84
1203
00
19
90
1196
00
00
65
1201
00
04
33
1199
00
02
26
1160
00
06
64
1200
00
00
72
484
00
01
07
5652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BAHANAGA
SALAGAN - 62
485
00
01
39
483
00
00
23
474
00
01
25
475
00
01
17
473
00
05
07
429
00
00
08
472
00
01
10
465
00
00
75
430
00
00
90
464
00
01
39
431
00
00
90
432
00
00
63
463
00
03
37
437
00
06
56
438
00
01
99
439
00
02
58
440
00
02
82
399
00
04
91
400
00
02
24
401
00
01
99
232
00
07
86
234
00
00
90
233
00
00
82
226
00
07
17
225
00
01
97
224
00
01
65
222
00
01
80
219
00
02
34
218
00
01
03
216
00
01
85
185
00
04
76
183/1424
00
01
24
183/1423
00
01
07
183/1425
00
00
92
183
00
03
70
142
00
01
27
141
00
07
86
140
00
13
64
138
00
02
49
18
BAHANAGA
KALYANI - 84
1311
00
01
30
1310
00
04
66
1309
00
03
44
1301
00
12
71
1283
00
05
53
1282
00
01
08
1281
00
03
59
1280
00
03
12
1285
00
02
83
1279
00
05
27
1278
00
04
93
1277
00
00
22
1275
00
03
32
1276
00
00
65
601
00
00
29
602
00
01
53
605
00
04
62
603
00
01
03
604
00
11
25
608
00
00
39
610
00
05
33
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5653
BAHANAGA
KALYANI - 84
595
00
04
26
596
00
03
55
594
00
01
36
593
00
06
20
585
00
01
29
586
00
04
02
414
00
14
61
417
00
09
30
416
00
02
02
415
00
02
38
400
00
01
11
399
00
01
27
394
00
01
41
393
00
00
80
396
00
01
63
384
00
00
47
385
00
04
69
372
00
02
90
373
00
02
02
374
00
01
77
375
00
01
89
198
00
02
70
197
00
01
64
196
00
02
37
195
00
02
38
161
00
03
69
160
00
03
52
159
00
03
21
156
00
05
74
155
00
01
10
83
00
00
50
82
00
00
99
81
00
00
49
34
00
02
45
35
00
02
15
32
00
00
24
31
00
02
18
29
00
06
50
376
00
00
20
194
00
00
20
584
00
00
20
19
BAHANAGA
ODSHAL - 61
756
00
02
67
755
00
00
92
754
00
00
95
753
00
00
97
750
00
01
01
749
00
03
65
751
00
00
71
747
00
00
38
748
00
03
64
707
00
01
33
739/3345
00
04
53
708
00
01
92
708/3369
00
01
79
738
00
07
33
739
00
03
90
733
00
00
48
731
00
01
62
730
00
00
06
729
00
05
03
5654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BAHANAGA
ODSHAL - 61
732
00
00
05
728
00
04
27
542
00
09
77
541
00
00
07
537
00
02
87
536
00
04
26
535
00
02
65
525
00
05
93
524
00
00
05
20
BAHANAGA
BRAHMAPUR - 257
619
00
04
56
613
00
01
67
614
00
00
21
612
00
04
07
611
00
00
12
529
00
13
87
528
00
03
81
525
00
02
79
527
00
02
19
468
00
14
96
526
00
00
28
464
00
03
33
465
00
02
18
411
00
08
37
406
00
08
11
403
00
02
44
402
00
02
82
401
00
00
42
395
00
03
05
319
00
06
16
358
00
02
56
357
00
02
29
327
00
00
35
356
00
00
14
356/1245
00
03
83
328
00
00
55
331
00
00
06
330
00
02
46
332
00
02
37
333
00
00
05
335
00
01
38
334
00
01
44
337
00
02
99
206
00
00
91
336
00
00
05
199
00
00
76
200
00
00
78
198
00
00
61
197
00
01
43
180
00
01
85
49
00
02
35
50
00
02
47
176
00
00
54
175
00
02
16
169
00
01
26
174
00
00
09
170
00
03
49
157
00
00
60
171
00
00
23
156
00
02
46
152
00
00
79
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5655
BAHANAGA
BRAHMAPUR - 257
155
00
01
97
154
00
02
43
140
00
00
34
141
00
00
51
153
00
00
03
142
00
00
50
143
00
02
21
127
00
02
17
108
00
03
09
126
00
00
05
109
00
03
73
111
00
00
17
110
00
01
21
113
00
00
90
96
00
07
47
98
00
03
04
99
00
00
89
992
00
01
94
993
00
02
00
994
00
01
19
995
00
01
36
996
00
02
71
997
00
02
71
1002
00
02
01
1002/1220
00
01
10
[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 11 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का. . . . आ. 1331
. 1331
. 1331
. 1331.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार के लोकिहत मᱶ यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक उडीसा रा᭔ य मᱶ पारादीप-
सोमनाथपुर-ह᭨ दीआ से पेᮝोिलयम उ᭜ पादᲂ के पᳯरवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड के ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन
िबछाई जानी चािहए।
और के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक ऐसी भूिम मᱶ जो इससे
उपाब अनुसूची मे वᳶणत है और िजसमᱶ उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧ᭭ ताव है उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन ᳰकया जाए।
अत: अब के᭠ᮤीय सरकार पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइ᭠ स (भूिम उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन) अिधिनयम 1962 (1962
का 50) कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उपधारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए उस भूिम के उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन करने के
अपने आशय कᳱ घोषणा करती है।
कोई ᳞िᲦ जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब है उस ताᳯरख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से भारत के राजपᮢ कᳱ
ᮧितयां साधारण जनता को उपल᭣ध करा दी जाती है इᲥᳱस ᳰदन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए
उसमᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार अजᭅन के स᭥ ब᭠ ध मᱶ ᮰ी िबमल ᮧसाद मोहंती, सᭃम ᮧािधकारी, पारादीप-सोमनाथपुर-ह᭨ दीआ
ᮧाँडट पाइपलाइन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग, Ფाटᭅर संया बी/2, इंिडयन ऑयल
आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉस: कुᱧदा, बालासोर – 756056 (ओिडशा) को िलिखत ᱨप से आᭃेप भेज सकेगा।
5656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन
इंिडयन ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल
ऑयल कॉ
कॉ
कॉ
कॉपᲃ
पᲃ
पᲃ
पᲃरेशन
रेशन
रेशन
रेशन िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
िलिमटेड
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप
पारादीप - सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर
सोमनाथपुर – ह᭨ दी
᭨ दी
᭨ दी
᭨ दीआ पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइ
पाइपलाइन पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
पᳯरयोजना
3(1)
3(1)
3(1)
3(1) अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
अनुसूची
िजला
िजला
िजला
िजला :-
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
बालासोर
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य
रा᭔य :- ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ओिडशा
ᮓ.संसंसंसं
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील
तहसील का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
गां
गां
गां
गांव का
का
का
का नाम
नाम
नाम
नाम
हाल
हाल
हाल
हाल ᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट
᭡लॉट ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
ᮓमांक
कुल
कुल
कुल
कुल अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत
अिधᮕिहत ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
ᭃेᮢफल
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
हैटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
वगᭅमीटर
(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
रेमुना
चक᮰ीरामपुर - 307
11
00
03
82
12
00
00
30
13
00
05
18
13/80
00
03
74
5
00
02
90
4/63
00
01
88
4
00
02
96
2/69
00
00
49
3
00
01
82
3/71
00
01
12
16
00
00
20
17
00
00
20
2
रेमुना
बहादलपुर - 45
263
00
02
41
319
00
05
59
321
00
01
64
318
00
02
01
308
00
07
60
317
00
00
13
313
00
10
11
311
00
00
03
309
00
07
62
285
00
03
52
299
00
00
06
298
00
07
98
293
00
02
57
292
00
02
53
3
रेमुना
बोइता - 301
2566
00
02
71
2567
00
04
14
2571
00
01
19
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5657
(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)
रेमुना
बोइता - 301
2570
00
01
16
2574
00
02
62
2531
00
01
88
2530
00
01
57
2525
00
01
77
2527
00
02
40
2528
00
02
44
2511
00
01
37
2510
00
01
37
2512
00
00
20
2504
00
00
95
2503
00
00
66
2513
00
00
99
2495
00
01
18
2494
00
06
40
2496
00
00
20
2493
00
01
27
2497
00
02
48
2492
00
00
05
2479
00
00
10
2480
00
05
86
2488
00
00
09
2481
00
09
84
2487
00
03
40
2019
00
00
97
2014
00
27
75
1989
00
02
28
1992
00
02
13
1993
00
03
45
1994
00
04
35
1997
00
02
05
1999
00
00
20
1996
00
04
68
2003
00
03
00
5658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
4
रेमुना
गंभाᳯरया - 304
1359
00
12
55
1360
00
03
54
1358
00
01
63
1355
00
00
02
1357
00
00
20
1354
00
05
21
1364
00
00
46
1368
00
01
04
1369
00
01
16
1368/2637
00
02
39
1421
00
02
35
1422
00
00
10
1425
00
00
64
1426
00
02
30
1428
00
02
38
1430
00
01
10
1431
00
00
89
1432
00
03
22
1436
00
00
39
1513
00
00
64
1512
00
03
08
1512/2620
00
00
20
1510
00
02
81
1509/2621
00
00
06
1509
00
02
95
1501
00
00
50
1502
00
02
48
1502/2549
00
01
14
1503
00
00
17
1500
00
03
80
1499/2585
00
00
75
1498
00
01
99
1497
00
03
28
1494
00
04
56
1496
00
00
08
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5659
(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)
रेमुना
गंभाᳯरया - 304
1495
00
01
14
1488
00
00
04
1604
00
02
25
1701
00
01
29
1616
00
00
91
1699
00
00
75
1700
00
00
02
1617
00
00
37
1698
00
05
84
1619
00
01
00
1620
00
01
39
1623
00
03
03
1624
00
01
81
1666
00
03
76
1667
00
00
19
1665
00
00
43
1668
00
01
34
1663
00
01
44
1662
00
03
23
1657
00
01
94
1651
00
03
27
1650
00
04
18
1649
00
03
48
1647
00
00
66
2495
00
00
44
2501
00
01
72
2502
00
02
91
2503
00
01
48
2504
00
01
53
2505
00
02
93
2477/2617
00
00
16
2477
00
00
40
5
रेमुना
रहिणआगिडआ - 306
120
00
00
81
121
00
00
87
119
00
02
92
5660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
रेमुना
रहिणआगिडआ - 306
114
00
04
03
123
00
03
57
172
00
03
83
171
00
00
17
185/214
00
02
91
170
00
01
86
163
00
02
72
162
00
00
65
160
00
02
40
161
00
00
04
159
00
00
38
157
00
02
32
155
00
02
35
136
00
02
15
138
00
02
13
97
00
02
55
96
00
03
27
31
00
00
50
95
00
01
19
93
00
02
13
92
00
01
77
34
00
02
44
35
00
02
50
60
00
05
14
59
00
01
28
37
00
01
09
44
00
02
34
46
00
03
50
6
रेमुना
᮰ीजंग - 308
1970
00
00
98
1943
00
06
41
1942
00
03
37
1941
00
00
08
1940
00
04
72
1912/4911
00
02
18
1912
00
03
95
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5661
(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)
रेमुना
᮰ीजंग - 308
1912/4910
00
01
75
1912/4909
00
01
24
1908/5358
00
00
55
1907
00
00
66
1908
00
04
69
1903
00
00
20
1904
00
02
74
1901
00
04
12
1898
00
04
05
1849
00
04
80
1848
00
04
41
1798
00
10
02
1797
00
00
50
1796
00
04
44
1795
00
04
68
1794
00
10
62
1726
00
01
60
1852
00
00
20
1792/4944
00
00
20
7
रेमुना
तु᭛डरा - 284
776
00
01
40
777
00
00
78
779
00
01
01
781
00
02
20
781/5453
00
00
11
783
00
01
05
784
00
01
10
786
00
02
27
819
00
01
64
818
00
03
04
816
00
06
25
815
00
06
48
813
00
02
89
812
00
01
83
811
00
00
20
810
00
02
22
5662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
रेमुना
तु᭛डरा - 284
809
00
01
21
847
00
00
63
852
00
06
93
851
00
00
68
850
00
00
04
870
00
11
08
869
00
00
04
868/4745
00
01
81
868
00
00
47
864/4812
00
01
47
864/4813
00
03
22
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/2/2019-ओआर-I/ई-29478]
शा᭠ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2019
S. O. 1331.—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 -Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of Odisha 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 Bimal Prasad Mohanty, Competent
Authority, Paradip – Somnathpur – Haldia Product Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division,
Quarter No. B/2, Indian Oil Residential Colony, Meghadambaru, PO: Kuruda, Balasore-756056, Odisha.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
PROJECT : - PARADIP - SOMNATHPUR - HALDIA PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE of 3(1)
DISTRICT :
BALASORE
STATE:
ODISHA
Sl. No.
Name of Tehsil
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
1
REMUNA
CHAKSRIRAMPUR - 307
11
00
03
82
12
00
00
30
13
00
05
18
13/80
00
03
74
5
00
02
90
4/63
00
01
88
4
00
02
96
2/69
00
00
49
3
00
01
82
3/71
00
01
12
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5663
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
REMUNA
CHAKSRIRAMPUR - 307
16
00
00
20
17
00
00
20
2
REMUNA
BAHADALPUR - 45
263
00
02
41
319
00
05
59
321
00
01
64
318
00
02
01
308
00
07
60
317
00
00
13
313
00
10
11
311
00
00
03
309
00
07
62
285
00
03
52
299
00
00
06
298
00
07
98
293
00
02
57
292
00
02
53
3
REMUNA
BOITA - 301
2566
00
02
71
2567
00
04
14
2571
00
01
19
2570
00
01
16
2574
00
02
62
2531
00
01
88
2530
00
01
57
2525
00
01
77
2527
00
02
40
2528
00
02
44
2511
00
01
37
2510
00
01
37
2512
00
00
20
2504
00
00
95
2503
00
00
66
2513
00
00
99
2495
00
01
18
2494
00
06
40
2496
00
00
20
2493
00
01
27
2497
00
02
48
2492
00
00
05
2479
00
00
10
2480
00
05
86
2488
00
00
09
2481
00
09
84
2487
00
03
40
2019
00
00
97
2014
00
27
75
1989
00
02
28
1992
00
02
13
1993
00
03
45
1994
00
04
35
1997
00
02
05
1999
00
00
20
1996
00
04
68
2003
00
03
00
4
REMUNA
GAMBHARIA - 304
1359
00
12
55
1360
00
03
54
1358
00
01
63
1355
00
00
02
1357
00
00
20
5664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
REMUNA
GAMBHARIA - 304
1354
00
05
21
1364
00
00
46
1368
00
01
04
1369
00
01
16
1368/2637
00
02
39
1421
00
02
35
1422
00
00
10
1425
00
00
64
1426
00
02
30
1428
00
02
38
1430
00
01
10
1431
00
00
89
1432
00
03
22
1436
00
00
39
1513
00
00
64
1512
00
03
08
1512/2620
00
00
20
1510
00
02
81
1509/2621
00
00
06
1509
00
02
95
1501
00
00
50
1502
00
02
48
1502/2549
00
01
14
1503
00
00
17
1500
00
03
80
1499/2585
00
00
75
1498
00
01
99
1497
00
03
28
1494
00
04
56
1496
00
00
08
1495
00
01
14
1488
00
00
04
1604
00
02
25
1701
00
01
29
1616
00
00
91
1699
00
00
75
1700
00
00
02
1617
00
00
37
1698
00
05
84
1619
00
01
00
1620
00
01
39
1623
00
03
03
1624
00
01
81
1666
00
03
76
1667
00
00
19
1665
00
00
43
1668
00
01
34
1663
00
01
44
1662
00
03
23
1657
00
01
94
1651
00
03
27
1650
00
04
18
1649
00
03
48
1647
00
00
66
2495
00
00
44
2501
00
01
72
2502
00
02
91
2503
00
01
48
2504
00
01
53
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5665
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
REMUNA
GAMBHARIA - 304
2505
00
02
93
2477/2617
00
00
16
2477
00
00
40
5
REMUNA
RAHANIAGADIA - 306
120
00
00
81
121
00
00
87
119
00
02
92
114
00
04
03
123
00
03
57
172
00
03
83
171
00
00
17
185/214
00
02
91
170
00
01
86
163
00
02
72
162
00
00
65
160
00
02
40
161
00
00
04
159
00
00
38
157
00
02
32
155
00
02
35
136
00
02
15
138
00
02
13
97
00
02
55
96
00
03
27
31
00
00
50
95
00
01
19
93
00
02
13
92
00
01
77
34
00
02
44
35
00
02
50
60
00
05
14
59
00
01
28
37
00
01
09
44
00
02
34
46
00
03
50
6
REMUNA
SRIJANG - 308
1970
00
00
98
1943
00
06
41
1942
00
03
37
1941
00
00
08
1940
00
04
72
1912/4911
00
02
18
1912
00
03
95
1912/4910
00
01
75
1912/4909
00
01
24
1908/5358
00
00
55
1907
00
00
66
1908
00
04
69
1903
00
00
20
1904
00
02
74
1901
00
04
12
1898
00
04
05
1849
00
04
80
1848
00
04
41
1798
00
10
02
1797
00
00
50
1796
00
04
44
1795
00
04
68
1794
00
10
62
1726
00
01
60
1852
00
00
20
5666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
REMUNA
SRIJANG - 308
1792/4944
00
00
20
7
REMUNA
TUNDRA - 284
776
00
01
40
777
00
00
78
779
00
01
01
781
00
02
20
781/5453
00
00
11
783
00
01
05
784
00
01
10
786
00
02
27
819
00
01
64
818
00
03
04
816
00
06
25
815
00
06
48
813
00
02
89
812
00
01
83
811
00
00
20
810
00
02
22
809
00
01
21
847
00
00
63
852
00
06
93
851
00
00
68
850
00
00
04
870
00
11
08
869
00
00
04
868/4745
00
01
81
868
00
00
47
864/4812
00
01
47
864/4813
00
03
22
[F. No. R-11025(11)/2/2019-OR-I/E-29478]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 1332
1332
1332
1332.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसा ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक लोक िहत मᱶ यह आव᭫यक ᳰक कᲬे तेल के पᳯरवहन के
िलए एक पाइपलाइन, हि᭨दया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस᭭ट᭥स पᳯरयोजना के तहत, , , , पि᳟म बंगाल रा᭔य मᱶ हि᭨दया से िबहार
रा᭔य मᱶ बरौनी तक, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक उस भूिम मᱶ िजसके
भीतर उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧ᭭ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से संलᲨ अनुसूचᱭ मᱶ वᳶणत है, उपयोग के
अिधकार का अजᭅन ᳰकया जाए ;
अतः अब, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार का अजᭅन) अिधिनयम, 1962
(1962 का 50) कᳱ धारा 3 ᳰक उप धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदत शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, उस भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार का
अजᭅन करने के अपने आशय कᳱ घोषणा करती है ;
कोई ᳞िᲦ, जो उᲦ अनुसूचᱭ मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब है, उस तारीख से िजसको, भारत के राजपᮢ मᱶ यथा ᮧकािशत इस
अिधसूचना कᳱ ᮧितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपल᭣ध करा दी जाती है, इᲥᳱस ᳰदन के अ᭠दर, भूिम के भीतर पाइपलाइन
िबछाए जाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार के अजᭅन के िलए, ᮰ी िब᳡नाथ समाजदार, सᭃम ᮧािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन
िलिमटेड, , , , हि᭨दया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस᭭ट᭥स पᳯरयोजना, दी लीजᱶड, , , , दूसरा एवं तीसरा तल, , , , शहीद खुदीराम सरणी , , , ,
िसटी सᱶटर, , , , दुगाᭅपुर 713216, िजला- पि᳟म बधᭅमान (पि᳟म बंगाल) को िलिखत ᱨप मᱶ आᭃेप भेज सकेगा ।
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5667
अनु
अनु
अनु
अनुसूसूसूसूची
ची
ची
ची
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
बी
बी
बी
बीरभूम रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
रभूम रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
रभूम रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
रभूम रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
थाना
थाना
थाना
थाना
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
सवᱷ
सवᱷ
सवᱷ
सवᱷ न᭥बर
न᭥बर
न᭥बर
न᭥बर
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢफल
फल
फल
फल
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ 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)
बोलपुर
च᭠दनपुर - 110
286
00
03
23
288
00
02
87
539/883
00
00
20
ई᭨लमबाज़ार
गोपालनगर - 132
140
00
04
74
128
00
01
41
128/2417
00
06
45
117
00
08
16
120
00
00
20
121
00
04
28
113
00
06
15
111
00
00
95
109
00
04
94
101
00
00
20
109/2415
00
03
78
102
00
07
61
98
00
06
04
91
00
01
09
92
00
00
25
97
00
01
68
90
00
00
79
89
00
01
15
84
00
04
87
39/2403
00
07
22
41
00
00
20
46
00
02
69
43
00
08
44
8/2402
00
03
73
39
00
06
56
42
00
03
24
44
00
00
20
ई᭨लमबाज़ार
रामनगर - 130
903
00
00
72
984
00
03
82
5668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
ई᭨लमबाज़ार
पािचयारा - 106
1657
00
01
65
दुबराजपुर
पिचयारा - 168
2590
00
01
84
2591
00
02
28
2589
00
00
20
2588
00
04
14
2587
00
00
79
दुबराजपुर
पि᭠डतपुर - 111
1383
00
04
17
दुबराजपुर
होसेनाबाद - 25
205
00
01
49
दुबराजपुर
हᱧिलया - 27
77
00
07
10
दुबराजपुर
पुंगलापुर - 3
520
00
00
20
खायरासोल
कᱶदुयाकुरी - 7
414
00
01
27
37
00
03
10
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/22/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27779]
शा᭠ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S. O. 1332.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under
Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central 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 Biswanath Samajder, Competent
Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, The Legend, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Sahid
Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur – 713216, Dist. Pashchim Burdwan (West Bengal).
SCHEDULE
District : Birbhum State : West Bengal
Police Station
Name of Mouza
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Bolpur
Chandanpur - 110
3112
00
05
49
1208
00
04
88
1201
00
02
55
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5669
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Illambazar
Gopalnagar - 132
140
00
04
74
128
00
01
41
128/2417
00
06
45
117
00
08
16
120
00
00
20
121
00
04
28
113
00
06
15
111
00
00
95
109
00
04
94
101
00
00
20
109/2415
00
03
78
102
00
07
61
98
00
06
04
91
00
01
09
92
00
00
25
97
00
01
68
90
00
00
79
89
00
01
15
84
00
04
87
39/2403
00
07
22
41
00
00
20
46
00
02
69
43
00
08
44
8/2402
00
03
73
39
00
06
56
42
00
03
24
44
00
00
20
Illambazar
Ramnagar - 130
903
00
00
60
984
00
03
82
Illambazar
Pachiara - 106
1657
00
01
65
Dubrajpur
Pachiara - 168
2590
00
01
84
2591
00
02
28
2589
00
00
20
2588
00
04
14
2587
00
00
79
Dubrajpur
Panditpur - 111
1383
00
04
17
Dubrajpur
Hosenabad - 25
205
00
01
49
Dubrajpur
Harulia - 27
77
00
07
10
Dubrajpur
Punglapur - 3
520
00
00
20
Khayrasol
Kenduakuri - 7
414
00
01
27
37
00
03
10
[F. No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का. आ. 1333
1333
1333
1333.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसा ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक लोक िहत मᱶ यह आव᭫यक ᳰक कᲬे तेल के पᳯरवहन के
िलए एक पाइपलाइन, हि᭨दया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस᭭ट᭥स पᳯरयोजना के तहत, , , , पि᳟म बंगाल रा᭔य मᱶ हि᭨दया से िबहार
रा᭔य मᱶ बरौनी तक, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक उस भूिम मᱶ िजसके
भीतर उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧ᭭ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से संलᲨ अनुसूचᱭ मᱶ वᳶणत है, उपयोग के
अिधकार का अजᭅन ᳰकया जाए ;
5670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अतः अब, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलास (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अजᭅन) अिधिनयम, 1962
(1962 का 50) कᳱ धारा 3 ᳰक उप धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदत शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, उस भूिम मᱶ उपयोग के अिधकार का
अजᭅन करने के अपने आशय कᳱ घोषणा करती है ;
कोई ᳞िᲦ, जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब है, उस तारीख से िजसको, भारत के राजपᮢ मᱶ यथा ᮧकािशत इस
अिधसूचना कᳱ ᮧितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपल᭣ध करा दी जाती है, इᲥᳱस ᳰदन के अ᭠दर, भूिम के भीतर पाइपलाइन
िबछाये जाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार के अजᭅन के िलए, ᮰ी िब᳡नाथ समाजदार, सᭃम ᮧािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन
िलिमटेड, , , , हि᭨दया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस᭭ट᭥स पᳯरयोजना, हि᭨दया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस᭭ट᭥स पᳯरयोजना, दी लीजᱶड, , , ,
दुसरा एवं तीसरा तल, , , , शहीद खुदीराम सरणी, , , , िसटी सᱶटर, , , , दुगाᭅपुर 713216, िजला- पि᳟म बधᭅमान (पि᳟म बंगाल) को
िलिखत ᱨप मे आᭃेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनु
अनु
अनु
अनुसूसूसूसूची
ची
ची
ची
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
बᭅमान रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
बᭅमान रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
बᭅमान रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
बᭅमान रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
थाना
थाना
थाना
थाना
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
सवᱷ
सवᱷ
सवᱷ
सवᱷ न᭥बर
न᭥बर
न᭥बर
न᭥बर
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢफल
फल
फल
फल
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ 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)
रायना-II
मिनयारी - 138
335/796
00
01
80
ख᭠डघोष
संकरी - 70
430
00
03
61
गलसी - II
िहᲵा - 112
3035
00
04
58
गलसी - II
च᳖ा - 111
5
00
02
00
औसᮕाम - I
बेलᮕाम - 116
8094/8403
00
01
77
4090/4779
00
01
60
औसᮕाम - I
िसलुट - 69
1593
00
01
10
औसᮕाम - I
ि᮰कृ᭬नपुर - 77
349
00
05
95
औसᮕाम – ।।
िबलशांडा- 81
814
00
01
10
815
00
02
16
816
00
00
20
813
00
01
41
803
00
05
08
377
00
02
55
273
00
00
56
276
00
01
48
277
00
00
30
275
00
01
53
278
00
00
80
279
00
00
20
280
00
01
11
281
00
01
08
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5671
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5
(5
(5
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
औसᮕाम – II
िबलशांडा- 81
283
00
05
69
290
00
04
26
289
00
02
73
295
00
02
85
296
00
01
08
246
00
00
20
245
00
07
43
297
00
00
20
233
00
01
64
244
00
00
20
234
00
05
22
232
00
01
87
237
00
00
20
231
00
01
35
230
00
03
07
229
00
00
20
228
00
02
84
227
00
02
37
224
00
04
40
222
00
01
90
223
00
00
31
221
00
04
51
212
00
00
20
213
00
01
58
215
00
00
68
134
00
08
86
40
00
03
63
30
00
00
33
34
00
00
20
33
00
02
67
32
00
01
85
29
00
02
94
31
00
01
76
5672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 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)
औसᮕाम – II
िबलशांडा- 81
27
00
07
78
26
00
00
20
1
00
20
96
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/22/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27779]
शा᭠ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S. O. 1333.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under
Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central 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 Biswanath Samajder, Competent
Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, The Legend, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Sahid
Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur – 713216, Dist. Pashchim Burdwan (West Bengal).
SCHEDULE
District : Burdwan State : West Bengal
Police Station
Name of Mouza
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Raina – II
Maniari - 138
335/796
00
01
80
Khandoghosh
Sankari - 70
430
00
03
61
Galsi - II
Hitta - 112
3035
00
04
58
Galsi - II
Channa - 111
5
00
02
00
Ausgram - I
Belgram - 116
8094/8403
00
01
77
4090/4779
00
01
60
Ausgram - I
Silut - 69
1593
00
01
10
Ausgram - I
Srikrishnapur - 77
349
00
05
95
Ausgram - II
Bilshanda - 81
814
00
01
10
815
00
02
16
816
00
00
20
813
00
01
41
803
00
05
08
377
00
02
55
273
00
00
56
276
00
01
48
277
00
00
30
275
00
01
53
278
00
00
80
279
00
00
20
280
00
01
11
281
00
01
08
283
00
05
69
290
00
04
26
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5673
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Ausgram - II
Bilshanda - 81
289
00
02
73
295
00
02
85
296
00
01
08
246
00
00
20
245
00
07
43
297
00
00
20
233
00
01
64
244
00
00
20
234
00
05
22
232
00
01
87
237
00
00
20
231
00
01
35
230
00
03
07
229
00
00
20
228
00
02
84
227
00
02
37
224
00
04
40
222
00
01
90
223
00
00
31
221
00
04
51
212
00
00
20
213
00
01
58
215
00
00
68
134
00
08
86
40
00
03
63
30
00
00
33
34
00
00
20
33
00
02
67
32
00
01
85
29
00
02
94
31
00
01
76
27
00
07
78
26
00
00
20
1
00
20
96
[F. No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का
का
का
का आ. 1334
1334
1334
1334.—के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसा ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक लोक िहत मᱶ यह आव᭫यक ᳰक कᲬे तेल के पᳯरवहन के
िलए एक पाइपलाइन, हि᭨दया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस᭭ट᭥स पᳯरयोजना के तहत, , , , पि᳟म बंगाल रा᭔य मᱶ हि᭨दया से िबहार
रा᭔य मᱶ बरौनी तक, , , , इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड ᳇ारा पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के ᮧयोजन के िलए यह आव᭫यक ᮧतीत होता है ᳰक उस भूिम मᱶ िजसके
भीतर उᲦ पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का ᮧ᭭ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से संलᲨ अनुसूची मे वᳶणत है, उपयोग के
अिधकार का अजᭅन ᳰकया जाए ;
अतः अब, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, पेᮝोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइंस (भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का अजᭅन) अिधिनयम, 1962
(1962 का 50) कᳱ धारा 3 ᳰक उप धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदत शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, उस भूिम मे उपयोग के अिधकार का
अजᭅन करने के अपने आशय कᳱ घोषणा करती है ;
कोई ᳞िᲦ, जो उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम मᱶ िहतब है, उस तारीख से िजसको, भारत के राजपᮢ मᱶ यथा ᮧकािशत इस
अिधसूचना कᳱ ᮧितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपल᭣ध करा दी जाती है, इᲥᳱस ᳰदन के अ᭠दर, भूिम के भीतर पाइपलाइन
5674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
िबछाये जाने हेतु उपयोग के अिधकार के अजᭅन के िलए,᮰ी िब᳡नाथ समाजदार, सᭃम ᮧािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन
िलिमटेड, , , , हि᭨दया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन िस᭭ट᭥स पᳯरयोजना, दी लीजᱶड, , , , दूसरा एवं तीसरा तल, , , , शहीद खुदीराम सारणी, , , ,
िसटी सᱶटर, , , , दुगाᭅपुर 713216, िजला- पि᳟म बधᭅमान (पि᳟म बंगाल) को िलिखत ᱨप मे आᭃेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनु
अनु
अनु
अनुसूसूसूसूची
ची
ची
ची
िजला :
िजला :
िजला :
िजला : पूबᭅ मेᳰदनीपुर
पूबᭅ मेᳰदनीपुर
पूबᭅ मेᳰदनीपुर
पूबᭅ मेᳰदनीपुर
रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल
थाना
थाना
थाना
थाना
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
मौज़ा का नाम
सवᱷ
सवᱷ
सवᱷ
सवᱷ न᭥बर
न᭥बर
न᭥बर
न᭥बर
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢ
ᭃेᮢफल
फल
फल
फल
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
हेटेयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
एयर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ मीटर
वगᭅ 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)
सुताहटा - I
राजारामपुर - 102
398
00
10
01
सुताहटा - II
ᳰकसमत िशबरामनगर - 94
757
00
03
09
सुताहटा - II
बरसुंदरा - 54
288
00
00
20
मिहशादल
बामु᭠या - 134
1319
00
00
87
1501
00
00
39
1502
00
18
13
मिहशादल
दिᭃन कािशमनगर - 129
449
00
00
20
430/842
00
02
05
27
00
00
20
न᭠दकुमार
माधबपुर - 122
248
00
02
95
न᭠दकुमार
भबानीपुर - 73
1709
00
03
59
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/22/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27779]
शा᭠ तनु धर, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S. O. 1334.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the
transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under
Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central 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 Biswanath Samajder, Competent
Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, The Legend, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Sahid
Khudiram Sarani, City Centre, Durgapur – 713216, Disst. Pashchim Burdwan (West Bengal).
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5675
SCHEDULE
District : Purba Medinipur State : West Bengal
Police Station
Name of Mouza
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Square
Metre
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Sutahata - I
Rajarampur - 102
398
00
10
01
Sutahata - II
Kismat Shibramnagar - 94
757
00
03
09
Sutahata - II
Barsundra - 54
288
00
00
20
Mahishadal
Bamunya - 134
1319
00
00
87
1501
00
00
39
1502
00
18
13
Mahishadal
Dakshin Kashimnagar - 129
449
00
00
20
430/842
00
02
05
27
00
00
20
Nandakumar
Madhabpur - 122
248
00
02
95
Nandakumar
Bhabanipur - 73
1709
00
03
59
[F. No. R-11025(11)/22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]
SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1335
1335
1335
1335.—कᱶᮤीय सरकार, तेल उ᳒ोग (िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) कᳱ धारा 3 कᳱ उपधारा
(3) (ख) ᳇ारा ᮧद᭜ त शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए एतारा ᮰ी राजीव बंसल, अितᳯरᲦ सिचव और िवᱫीय सलाहकार,
पेᮝोिलयम और ᮧाकृितक गैस मंᮢालय को 24.07.2019 से 23.07.2021 तक या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो,
तेल उ᳒ोग िवकास बोडᭅ का सद᭭य िनयु त करती है।
[फा. सं. जी-38011/41/2016-िवᱫ-I]
पेᳯरन देवी, िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1335.—In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(b) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry
(Development) Act, 1974(47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajiv Bansal, Additional Secretary
& Financial Adviser, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas as a member of the Oil Industry Development Board w.e.f.
24.07.2019 to 23.07.2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-Fin-I]
PERIN DEVI, Director
5676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SHRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
म एवं रोजगार मंालय
नई द ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1336
1336
1336
1336.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस महा बंधक िवजयमोिहनी िमस ित%वनंतपुरम, कोचीन,और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं* के संब+ िनयोजक,
और उनके कमकार, के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं /म यायालय,
एनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 19/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.06.19 को ा6 7ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42012/278/2010-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019
S.O.1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2011) 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
Manager Vijayamohini Mills Thiruvananthapuram, Cochin. & Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 16.07.19.
[No. L-42012/278/2010-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
(Wednesday the 3rd day of July 2019, 12thAsadha, 1941)
ID No. 19 of 2011
Workman
:
Shri.B.Gopalakrishnan
Kudayathukonathu PuthenVeedu
Cheriyakonni P.O., Vattiyoorkavu,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695013
By Adv. Shri. R. LakshmanaIyer
Management
:
The General Manager
Vijayamohini Mills
Thirumala P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram
By Adv. Shri.Ajith S. Nair
This case coming up for final hearing on 14.05.2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 03.07.2019
passed the following.
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of 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-42012/278/2010-IR(DU) dated
24.05.2011 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
2.
The dispute referred is;
“Whether the enquiry conducted by the management against the workman namely
Shri. B. Gopalakrishnan was proper and in full appreciation of the facts of the case? Whether the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5677
punishment imposed on the workman was proportionate to the charges levelled against him? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
3.
According to the claim statement filed by the workman he was appointed in the service of the management in the
year 1992. On 14.02.2005 he met with an industrial accident during the course of his employment, while working
in the carding machine and sustained serious injury to his right knee. He was treated in ESI hospital and was
referred to Medical College, Trivandrum. He underwent treatment for a period of one year. During the period of
treatment he was on medical leave, sanctioned by the management. He rejoined duty after prolonged treatment.
Evenafter joining duty he used to suffer severe pain and used to go on leave. While so, he received a show cause
notice dt.08.07.2008 directing the workman to give his explanation on allegations of poor attendance and
unauthorized absence. His explanation was rejected by the management and an enquiry was ordered to be
conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 04.09.2009. Management accepted the enquiry report and
the findings therein and imposed a punishment of removal from service on the workman with effect from
19.10.2009. The enquiry report along with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged onthe
ground that
a.
The workman was not given proper assistance to defend his case
b. Copies of the documents were not given to the workman
c.
The Muster Roll relied on by the Enquiry Officer is not marked in the enquiry
d. No opportunity was given to the workman to lead defence evidence.
e.
The workman never admitted the charges framed against him as claimed by the Enquiry Officer.
4
According to the workman the punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the charges
alleged to be proved. The management failed to consider the extenuating circumstances under which the workman
was forced to take leave.
5
The management filed their written statement denying the allegations of the workman. According to the
management policy disciplinary action was initiated against employees whose attendance was very poor. The
workman was not attending his duties regularly. Hence a memo dt.08.07.2008 was issued to him. The workman
admitted his poor attendance and committed that he will improve his attendance. Since his reply was not
satisfactory a Disciplinary Enquiry was ordered and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire in to the charges.
The Enquiry Officer returned a finding of guilt. The report was communicated to the workman to offer his
comments. The workman did not offer any comment and a show cause notice was issued to him intimating the
decision of the management to relieve him from the service. In the reply the workman did not allege any
impropriety in conduct of the enquiry and findings by the Enquiry Officer. He only submitted that he will try to
improve his attendance. Since the management found that his explanation was not satisfactory he was relived from
the service as per order dated 12.10.2009. It is admitted by the management that the workman met with a serious
accident and was on sanction medical leave for all most a year. However the managementdenied that there was any
irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry, as adequate opportunity was given to the workman, all proceedings were
recorded and signed by him and he never raised any objection regarding marking of documents during the course
of enquiry.
6. After completing the pleadings the management examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and marked Exbts.M1 to
M9. The workman did not adduce any evidence.
7. The issues to be considered are;
1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer is proper and justified on the basis of evidence?
2. Whether the punishment is proportional to the proved charges?
3. Relief and cost
8. Issue No. 1
This Tribunal has already found that the enquiry is conducted properly following the principles of natural
justice. Hence the further question to be decided is whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are supported by
legal evidence. The charge leveled against the workman is low attendance and productivity. Exbt.M3, show
cause notice dt.08.07.2008 clearly spells out the charges of low attendance and unauthorized absence. In his
reply, Exbt.M3(a) he admitted the low attendance and agreed that he will regularly attend the office. In
Exbt.M3(c) the workman admitted that he worked only for 7 days during February 2007. From the enquiry
proceedings dt.14.03.2009 it is seen that workman admitted his unauthorized absence and explained that he
could not attend the office because of his sickness. Further in the proceedings dt.28.03.2009 the workman
admitted to the charges levelled against him.
5678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. In view of the above evidence the findings of the enquiry is proper and justified.
10. Issue nos. 2& 3
It is an admitted fact that the workman met with an industrial accident during 2005. It is also admitted that the
workman was undergoing treatment for almost one year in ESI Hospital and Medical college. He was on
medical leave during the period of treatment. The management has no case that the workman was irregular in
attendance before the date of his accident. The management has taken a lenient view holding that the
workman is entitled to all retiral benefits. Considering the above facts and circumstances it is felt that the
punishment of removal from service is proportionate to the charges proved against the workman.
11. It is clear from the evidence available on record that the workman will not be in a position to do justice to his
work in future. In a market economy it is also not advisable to direct the management to retain a person in
service when his productivity has come down to 10%. It is seen from the Exbt.M8, discharge order dated
12.10.2009 that the Management had already extended all retiral benefits to the workman.
In view of the above I am not inclined to interfere with discharge order issued to the workman by the
management.
Hence an Award is passed holding that the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the
proved charges against him and he is not entitled to any further 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 3rd day of
July 2019.
V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the workman
-
Nil
Witness for the Management
-
MW1
dt.02.07.2014 Shri. R. Harikumar
Exhibits for the workman
-
Nil
Exhibits for the Management:-
M1
-Enquiryfindings (in Original) conducted by Shri.R.Harikumar.
Enquiry Officer dated 04.09.2009.
M2
-Enquiry proceedings (in Original) conducted by
Shri.R.Harikumar Enquiry Officer on 14.03.2009 & 28.03.2009.
M3
-Copy of Show Cause Notice dated 08.07.2008 served to the workman by the management
M3(a)
-Copy of the reply dated Nil submitted by the workman to the management
M3(b) -Copy of the Memo dated 10.03.2007 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman
M3(c)
-Copy of the reply dated 10.03.2007 submitted by the workman to the management
M3(d) -Copy of the Memo dated 10.03.2007 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman
M3(e)
-Copy of the Memo dated 12.02.2007 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman
M4
-Copy of the Enquiry Notice dated 18.07.2008 served by the management to the workman
M5
-Copy of the Memo dated 15.09.2009 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman
M6
-Copy of the Memo dated 05.10.2009 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman
M7
-Letter dated 05.10.2009 addressed to the General Manager of the management by the workman
M8
-Copy of the order dated 12.10.2009 issued by the General Manager of the management to the workman
M9
-Undelivered letter sent by the management through Registered Post with A/D to the workman marking the
same as ‘Unclaimed Returned to sender’.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5679
नई द ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1337
1337
1337
1337.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय
सरकार मेसस स9ल इं;टी=ूट ऑफ फशरीज एजुकेशन, वसAवा मुंबई, और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं* के संब+
िनयोजक, और उनके कमकार, के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं /म
यायालय, मुंबई के (संदभ सं1या CGIT-2-5/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 10.07.19 को ा6
7ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019
S.O. 1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT -2-5/2018) 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
Central Institute of Fisheries Education,Versova Mumbai . & Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 10.07.19.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/5 of 2018
IN
REF. NO. CGIT-2 / 46 OF 2009
1.
Rudraprasad Singh
2.
P.K. Sharma
3.
S.N. Mishra
4.
Abhiram Sharma
5.
Sanjay K. Sharma
6.
R. D. Singh
7.
Shiv Kumar Singh
8.
Arjun Sharma
9.
P. A. Pawar
10. JaysinghYadav
11. DhanrajYadav
12. Pramod K. Singh
13.
Prakash B. Kadam
Address for all Complainants:
C/o. Shri R. K. Pednekar
504, Type II Building, New CPWD Building
Near Sahar Cargo Complex,
Andheri [East], Mumbai – 400 099.
:
COMPLAINANTS
V/s.
Central Institute of Fisheries Education,
PanchMarg, Off Yari Road, Versova,
Andheri [West],
Mumbai- 400 061.
:
OPPONENT
5680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE OPPONENT
:
Mr. P. Shah, Advocate
FOR THE COMPLAINANTS
:
Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 17th June, 2019.
AWARD
1.
Complainants are second party workmen in industrial dispute referred by the Central Government by order
dated 21.05.2009. The reference is pending.
2.
According to the complainants, the opponent had contravened the provisions made u/s. 33 of I.D. Act. The
opponent as such has altered the conditions of services of the complainants who are workmen to their prejudice during
pendency of the proceedings in Ref. No. CGIT-2 / 46 OF 2009, by reducing the amount of their monthly wages to the
extent of Rs.7000/- per head from the month of Oct. ’18 by making inordinate delay in payment of wages by non-
payment of amount of EPF & ESIC contribution in respect of complainants and by not making payment of bonus. The
complainants are therefore asking for giving direction to the opponent to make the payment of full wages to them without
any deductions as effected by the opponent, timely payment of wages in every month, payment of EPF & ESIC
contributions and payment of bonus for every year of their service to them. They are also asking for awarding
punishment to the opponent for his contravention in section 33 of I.D. Act.
3.
The opponent by filing say contended that they have not altered the conditions of the service of the
complainants and 46.75% are deducted as per the directions of Annual Audit Party of the opponent. Service conditions of
the complainants are continuing by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education as per the directions of Hon’ble H.C. in
W.P. No. 634 of 2001. Since the complainants are not regular employees of the first party, they have no right to
regularization nor they can claim any consequential benefits as prayed for. The opponent has thus sought for dismissal of
complaint.
4.
By filing rejoinder Ex.6, complainants have reiterated that in Ref. No. CGIT-2 / 46 OF 2009 by reducing the
amount of their monthly wages to the extent of Rs.7000/- per head from the month of Oct. ’18 the service conditions of
the complainants have been altered. Complainants are therefore asking for payment of full wages except statutory
deductions as being made from the month of Oct. ’18.
5.
Following points arises for my determination and my findings thereon for the reasons to follow are as under:
Sr. No.
Point
Findings
1
Whether the complainants are entitled are entitled to full wages without deduction
excluding statutory deductions along with timely payment of wages, payment of EPF
& ESIC and bonus etc. for very year of their services. ?
Yes
2.
What order ?
As per final order
Reasons
Point No. 1 & 2.
6.
At the outset it may be stated that the union General KamgarMazdoor Union filed the WP No. 634 / 2001 and
claimed that they should be absorbed by direct employment of opp. No.1 As per the order of Hon’ble H.C since the union
had approached the appropriate government for referring the dispute to the court under industrial dispute as per section
10 of I.D. Act, petitioners are at liberty to apply for interim relief. As per the order of Hon’ble H.C in this writ petition,
the opp. No.1 are directed to pay salary/wages to the employees on whose behalf the petition is filed till then the interim
relief was granted by the Hon’ble H.C is ordered to be continued. Thus the Hon’ble H.C has already directed the
opponent to pay salary/wages to the employees on whose behalf the petition is filed. It is precisely the case of opponent
that complainants i.e. concerned workman are being continued in service of Central Institute of Fisheries Education as
per the order of Hon’ble H.C in WP No. 634 / 2001.
7.
Now it is the case of opponent that 46.75% of the wages of the complainants are deducted as per the directions
of Annual Audit Party of the opponent from the month of Oct. ’18. As such it is admitted by the opponent that 46.75% of
the amount of wages of the complainants are being deducted from the month of Oct. ’18 that to during the pendency of
reference and therefore that amounts to change of service conditions.
8.
It is in that circumstances the opponent can be directed to make full payment of wages to the complainants
without altering any service condition during the pendency of reference and as such the opponent is directed to make
payment to the complainants without any deductions.
9.
Since it appears to me that making any deductions in the wages of the complainants amounts to change of
service conditions in view of provisions of section 33 of I.D. Act which amounts to violation of section 33. The
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5681
application of the complainants is liable to be allowed to that extent. Hence the above points are answered accordingly as
indicated against each of them in terms of above observations.
10.
In the result, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1.
Complaint is partly allowed.
2.
Opponents are directed to make payment of full wages to the complainants without any deductions.
3.
They are also directed to make timely payment of wages every month, payment of EPF & ESIC
and payment of bonus for every year of their service during the pendency of reference.
4.
In view of this the complaint is disposed of.
Date : 17.06.2010
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1338
1338
1338
1338.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस Bरलायंस नेC;ट Dलक ा. िलिमटेड रेवाड़ी (एच आर) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं* के संब+ िनयोजक, और
उनके कमकार, के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं /म यायालय,
चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 07/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 15.07.19 को ा6 7ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019
S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.07/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Reliance
Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Rewari (HR.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
15.07.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.7/2014
Registered on:-17.04.2014
Sh. Govind Ram, S/o Sh. Asha Ram, R/o Village Kharota,
P.O. Aharva, Teh. & Distt. Palwal-121102 (Hry.)
…Workman
Versus
Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Shanti Complex,
Opposite Shed Piper Tourism Complex, NaiwalaChowk, Rewari (Hry.)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on: 12.06.2019
1.
The workman has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with
the averment that he was in the service of the management from 21.04.2008 till his illegal termination by the respondent-
management. The workman was performing the duty of Electrician/Mechanical Engineer/Bill Clerk. The nature of work
was of DG Repaid Mechanic and Electrical Repairs of the Towers installed by the respondent-management on various
locations. He was paid Rs.14,284/- per month along with other allowances like travel allowances Rs. 5,000/- and
Rs.1,000/- as diet money. He had worked for more than 240 days continuously in each preceding calendar year till his
termination. Due to the satisfactory performance of the claimant/workman he was promoted on 28.05.2005 by the
management by issuing employee code No. 23509073 and increases the salary and allowances. Respondent-management
5682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
are lose minded towards employee whereby the legally permissible benefit/privileges like ESIC, PF, Bonus, Casual
Leave etc. are not extended when claimant demanded his dearness allowance on 30.06.2009 and remaining emoluments
management relieved him from his duty illegally against the violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Claimant requested for his duty repeatedly but has not been allowed to resume his
duties. The claimant has been forced to remain unemployed due to his illegal termination by the respondent. The
respondent at the time of termination of the claimant retains the juniors and also made fresh appointments. In spite of
notice and proceeding initiated before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Faridabad. Management refused to reinstate
the claimant/workman. It is prayed that claimant be taken on duty with continuity of service and other benefits that
prayed.
2.
Respondent-management has resisted the claim petition by filing written statement where it is averred that it has
never terminated the services of the applicant/claimant but as a matter of fact, he himself remained absent from duty
without intimation w.e.f. 30.06.2009 and falsely alleged that wages for the month of April, May, June and other benefits
had not been paid. The respondent-management has paid all the legal dues of the claimant/workman as such, he is not
entitled to any relief as he himself has abandoned his services for better opportunities. The present industrial dispute by
way of reference in view of amended provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable before
this Tribunal because of the fact that assuming the service of the claimant/workman terminated by the respondent-
management on 30.06.2009, the workman has made the industrial dispute by way of demand notice dated 21.11.2012
after the expiry of 3 years from the date of his termination. Thus, claim petition is time barred in view of sub-Section 2
and 3 of Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that in the light of the specific statutory
provisions this Hon’ble Tribunal is not competent to proceed with the claim petition and liable to be dismissed with cost.
It is further alleged that no single person is handling the same profile in the entire region i.e. Punjab, Haryana, himachal,
J&K. Therefore question of reinstatement at this stage does not arise. The alleged legal dues of the workman has already
been settled in the year 2009 and the respondent-management reserves the right to submit reply, if needed. It is prayed
that claim petition be disposed of in the light of the legal submission made by the respondent-management as it is not
maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
3.
Claimant has filed his replication/rejoinder denying that he has left the job at his own. It is further alleged that
respondent-management has terminated his services from 30.06.2009. It is also averred that if there is any delay in filing
the petition it is due to management who used to give false promises for payment of remaining dues and reinstatement.
Remaining facts are the same which are already in the claim petition as such, are not required to be repeated again.
4.
Both the parties are given opportunities to file their evidence. Claimant/workman Govind Ram has submitted
his affidavit Ex.WW1/A as oral evidence along with 6 papers but management-counsel did not turn up for cross-
examination hence, vide order dated 03.07.2018, respondent-management was proceeded ex parte.
5.
During the course of pendency of the claim petition at the stage of argument, workman along with his counsel
did not appear on 28.05.2019. Hence, opportunity of oral argument is being closed and case is fixed for orders. However,
claimant has filed its written argument which is on record.
6.
At the very outset, it can be observed that management has taken legal issue regarding the maintainability of the
claim petition by virtue of its time barred in the light of the provisions contained in Section 2-A sub-Clause 3 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This specific plea has been taken by the management in Para 2 of the written statement as
such, it is the legal obligation of the Tribunal to discuss the issue at first. On the basis of the plea, raised by the
respondent-management, I am of the view that following points would arise for consideration:-
(i)
“Whether Labour Court can entertain a claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 after three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or services otherwise
terminated?
(ii)
Whether Labour Court has right to condone the delay in filing claim statement though sub-Section (3) of
Section 2-A barred such claim?”
7.
Section 2-A of the I.D. Act enables the individual workman to raise a dispute connected with or arising out of
his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his services by his employer and by legal fiction it
would constitute “Industrial Dispute”. No other type of dispute regarding an individual workman is contemplated by
Section 2-A. After the enactment of Section 2-A, it is not necessary that a dispute relating to the discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of a workman must be sponsored by a trade union or a substantial
number of workman. In other words, even if it is not sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of workman,
such a dispute will be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Section 2-A of the ID Act reads as under:
“2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute-
(1)
Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an
individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected
with, or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an
industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the
dispute.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5683
(2)
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 appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of
such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as
they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(3)
The application referred to in sub-Section(2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the
exp9iry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of
service as specified in sub-Section(1).”
A bare reading of above provisionwould indicate that a dispute covered under sub-Section(1) can be
agitated or questioned by a workman by making an application directly to the Labour Court or
Tribunal for adjudication of such dispute and such application should be filed before the expiry of
three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. In
other words, the right conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of
expiry of three years of the date of dismissal, discharge etc. Sub-Section (3) of Section 2A would
operate independently. The right available to the workman under Section 2A is not withstanding
anything contained in Section 10 of the ID Act.
8.
Thus, question arises for consideration in the present case is whether the dispute raised after three years from
the date of dismissal can be entertained by the Labour Court or Tribunal condoning the delay, if any, in raising the
dispute? Keeping the above principles in mind, a reading of Section 2A(3) would lead to an irresistible conclusion that
time stipulated for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be, has to be necessarily
“before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service
as specified in sub-Section (1). “Time limit for making an application to the Labour Court stipulated in sub-Section (3)
of Section 2A does not appear to have a bearing to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 2A. In any event right
conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry of three years from the date of
dismissal, discharge etc.,. In other words, the limitation of three years prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 2A
being mandatory, same cannot be condoned by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no
application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9.
Therefore, it has to be held that if claim petition is filed beyond the limitation period then it will be incumbent
on the part of this Tribunal not to entertain such an application since the condition does not bars the special remedy but it
also strikes at the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain such application. Such interpretation is in consonance to the
general rule of the interpretation of statute and such instruction will not also in any way prejudice the right of the
workman to get his dispute resolved by a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act provided the dispute sought to be
raised do not become state because of his inaction as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Vs.
Punjab Roadways, Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Prahalad Singh,
10.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin vs. SitaramAggarwal, reported in AIR 2003 SCW 908, has held in
Para 20 as under:-
“The Courts jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known
that in a given case, the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot
enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It
cannot add or subtract the words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write
or recast legislation. It is also necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has
not used any superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of legislature must be gathered from
the language used.”
11.
Thus, in the background of the dicta of the Apex Court in Naziruddin’s case referred to supra, when Section 2-
A is perused, it would indicate that if the legislature really intended that the period of limitation provided in sub-Section
(3) of Section 2-A of the Act was to be construed as directory, then it would not have prescribed the limitation of three
years and it would have used the words “at any time” instead of using the words “before the expiry of three years”.
Though the words ‘at any time’ is found in section 10(1), same is conspicuously absent in sub-Section(3) of Section 2-A
which would clearly depict the intention of the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under
sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A and as such legislature did not employ the words ‘at any time’ in the said provision as
found in Section 10(1) and in its place, it has specifically incorporated the words ‘before the expiry of three years’.
Hence, to interpret the period of limitation found in sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A as directory and not mandatory would
amount to adding something which is not provided in the provisions by the legislature or it would amount to doing
violence to the provision, if such interpretation is sought to be made. To my mind, the limitation of 3 years prescribed
5684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A is mandatory and same cannot be condoned by taking recourse of Limitation Act,
1963 which has no application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12.
In the background of the aforesaid discussion, when the facts of case in hand are examined, it would clearly
indicate that the services of the claimant by his own averments in the petition has been terminated by the management on
30.06.2009 while order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) dated 31.12.2013 reveals that the matter has
been raised by the workman on 31.11.2012 before the authority while this claim petition is preferred before this Tribunal
on 16.04.2014 almost after 5 years of his alleged termination. In view of the fact that sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A
having been held as mandatory and the said provision clearly indicate that in case of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment
or termination, an application referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 2-A to be made before the expiry of three years,
i.e., on or before 30.06.2012 and same having not been made, respondent-employee cannot be heard to contend that
delay is to be condoned. At the cost of repetition, it is to be held that on the expiry of three years period from the date of
discharge, dismissal etc., the right to invoke Section 2-A would stand extinguished.
13.
In view of the aforestated discussion, I am of the considered view that Point No.s(1) & (ii) has to be answered
in the negative namely, Labour Court cannot entertain a claim petition filed under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act after
three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination and this Tribunal has no right to condone
the delay more than five years in filing the claim petition. Even otherwise there is no explanation forthcoming for the
delay in not raising the dispute from 30.06.2009 to 21.11.2012 from the date of termination till the date of filing of
application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The contention of the workman that if there is any delay
regarding the filing of claim petition it is due to the conduct of management on pretext of false promise for payment and
reinstatement has no force in the eye of law.
14.
Having gone through the factual and legal proposition, I am of the view that claim petition is time barred as
such, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition and passed the order on merit without
jurisdiction as such, the claimant is not entitled for any relief and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
15.
The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication
as required under Section 17 of the Act.
A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1339
1339
1339
1339.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस Bरलायंस नेC;ट Dलक ा. िलिमटेड रेवाड़ी (एच आर) और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं* के संब+ िनयोजक, और
उनके कमकार, के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं /म यायालय,
चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 06/2014) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 15.07.19 को ा6 7ए थे ।
[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019
S.O. 1339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Lab our
Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Reliance
Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Rewari (HR.) & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on
15.07.2019.
[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5685
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No.6/2014
Registered on:-17.04.2014
Sh. Govind Kishor Maheshwari S/o Sh. Kailash Chand,
R/o H.No.155, Purani CIA Wali Gali, Nahar Singh Colony,
Shekhpura, Teh. & Distt. Palwal-121102 (Hry.)
…Workman
Versus
Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd. Shanti Complex, Opposite Shed Piper Tourism Complex,
Naiwala Chowk, Rewari (Hry.)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on:-12.06.2019
1.
The workman has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with
the averment that he was in the service of the management from 28.05.2005 till his illegal termination by the respondent-
management. The workman was performing the duty of Electrician/Mechanical Engineer/Bill Clerk. The nature of work
was of DG Repaid Mechanic and Electrical Repairs of the Towers installed by the respondent-management on various
locations. He was paid Rs.14,284/- per month along with other allowances like travel allowances Rs.5,000/- and
Rs.1,000/- as diet money. He had worked for more than 240 days continuously in each preceding calendar year till his
termination. Due to the satisfactory performance of the claimant/workman he was promoted on 28.05.2005 by the
management by issuing employee code no.23503870 and increases the salary and allowances. Respondent-management
are lose minded towards employee whereby the legally permissible benefit/privileges like ESIC, PF, Bonus, Casual
Leave etc. are not extended when claimant demanded his dearness allowance on 30.06.2009 and remaining emoluments
management relieved him from his duty illegally against the violation of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Claimant requested for his duty repeatedly but has not been allowed to resume his
duties. The claimant has been forced to remain unemployed due to his illegal termination by the respondent. The
respondent at the time of termination of the claimant retains the juniors and also made fresh appointments. In spite of
notice and proceeding initiated before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Faridabad. Management refused to reinstate
the claimant/workman. It is prayed that claimant be taken on duty with continuity of service and other benefits that
prayed.
2.
Respondent-management has resisted the claim petition by filing written statement where it is averred that it has
never terminated the services of the applicant/claimant but as a matter of fact, he himself remained absent from duty
without intimation w.e.f. 30.06.2009 and falsely alleged that wages for the month of April, May, June and other benefit
had not been paid. The respondent-management has paid all the legal dues of the claimant/workman as such, he is not
entitled to any relief as he himself has abandoned his services for better opportunities. The present industrial dispute by
way of reference in view of amended provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable before
this Tribunal because of the fact that assuming the service of the claimant/workman terminated by the respondent-
management on 30.06.2009, the workman has made the industrial dispute by way of demand notice dated 21.11.2012
after the expiry of 3 years from the date of his termination. Thus, claim petition is time barred in view of sub-Section 2
and 3 of Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further alleged that in the light of the specific statutory
provisions this Hon’ble Tribunal is not competent to proceed with the claim petition and liable to be dismissed with cost.
It is further alleged that no single person is handling the same profile in the entire region i.e. Punjab, Haryana, himachal,
J&K. Therefore question of reinstatement at this stage does not arise. The alleged legal dues of the workman has already
been settled in the year 2009 and the respondent-management reserves the right to submit reply, if needed. It is prayed
that claim petition be disposed of in the light of the legal submission made by the respondent-management as it is not
maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
3.
Claimant has filed his replication/rejoinder denying that he has left the job at his own. It is further alleged that
respondent-management has terminated his services from 30.06.2009. It is also averred that if there is any delay in filing
the petition it is due to management who used to give false promises for payment of remaining dues and reinstatement.
Remaining facts are the same which are already in the claim petition as such, are not required to be repeated again.
4.
Both the parties are given opportunities to file their evidence. Claimant/workman Govind Kishore Maheshwari
has submitted his affidavit Ex.WW1/A as oral evidence along with 6 papers but management-counsel did not turn up for
cross-examination hence, vide order dated 03.07.2018, respondent-management was proceeded ex parte.
5686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
During the course of pendency of the claim petition at the stage of argument, workman along with his counsel
did not appear on 28.05.2019. Hence, opportunity of oral argument is being closed and case is fixed for orders. However,
claimant has filed its written argument which is on record.
6.
At the very outset, it can be observed that management has taken legal issue regarding the maintainability of the
claim petition by virtue of its time barred in the light of the provisions contained in Section 2-A sub-Clause 3 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This specific plea has been taken by the management in Para 2 of the written statement as
such, it is the legal obligation of the Tribunal to discuss the issue at first. On the basis of the plea, raised by the
respondent-management, I am of the view that following points would arise for consideration:-
(i)
“Whether Labour Court can entertain a claim petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 after three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or services otherwise
terminated?
(ii)
Whether Labour Court has right to condone the delay in filing claim statement though sub-Section (3)
of Section 2-A barred such claim?”
7.
Section 2-A of the I.D. Act enables the individual workman to raise a dispute connected with or arising out of
his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his services by his employer and by legal fiction it
would constitute “Industrial Dispute”. No other type of dispute regarding an individual workman is contemplated by
Section 2-A. After the enactment of Section 2-A, it is not necessary that a dispute relating to the discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of a workman must be sponsored by a trade union or a substantial
number of workman. In other words, even if it is not sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of workman,
such a dispute will be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Section 2-A of the ID Act reads as under:
“2-A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute-
(1)
Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an
individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with,
or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an
industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the
dispute.
(2)
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 appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of
such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as
they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(3)
The application referred to in sub-Section(2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the
exp9iry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of
service as specified in sub-Section(1).”
A bare reading of above provisionwould indicate that a dispute covered under sub-Section(1) can be
agitated or questioned by a workman by making an application directly to the Labour Court or
Tribunal for adjudication of such dispute and such application should be filed before the expiry of
three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. In
other words, the right conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry
of three years of the date of dismissal, discharge etc. Sub-Section (3) of Section 2A would operate
independently. The right available to the workman under Section 2A is not withstanding anything
contained in Section 10 of the ID Act.
8.
Thus, question arises for consideration in the present case is whether the dispute raised after three years from the
date of dismissal can be entertained by the Labour Court or Tribunal condoning the delay, if any, in raising the dispute?
Keeping the above principles in mind, a reading of Section 2A(3) would lead to an irresistible conclusion that time
stipulated for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be, has to be necessarily
“before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service
as specified in sub-Section (1). “Time limit for making an application to the Labour Court stipulated in sub-Section (3) of
Section 2A does not appear to have a bearing to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 2A. In any event right
conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry of three years from the date of
dismissal, discharge etc.,. In other words, the limitation of three years prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 2A
being mandatory, same cannot be condoned by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no
application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5687
9.
Therefore, it has to be held that if claim petition is filed beyond the limitation period then it will be incumbent
on the part of this Tribunal not to entertain such an application since the condition does not bars the special remedy but it
also strikes at the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain such application. Such interpretation is in consonance to the
general rule of the interpretation of statute and such instruction will not also in any way prejudice the right of the
workman to get his dispute resolved by a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act provided the dispute sought to be
raised do not become state because of his inaction as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh Vs.
Punjab Roadways, Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Prahalad Singh.
10.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin vs. SitaramAggarwal, reported in AIR 2003 SCW 908, has held in
Para 20 as under:-
“The Courts jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known
that in a given case, the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot
enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It
cannot add or subtract the words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write
or recast legislation. It is also necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has
not used any superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of legislature must be gathered from
the language used.”
11.
Thus, in the background of the dicta of the Apex Court in Naziruddin’s case referred to supra, when Section 2-A
is perused, it would indicate that if the legislature really intended that the period of limitation provided in sub-Section (3)
of Section 2-A of the Act was to be construed as directory, then it would not have prescribed the limitation of three years
and it would have used the words “at any time” instead of using the words “before the expiry of three years”. Though the
words ‘at any time’ is found in section 10(1), same is conspicuously absent in sub-Section(3) of Section 2-A which
would clearly depict the intention of the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under sub-
Section (3) of Section 2-A and as such legislature did not employ the words ‘at any time’ in the said provision as found
in Section 10(1) and in its place, it has specifically incorporated the words ‘before the expiry of three years’. Hence, to
interpret the period of limitation found in sub-Section (3) of Section 2-A as directory and not mandatory would amount
to adding something which is not provided in the provisions by the legislature or it would amount to doing violence to
the provision, if such interpretation is sought to be made. To my mind, the limitation of 3 years prescribed under sub-
Section (3) of Section 2-A is mandatory and same cannot be condoned by taking recourse of Limitation Act, 1963 which
has no application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
12.
In the background of the aforesaid discussion, when the facts of case in hand are examined, it would clearly
indicate that the services of the claimant by his own averments in the petition has been terminated by the management on
30.06.2009 while order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) dated 31.12.2013 reveals that the matter has
been raised by the workman on 31.11.2012 before the authority while this claim petition is preferred before this Tribunal
on 16.04.2014 almost after 5 years of his alleged termination. In view of the fact that sub-Section (3) of Section 2A
having been held as mandatory and the said provision clearly indicate that in case of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment
or termination, an application referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 2A to be made before the expiry of three years, i.e.,
on or before 30.06.2012 and same having not been made, respondent-employee cannot be heard to contend that delay is
to be condoned. At the cost of repetition, it is to be held that on the expiry of three years period from the date of
discharge, dismissal etc., the right to invoke Section 2A would stand extinguished.
13.
In view of the aforestated discussion, I am of the considered view that Point No.s(1) & (ii) has to be answered in
the negative namely, Labour Court cannot entertain a claim petition filed under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act after three
years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination and this Tribunal has no right to condone the
delay of more than 5 years in filing the claim petition. Even otherwise there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay
in not raising the dispute from 30.06.2009 to 21.11.2012 from the date of termination till the date of filing of application
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The contention of the workman that if there is any delay regarding the filing
of claim petition it is due to the conduct of management on pretext of false promise for payment and reinstatement has no
force in the eye of law.
14.
Having gone through the factual and legal proposition, I am of the view that claim petition is time barred as
such, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition and passed the order on merit without
jurisdiction as such, the claimant is not entitled for any relief and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
15.
The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication
as required under Section 17 of the Act.
A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
5688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 18 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1340
1340
1340
1340.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस िनदEशक,राFीय समु िवGान सं;थान, डोना पाउला, गोवा और अय एवं उनके कमचारी के बंधतं* के संब+
िनयोजक, और उनके कमकार, के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं /म
यायालय, गोवा के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या IT/37/2007) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 03.07.2019 को ा6
7आ था।
[सं. एल-42012/20/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2019
S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. IT/37/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court GOA as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The The
Director, National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa & Others, and their workmen which were received by the
Central Government on 03.07.2019.
[No. L-42012/20/2007-IR (DU)]
V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(BEFORE MR. VINCENT D’SILVA, HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)
Ref. No. IT/37/07
Smt. Sugandha Shirodkar,
H. No. 674, Nagali,
Taleigao, Goa.
…Workman/Party I
V/s
The Director,
National Institute of Oceanography,
Dona Paula, Goa.
…Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri. SuhaasNaik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri. K. P. Anilkumar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 25th day of the month
of June of the year 2019)
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), the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram
Mantralaya, New Delhi by Order dated 06.07.2007 bearing No. L-42012/20/2007-IR(DU), has referred the following
dispute for adjudication.
“Whether the action of the management of National Institute of Oceanography in terminating the services of
their workman Smt. SugandhaShirodkarw.e.f 1.8.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
2.
Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered as IT/37/07 and registered A/D notices were issued to both the
parties. Pursuant to service of notices, Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 5and Party II filed a Written statement at
Exhibit 7.
3.
In short, the case of the Party I is that she joined the services of National Institute of Oceanography (NIO)/Party
II and was posted in the Canteen of the Party II effective from 02.02.2004 and continued to work in the Canteen of Party
II as an Office Assistant under Mrs. S. Almeida who was working as a Receptionist/In-charge of canteen of Party II on a
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5689
monthly salary of Rs. 2000/- per month. The canteen was situated in the premise of Party II and she was working as an
Office Assistant performing duties like maintenance of the stock entry register; writing coupon register and tallying the
sale of coupons with the cash received; taking orders for lunch online and submitting the same at the coupon counter and
writing the cash book and making all the entries on the computer etc. and worked continuously from 02.02.2004 till
31.07.2006 with clean and unblemished service record maintaining excellent and cordial relations with the Party II
management and other staff. The Party I met with an scooter accident and was unable to attend the duties on 24.07.2006
to 28.07.2006 and after recovering from the accident, the Party I reported for duty on 31.07.2006 but was told by the
officials of Party II that her services has been terminated effective from closing hours of 31.7.2006 w.e.f 01.08.2006.
4. The action of Party II in terminating the services of Party I workman is illegal, unjustified and bad in law. The
Party I worked from 02.02.2004 till the closing hours of 31.07.2006 prior to her illegal termination of service and have
completed more than 240 days of continuous service with Party II. The Party I was appointed by Party II and Party I was
working with Party II in the canteen under the supervision and control of Party II officers and was also paid her monthly
salaries by Party II, as such there was a blatant violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and rules
made thereunder. The Party II has failed to conduct any enquiry of whatsoever nature nor Party I was paid any wages nor
compensation nor she was given any prior notice or pay in lieu of notice. The action of Party II in illegally terminating
service of Party I w.e.f 01.08.2006 is illegal, unjustified and bad in law and is in total contravention of Section 25(F) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules made thereunder.
5.
The Party II has issued her service certificate stating that Party I has worked with Party II as Office Assistant.
The Party I also claimed that after terminating the services of the Party I by the Party II, the Party II has recruited new
persons in place of the Party I. The Party I has raised an Industrial Disputes vide letter dated 01.08.2006 however, Party
II failed to respond and as such the Party I raised an Industrial Dispute before the Office of the Asst. Labour
Commissioner, Government of India Vasco, on 19.02.2007 demanding immediate reinstatement, full back wages and
continuity in service. The Asst. Labour Commissioner intervened immediately. However, the matter was not resolved in
conciliation across the table and as such a failure was recorded by the Asst. Labour Commissioner in conciliation on
14.03.2007. The action of Party II in illegally terminating her services w.e.f 01.08.2006 is illegal, unjustified and bad in
law and is an act of hire & fire at the whims and fancies of Party II. Hence the reference.
6.
In the Written statement, the Party II has claimed that the National Institute of Oceanography is one of the
National Laboratories set up by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), as such, it is not an ‘industry’
within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Planning Commission of India formulates policy
and sets objective targets for the purpose of research by CSIR. The Planning Commission has set up various working
groups consisting of experts in different fields to formulate the plan for relevant sector in collaboration with Central
Ministries and State Governments. Likewise in the case of Scientific Research, Planning Commission has set up
independent committees, working groups, and panel of experts and scientists to suggest plans for various sectors of
scientific research. CSIR or any of its Laboratories including NIO are not indulged in any activity of business, trade or
manufacture. It is merely a Research Institute. It is also not a Commercial Enterprise. The research conducted by NIO is
for the benefit of India as a Nation and also for the benefit of mankind. Thus, NIO does not come within the scope of
definition of the term ‘Industry’ as defined under Section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as such, the present dispute
is not an industrial dispute at all. The present dispute/ reference is therefore liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction
being not maintainable before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
7.
CSIR and NIO are exercising sovereign functions of the State. At the time of recruitment of any employees,
NIO always follows the well established process of selection as laid down by law. Apart from calling for names from
Employment Exchange, it advertises all the posts. The Selection Committee selects the candidates on merits. In case of
promotional posts, the selection is done by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) by following the norms set up by
the Govt. of India. The records of NIO disclose that the Party I has never been employed by NIO. Even otherwise, she
has neither faced any interview nor any other process of selection. She has never been on the rolls of NIO as its
employee. The Party I has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal with false and fabricated claims. Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable for the employees of NIO. The Party I is not entitled for any relief from either
by way of adjudication of her false claim of termination or reinstatement or with back wages or otherwise.
8. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exh.8 denying the case put forth by Party II in the written statement.
9.
Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 9 are as follows:
(1)
Whether the Party I proves that she was working as an Office Assistant in the canteen of the Party II
from 02.02.2004 till 31.07.06?
(2)
Whether the Party I proves she was unable to attend duties from 24.07.06 to 28.07.06 due to an
accident?
(3)
Whether the Party I proves that the termination of her services, by the Party II is illegal and unjustified?
5690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(4)
Whether the Party II is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act?
(5)
Whether the dispute is an Industrial Dispute?
(6)
Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the reference/dispute?
(7)
What relief? What order?
10.
The Party I, Smt. Sugandha Shirodkar examined herself and produced on record a copy of statements of
Accounts dated 22.11.2010 State Bank of India at Exh. 20 colly, a copy of Certificate dated 07.02.2006 issued by
Secretary NIO Department Canteen at Exh. 21, a copy of notice dated 02.02.2005 issued by Secretary, NIO Departmental
Canteen at Exh. 22, a copy of letter dated 02.08.2006 addressed to the Director of NIO at Exh. 23, a copy of dispute
dated 04.09.2006 raised before the Assist. Labour Commissioner, Panaji at Exh. 24 and a copy of letter dated 19.02.2007
addressed to the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Vasco da Gama, Goa at Exh. 25. On the other hand, Party II examined Shri
Mohan Ganesh Dalvi and produced on record a copy of Index of Writ Petition No. 741/2010 along with the annexures at
Exh. 30 colly and a copy of order dated 06.01.2011 in the Writ Petition at Exh. 31.
11.
Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments came to be placed on record by both the parties.
12.
I have gone through the records of the case and have duly considered the arguments advanced. My findings to
the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1, 2 & 3
…
In the Negative
Issue No. 4, 5 & 6
…
In the Negative
Issue No. 7
…
As per final order
REASONS
ISSUE NO. 1, 2 & 3:
13.
Learned Adv. ShriSuhaasNaik for Party I has submitted that Party I was recruited directly by NIO by
conducting the written test, oral test and interview and after following due process of selection as stated by her. The work
of Party I was supervised and controlled by the Secretary of the Party II canteen, Mr. BlascoFernandes and Party I
workman was interviewed by the Mrs. Shanti Almeida, the employee of Party II establishment. He further submitted that
Party I has also produced her service certificate issued Mr. Vijay Kumar at Exhibit 21 who was the officer of Party
company and was receiving salary in her salary account by cheque through Party II establishment i.e. NIO and has
produced the statement of account of State Bank of India, Dona Paula, which clearly reflects that the salary was paid by
NIO. He further submitted the recruitment of Party I was done under Central Government Service Rules, however
suddenly on 01.08.2006 her services was terminated without following due process of law, which is illegal, unjust and
bad in law and is an act of hire-& fire at the whims and fancies of NIO. He further submitted that the employer has also
failed to produce any document to suggest that the workman was engaged through the contractor neither the employer
produced any contract licence on record that the said contractor was having a valid contract licence to employ Party
workman and that it is clear fact that no notice, notice pay has been served by the employer NIO and as such there is
complete violation of the statutory provisions of law as required under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and hence the
Party I is entitled for relief prayed.
14.
Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri K. P Anilkumar for Party II has submitted that the Party II herein follows the
CCS(CCA) Rules as applicable to the Central Government servants. It is covered by the constitutional requirement of
reservation etc. The employees are recruited through well laid down procedures like advertisement, written test,
interview etc. Posts are fixed and are filled up through the above recruitment process. Appointment in the lab level is
made by the Director of the concerned lab. He further submitted that the Party I was not recruited by CSIP or NIO. The
Party I has not done any work of CSIR or NIO. She has never applied for any post and she was not issued any
appointment letter. She was as seen from the records, appointed by the Canteen Committee who was running a canteen
for the employees of NIO. The canteen committee consisted of employees of NIO and NIO has no role in running the
canteen and there is no position in NIO in respect of canteen and therefore the Industrial dispute raised by the Party I
claiming employment under CSIR/NIO is false.
15.
It is well settled that burden of proof is on the workman to establish employer-employee relationship and where
a person asserts that she is a workman of the company and it is denied by the company, it is for him/her to prove that fact
and not for the company to prove that she was not an employee of the company but of some other person. The relevant
facts to be taken into consideration to establish an employer- employee relationship as held in the case of M/s. Workmen
of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd. vs. State of T.N. and others, (2004) 3 SCC 514 would include, inter alia: (a) who is
the appointing authority; (b) who is paymaster; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; (e) the extent
of control and supervision; (f) the nature of the job e.g. whether it is professional or skilled work; (g) nature of
establishment; (h) the right to reject.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5691
16.
Admittedly, the Party I was working in the canteen of Party II however there is, nothing on record including
appointment letter that she was recruited through well laid down procedure like advertisement, written test, interview etc
by Party II as posts with Party II are filled up through above recruitment process. There is no dispute that Party I was not
recruited by Party II through Employment Exchange. It has not been brought on record that she was recruited by CSIR or
NIO or that she had applied for the post and that she was issued an appointment letter. Party I Smt. SugandhaShirodkar
has admitted in the cross examination that she was not employed with Party II through employment exchange. She
claimed that she was told that Party II had issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of canteen works; however, no
such copy of advertisement has been produced. She claimed that she was called for the interview by Shanti Almeida, but
no such call letter for the interview has been produced nor it is explained that said Shanti Almeida had authority to issue
such a letter. She claimed that her salary was directly credited in her account but feigned ignorance whether her salary
bill was prepaid by Party II. The Statement of account at Exh. 20 colly do not show that she was employed by Party II
and was paid the salary by Party II.
17.
The Party I, Smt. Sugandha has admitted that she had not signed day to day attendance register and that her
signature was obtained only once in a month for having attended the duties for the said months by said Smt. Shanti
Almeida. The Party I has not produced any documents indicating that she made application for the job or that she was
selected by due process of law or that she was working in the canteen managed and run by the Party II or that that she
was terminated by Party II, which fortifies the case of Party II that there was no employer-employee relationship between
them and that she was never on the rolls of NIO as an employee. The Party I has produced on record a Certificate dated
07.02.2006 at Exh. 21 issued by Secretary, NIO, Departmental Canteen stating that Party I was working on contract as
Office Assistant in the NIO Departmental Canteen for National Institute of Oceanography. The said certificate has been
disputed by Party II. Even it is considered that she was working for the canteen, there is nothing on record that she is the
employee of Party II and was appointed by it by following prescribed procedures. The Party I failed to show that she has
been paid by Party II and that her work was supervised and controlled by Party II. It has not been shown by her that Party
II was running the said canteen. If the canteen is run by the canteen committee consisting of the employees of NIO and
that she was working in the said canteen, the Party I cannot claim any reliefs against Party II in the absence of employer-
employee relationship between the two.
18. The Party I has thus failed to overcome the test laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.
Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd., supra nor shown that she was appointed by Party II or that she was paid
salary/remuneration by it or that the disciplinary action was initiated by Party II and therefore the contention of Learned
SuhaasNaik as stated above cannot be accepted having any merits. The Party I having failed to show that she was
employed by Party II and was posted in the canteen of Party II from 02.02.2004 till 31.07.2006, either as casual labourer
or otherwise, drawing salary from Party II, it cannot be said that the termination of her services was effected by Party II
or that it is illegal and unjustified. Hence, the above issues are answered in the negative.
ISSUE NO. 4, 5 AND 6 :
19.
Learned Adv. Shri SuhaasNaik for Party I has submitted that the action of Party II in terminating the services of
Party I workman is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law and that prior to her illegal termination of services, the Party II has
failed to conduct any enquiry of whatsoever nature nor Party I was paid any wages or compensation nor she was given
any prior notice or pay in lieu of notice. He further submitted that no notice, notice pay has been served by the employer
NIO and as such there is complete violation of the statutory provisions of law as required under section 25-F or the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence the Party I workman named in the schedule or reference is entitled for
immediate reinstatement, full back wages and continuity in service with Party I employer.
20.
Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri K. P Anilkumar for Party II has submitted and rightly so that NIO is one of the
National Laboratories set up by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and is under administrative Control of
CSIR which is under the Ministry of Science and Technology as stated by Shri Mohan Ganesh Dalvi in his affidavit. He
also stated that the object of the council of the Scientific Research is for the promotion; guidance and coordination of the
scientific and industrial research in India including the institution and the financing of specific research, etc. The CSIR or
any its Laboratories including NIO have not indulged in any activity of business, trade or manufacture. It is merely a
Research Institute. It is also not a commercial enterprise. The research conducted by NIO is for the benefit of India as a
Nation and also for the benefit of mankind. Thus, NIO does not come within the scope of definition of the term
‘Industry’ as defined under Section 2(j) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and therefore the present dispute is not
maintainable. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of Physical Research Laboratory vs. K. G. Sharma passed
on08.04.1997 that CSIR is not an Industry as defined under Industrial Dispute Act as the Institute is doing only physical
research and are governed by Central Civil Service Rules and was performing such activities for the betterment of
scientific knowledge which cannot come in the purview of Industry. It is therefore Party II is not an Industry within the
meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to decide the reference as
the dispute is not an industrial dispute. Hence, the issues no. 4, 5, and 6 are answered in the negative.
5692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ISSUE NO. 7:
21.
The Party I has failed to prove that she was working as an Office Assistant in the canteen of Party II and that the
termination of her services by Party II is illegal and unjustified and hence, the Party I is not entitled for any reliefs.
22.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i)
It is hereby held that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Party I and the Party II
and that the termination of services of Party I was not effected by the management of Party II i.e.
National Institute of Oceanography.
(ii)
Party I /workman Smt. SugandhaShirodkar is therefore not entitled to any relief.
(iii)
No order as to costs.
(iv)
Inform the Government accordingly.
VINCENT D’SILVA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 19 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1341
1341
1341
1341.—राFप ित, /ी राधा मोहन चतुवEदी, पीठासीन अ िधकारी, केीय सरकार औ ो िगक अ िधकरण
सह /म यायालय, जयपुर को दनांक 15.07.2019 से छ: माह तक क अविध अथवा िनयिमत आधार पर पद के भरे जाने
तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक केीय सरकार औ ो िगक अ िधकरण सह /म यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पीठासीन अ िधकारी
के पद का अितBरK भार सLपते हM।
[सं. अ-11016/04/2017-सीएलएस-II]
संजीव नंदा, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2019
S.O. 1341.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad to Shri Radha Mohan Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur for a period of six months with effect from 15.7.2019
or till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/04/2017-CLS-II]
SANJEEV NANDA, Under Secy.
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1342
1342
1342
1342.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
,e@,l gkaxdkax vkSj 'ka?kkbZ cSafdax dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dksydrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2012½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-07-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la ,y-12025@01@2019&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.01/2012) 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. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking
Corporation Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.07.2019.
[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5693
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Application No. CGIT-01 of 2012
(Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947)
Parties: Shri Saptarshi Mukherjee,
41, Babubagan Lane,
P.S. Dhakuria,
Kolkata – 700031
…Applicant
- Vs –
M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.,
31 Binoy Badal Dinesh Bag,
Kolkata – 700001
…Opp. Party
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Applicant
: Mr. Suvodip Bhattacharya, learned counsel
On behalf of the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.H. Quader, learne counsel
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Banking
Dated: 10th July, 2019
AWARD
This is an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act of
1947 for convenience) filed by the concerned workman, Shri Saptarshi Mukherjee challenging his termination order
dated 20th February, 1997 as illegal and also praying for his reinstatement with full back wages including promotional
allowance. The Opposite Party has filed its reply in which the maintainability of application under Section 2A of the Act
of 1947 has been challenged on the ground of limitation.
2.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has contended that the Act of 1947 prescribes limitation of only three
years to file application under Section 2A. He relied on Swapan Adhikari V. State of West Bengal, 2014(4) CHN
435(CAL) in support of his contention.
3.
Learned counsel for the Applicant relied on Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur V. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court and Another, 2018 LLR 150 has submitted that where the workman has raised dispute at belated stage, even after
several years, the application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 has been held to be maintainable.
4.
Admittedly the termination order was passed on 20th February, 1997 and this application under Section 2A of
the Act of 1947 was moved on 13th February, 2012, i.e., approximately 15 years from the date of his termination. Section
2A(3) of the Act of 1947 prescribes period of limitation for filing application to challenge dismissal or termination under
this section which reads as follows:
“2A(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the
expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as
specified in sub-section (1).”
5.
From the above quoted provision it is established that the application under Section 2A of the Act of 19 can only
be filed before the expiry of three years from the date of termination of service which is admittedly not done in the
present case. Learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the workman had challenged his termination before
the civil court and after conciliation proceeding before the Regional Labour Commissioner the Opposite Party has gone
before the Hon’ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 640 of 2000. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble High Court
of Calcutta in Writ Petition No. 388 of 2003 has given liberty to the Applicant to file his application before the
appropriate authority under the Act of 1947. The learned counsel has relied on paragraphs quoted below from the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the above writ petition on 20th May, 2011 -
“I am, accordingly, of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for invoking the Constitutional
Writ Jurisdiction of this Court seeking invalidation of the proceeding, which has been instituted before the
authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners shall be entitled to raise the points on the strength
5694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of which the present petition has been filed in course of the proceeding before the authorities under the said Act.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. All interim orders passed in this matter shall stand dissolved.
Since the writ petition itself is being dismissed, connected application being GA No. 1299 of 2003 for all
practical purpose becomes infructuous and shall stand disposed of.
The interim order passed in this writ petition shall stand dissolved. Let the appropriate authority under the
Industrial Disputes Act take further steps in this matter expeditiously so that the controversy could be resolved
at an early stage. I however make it clear that the forum constituted under the said Act shall examine the
question of maintainability of the dispute on its own merit. I have refrained from addressing the said issue on
merit for the reasons indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.”
6.
After perusal of above quoted paragraphs I have failed to find out any liberty given to the Applicant to file this
application condoning delay in filing the application or condoning the period consumed in litigation before the Hon’ble
High Court.
7.
The case law cited by the learned counsel for the Applicant, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur (supra) has no
applicability to the facts of the instant case and the same is distinguishable on facts and law. In the above quoted case law
the workman has not raised any demand disputing his termination. Therefore, the corporation contended that the
termination order was acceptable to the workman concerned. The Court held that the dispute comes into existence when
any demand is raised by the workman and refused by the management and when the demand was not raised by the
workman, no dispute came into existence. The relevant portion of the judgment is worth quoting –
“42.3
Since there is no period of limitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the dispute even belatedly.
However, if the dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to whether such a dispute still
exists?Thus, notwithstanding the fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the workman that
there is a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has
lapsed and there are latches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making the industrial dispute cease to
exist. Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory explanation for these latches and delays and
demonstrate that the circumstances disclose that issue is still alive, delay would not come in his way because of
the reason that law of limitation has no application. On the other hand, if because of such delay dispute no
longer remains alive
and is to be treated as “dead”, then it would be non-existent dispute which cannot be
referred.”
8.
In above cited case law the matter was alive even after lapse of considerable period of time and the workman
submitted the reference before conciliation officer after inordinate delay of 4 years from the date of accrual of cause of
action, i.e., raising of dispute. Moreover it was a case of reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. Hence ratio of the
case has got no bearing to the instant case under Section 2A of the Act of 1947.
9.
In the instant case, it appears that the workman was regularly pursuing his case before the Regional Labour
Commissioner and also before the Civil Court which was denied by the Opposite Party. Then the dispute had arisen the
moment the demand was made by the workman challenging the illegality of his termination order dated 20th February,
1997 when it was denied by the management. Filing case before the Civil Court by the workman and filing writ petition
by the management before the High Court show that the parties contested their respective cases by tooth and nail. So, it
cannot be said that the dispute did not come into existence and the application is filed within three years when it arose.
10.
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Swapan Adhikary case (supra) has held that right conferred under Section 2A
of the Act of 1947 lapses immediately preceding the date of three years of the date of dismissal. It has also been held that
provision of Section 2A(3) of the Act of 1947 operates independently, no matter conciliation proceedings are pending.
11.
In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the application under Section 2A of
the Act of 1947 is highly time barred. Therefore, rejected.
Dated, Kolkata
10 July, 2019
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 22 tqykbZ] 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.1343
1343
1343
1343.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ua- II, p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
22-07-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la ,y-12025@01@2019&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
ch- ,l- fc’V] voj lfpo
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5695
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 93/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No –II
Chandigarh 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 22.07.2019.
[No. L-12025/01/2019-IR (B-1)]
B.S. BISHT, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer
ID No. 93/2014
Registered on:-01.07.2014
Sh. Ajay Sood, S/o Late Sh. Amar Singh, Village & Post Office,
Bhawarna, District Kangra (HP)
…Workman
Versus
1.
State Bank of India, through its Deputy General Manager (Business & Operations), State Bank of India Zonal
Office 40, SDA Commercial Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009(HP).
2.
Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Officer,
Centre Point Building, Civil Lines, Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)
… Management
AWARD
Passed on:-09.07.2019
1.
The workman has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
with the averment that he was an employee of the State Bank of India, right from the year 1979 up to the date of his
illegal termination from 06.11.2013. Aggrieved with the order of dismissal dated 06.11.2013 followed by an appellate-
authority order dated 03.01.2014, workman has preferred this industrial dispute after failure of the conciliation
proceedings, for setting aside the order of dismissal. Initially workman was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the
management/respondent-bank on 25.06.1979 and subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant, Special Assistant and
finally Senior Special Assistant in the year 2011. Though, he was to superannuate on 31.01.2012 however, he was
granted extension of two years and as such, his date of superannuation happened to be 31.01.2014. During the long
service, he had excellent service record and annual confidential reports securing 10 out of 10 marks and 8 out of 10
marks for the year 2012-13. The workman was served with a memorandum dated 05.01.2013, whereby the disciplinary-
authority decided to initiate proceedings for the imposition of major penalty on account of alleged gross misconduct
based on totally false and baseless grounds through charge-sheet mentioning 9 charges (Annexure P-1). The workman
submitted the reply(Annexure P-2) of charge-sheet vide letter dated 09.02.2013. It is pertinent to mention that while
submitting the charge-sheet, the list of witnesses or documents were not given to the workman even without considering
the reply of the workman, disciplinary-authority vide its order dated 04.03.2013(Annexure P-3) ordered the instigation of
enquiry. The disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer as well as presenting officer and the date of first hearing
was fixed for 11.04.2013 of which date, the list of witnesses and documents were given to the workman. The witnesses
were examined by the enquiry officer separately with respect to the separate parties but copies of the statement of
witnesses and day to day proceedings were not given to the workman. The workman requested to the enquiry officer vide
its letter dated 26.03.2013(Annexure P-6) for supplying of the documents which were very vital for defence of the
workman but it was refused by the enquiry officer. After concluding the enquiry, the next date for examination of
defence witnesses was fixed on 03.09.2013. The workman supplied the list of witnesses who were examined by him but
due to suffering from liver cirrhosis and treatment at different hospitals including FORTIS Hospital, request was made
by the workman for postponing the enquiry through letters(Annexure P-8, P-9, P-10, P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14 and P-15)
with respect to grant of leave but working of the enquiry officer was not impartial as such, a legal notice dated
08.10.2013(Annexure P-16) was sent by the workman to the disciplinary authority for change of enquiry officer on
various grounds along with copy to the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer did not consider
the request of the workman for postponement of the enquiry proceedings or the change of enquiry officer despite the fact
that workman was seriously ill resulting the ex parte enquiry vide order dated 11.10.2013 by the enquiry officer. Enquiry
officer did not issue summon to the defence witnesses and enquiry officer choose to proceed ex parte and submit his
5696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
enquiry report(Annexure P-18) holding that all the charges have been proved against the workman. Disciplinary
authority issued show cause notice dated 22.10.2013 concurring findings of the enquiry officer with proposed
punishment of dismissal from service. The workman requested for supply of the copies of the enquiry report and grant
him time for reply to the show cause notice but of no use, resulting appearance of the workman for personal hearing on
05.11.2013 but on the said date, the officer discharging the duties of disciplinary authority was on leave and ultimately
without giving opportunity of being heard disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 06.11.2013 in haste
manner. It is alleged that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity for
examining defence witnesses and submission of enquiry report to the workman with mala fide intention which is liable
to be set aside and the workman be ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including salary etc.
2.
Management of State Bank of India have filed written statement, alleging therein that workman was dismissed
from service vide order dated 06.11.2013 which was upheld by the appellate-authority vide order dated 03.01.2014.
After due consideration as a result of fair and proper enquiry proceedings the workman was given full opportunity to
prove his innocence, applying the principles of natural justice. The opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to
the workman by appellate-authority. After duly considering the facts and finding of the enquiry report has rejected the
appeal preferred by the workman vide its order dated 03.01.2014. In fact, the workman while posted in Palampur
Branch, committed a grave misconduct as per service conditions governing him on 05.01.2013 with specific charges.
The workman has neither got any cause of action to prefer the present reference nor case on merit thus, the same is
declined at the very outset. The list of witnesses and documents were given to the workman on the very first date of
enquiry during the enquiry proceedings which has been admitted by the workman himself in the opening line of Para 8 of
the statement of claim. It is also admitted that the disciplinary authority has correctly considered the evidence on record
and also after analyzing the evidence and facts of the case passed the order of punishment. It is averred that workman did
not allow the enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry proceedings on one pretext or the other with the mala fide
intentions to delay the enquiry proceedings. The opportunity of hearing is fully afforded to the workman by the enquiry
officer and even public notice was published in the daily news paper The Tribune on 04.10.2013 to put up his defence if
any. The copy of the enquiry report was dully supplied to the workman and after proper and legal enquiry the workman
was terminated from the services as such, workman is not entitled for any relief prayed in the claim petition.
3.
The workman has filed its rejoinder, reiterating the same facts alleged in the claim petition as such, it does not
required to be repeated again.
4.
The Tribunal after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on fairness of enquiry passed an
order dated 11.02.2016, holding that enquiry is not conducted in fair and reasonable manner against the principle of
natural justice. The order is not challenged by the management and it has gain the finality.
5.
After passing the order regarding the fairness of enquiry, parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence.
Management has examined Sh. D.C. Jagotra, Branch Manager, who filed his affidavit Ex.MW1 along with documents
Ex.M-1 to M-34, Arjun Singh, Deputy Manager as MW2 and Miss Amita Saini, Branch Manager as MW3, who are
cross-examined by the workman-counsel. Witness Arjun Singh Dogra MW2 has accepted during cross-examination that
he does not remember that he was present in the chamber of the Branch Manager when the alleged incident took place.
Similarly, witness Amita Saini MW3 has alleged that the occurrence of 28.05.2012 took place between 11 am to 12 pm,
which is against the version of the management as such, her presence on the day of incident became doubtful.
6.
Workman Ajay Sood filed his affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/5 and affidavit
of witness Dharmender as Ex.WW2/A. During the course of cross-examination witness Dharmender has accepted that he
has not read the affidavit before making his signature on it as he is not aware with the English. He has also accepted that
he does not know anything mentioned in the affidavit filed as evidence. Thus, statement of Dharmender has become
irrelevant in the eye of law as he is not aware with the facts alleged in his affidavit.
7.
Evidence of the workman Ajay Sood and management witness D.C. Jagotra, Branch Manager shall be discussed
at relevant time during the course of discussion.
8.
Heard the learned counsel of the workman Sh. S.C. Gupta and management counsel Sh. S.K. Gupta and perused
the file as well as written arguments submitted by both the parties.
9.
Learned counsel of the workman during the course of argument submitted that perusal of the evidence on
record goes to show that management has not been able to prove the charges leveled against the workman. It is further
submitted that even if it is presumed that charges are proved even then they relates to be minor misconduct for which
extreme penalty of dismissal is not required by law. Learned counsel has submitted that workman has already rendered
more than 32 years of unblemished service in the management-bank and the punishment of dismissal from service
awarded to the claimant/workman vide impugned order dated 03.01.2014 is very harsh and disproportionate against the
charges leveled against him. Learned counsel also submitted that workman has good service record throughout his
career. Learned counsel submitted that workman was a trade union leader and in order to harass the workman for raising
grievances of the employees of the bank he is terminated from the service in mala fide manner on the basis of enquiry
report which is held by this Tribunal against the principle of natural justice without giving opportunity to the workman to
defend himself vide order dated 25.09.2018. Learned counsel for the workman has also contended that the punishment of
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5697
dismissal from service is discriminatory in nature and this Tribunal has got power under Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act to alter or modify the impugned order of dismissal by taking lenient view while exercising power under
Section 11-A of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance to the case of M/s Firestone Tyre Vs. Management
(1973)1 SCC page 813 and Ramakant Mishra Vs. State of U.P. (1982)3 SCC page 346, Vikram Aditya Pandey, 2013
page 423.
10.
Per contra, learned counsel for the management argued that action of the disciplinary authority in passing the
dismissal order is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct proved against the workman. It is also submitted by the
learned counsel for the management that role of the Court in departmental proceedings is very limited and the Court
cannot substitute its own views and finding arises on the basis of the record available. It is further argued that in the
matter of imposition of sentence power of the Court is very limited to exceptional cases and punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority cannot be established to disciplinary view. Learned counsel would submit that being the union
leader the conduct of the workman on fateful day amounts to gross misconduct where he not only challenged the
authority of Branch Manager for issuing a letter for the leave already availed by the workman but also created riotous
atmosphere which is not conducive to the working of the bank. It is further argued that the charges framed against the
accused are proved by the evidence of the witnesses of the management examined on oath as well as documentary
evidence filed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel argued that charges proved against the workman amounts to gross
misconduct for which one of the prescribed punishment is termination which is awarded by the authority-concerned
within its jurisdiction. Conclusively it is contended that workman is not entitled to any lenient view by the Tribunal in
the light of the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel of the
management has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble apex court in the cases of P.D. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of
India and Oths. 2006(4) SLR Page 47, Supreme Court, Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco
and Anr., 2008(5) SLR page 214, Supreme Court and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade, 2005 LLR
360. The order of the Tribunal regarding the fairness of enquiry has become final as it is not challenged by the
management.
11.
It is fairly settled that in departmental enquiry or proceeding before the Tribunal, disciplinary authority is
required to prove charges on preponderance of probability and not of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Reference may be
made of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur(1974)4 SCC 618, R.S Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and other(1999)8 SCC page 90, State Bank of India Vs. Narender Kumar Pandey, Civil Appeal
No.263/2013 dated 14.01.2013. Before appreciating the evidence on record regarding the proof of charges submitted by
both the parties it will be desirable to mention all the charges framed against the workman to illustrate the evidence in
respect of the concerned charges. The charges framed against the workman are as follows:-
“Charge No.1:- You created nuisance in the Branch premises during the business hours and disrupted
smooth and normal functioning of the Branch on 28.05.2012 when a letter bearing No.Br/AWS/1 regarding
your unauthorized absence was served on you. You misbehaved with the Branch Manager, tore the Letter
No.Br/AWS/1 Dated 28.05.2012 into pieces, while shouting “No Branch Manager has dared to issue me
letter prior to this”.
Charge No.2:- You did GALI-GLOCH and threatened the Branch Manager on 28.05.2012 while using
abusive language.
Charge No.3:- You demonstrated before Palampur ADB Branch on 28.05.2012 without giving prior notice to
the Bank with regard to demonstration. Subsequently, you organized lunchtime demonstration from
08.06.2012 to 18.06.2012 again without giving any prior notice.
Charge No.4:- On 29.05.2012, you disrupted the smooth working of the Branch by insisting that the box
containing remittance be taken out by the Branch Manager. When an officer namely Shri Surjeet Singh
volunteered to lift the box, you came along with Shri Madan Bhandari Senior Special Assistant and shri
Ram Mal Guard up to the entrance of the Branch and while Shri Surjeet Singh was carrying the remittance
box. While Shri Surjeet Singh was trying to engage the services of canteen boy to carry the box up to the
vehicle, this was prevented by you and above employees.
Charge No.5:- You deliberately flouted system and procedures on several occasion in the past with an
intention to undermine the authority of the Branch Manager in the Branch and in the process seriously
increasing operational risk of the branch. One instance is given as under:
When the Branch Manager asked you for special leave application already availed of from 05.04.2012 to
11.04.2012, you instead of giving leave application, superimposed with remarks ‘Special Central Committee
Meeting’ in the attendance register in gross violation of service rules.
Charge No.6:- You unauthorizedly absented yourself from duty on 23.05.2012 and 26.05.2012 without any
intimation or application.
Charge No.7:- You disobeyed office order dated 17.07.2012 and 18.07.2012 and did not work as case
Manager from 17.07.2012 to 19.07.2012.
5698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Charge No.8:- You proceeded on medical leave from 26.07.2012 again without producing relevant medical
certificate.
Charge No.9:- You issued a cheque bearing No.043887 dated 20.08.2012 amounting to Rs.375000/- in favour
of Sh. Sarvesh Arora from account No.11358897046 without having sufficient balance in the account which
was returned on 01.09.2012.
12.
As regards, charges framed against the workman, there is no evidence at all regarding the charge no.2 and 5
while charge no.9 is beyond consideration of Tribunal as it relates to the criminal offence for issuing a cheque without
having sufficient balance in the account which was returned subsequently. There is no complaint by Sh. Suresh Arora as
is admitted by the management witness MW1 D.C. Jagotra during the cross examination. Similarly, the first part of the
charge no.5 is certainly vague while subsequent part of charge no.5 has not been supported by any of the witness of the
management Sh. D.C. Jagotra, Branch Manager, MW1, Arjun Singh, Deputy Manager MW2 and Miss Amita Saini,
Branch Manager as MW3.
13.
So far charge no. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. There is no sufficient evidence on record to observed that charges
are proved in the light of principle of preponderance of probability because the fact of demonstration from 8.6.2012 to
18.6.2012 does not find support from the evidence of witness of the management MW2 Arjun Singh, MW3 Amita Saini.
Even the witness of the management D.C. Jagotra has not stated anything in his affidavit filed as evidence. Similarly,
regarding the charge no.4 witnesses examined by the management have admitted that Surjeet Singh was not authorized
to carry cash-box. Even Branch Manager D.C. Jagotra has admitted during the course of cross-examination that Surjeet
Singh was not authorized to pick the cash box and workman has made objection because there is likelihood of untoward
incident. Witness MW2 Arjun Singh has alleged in his affidavit that Surjeet was stopped by the workman along with
M.L. Bhandari and Guard-Rajmal. It was M.L. Bhandari who was cashier on that day and the responsibility to carry
cash-box was with workman who was assigned for cash remittance to be sent to Palampur main-branch. The CCTV
footage Ex.R-1 also does not indicate any such riotous incident at relevant time as alleged in the charge.
14.
Charge number 6, 7 and 8 relates with the unauthorized absent and disobedience of the Branch Manager order
regarding the duty of workman as assigned for cash manager. Undoubtedly, workman was absent on 23.05.2012,
25.05.2012 and 26.05.2012 from duty. MW1 witness D.C. Jagotra has alleged that workman had not taken leave but this
fact is denied by the workman in his affidavit by saying that he always informed the Manager or Accountant before
proceeding on any type of leave in writing or telephonically. The version of the Branch Manager, MW1 D.C. Jagotra
becomes conspicuous when he accepts that he does not remember that he has noted down the absence of workman on
25.05.2012 or 26.05.2012 in the attendance register and he may have written “absent without information” afterwards.
Thus, Branch Manager himself is not sure about the endorsement made by him regarding the absence of the workman in
attendance register for relevant dates.
15.
For the sake of argument, if it is presumed that workman has not informed to the Branch Manager for the leave
even then it comes within the minor misconduct vide Rule 7(d) of the award staff settlement 2012 relied by both the
parties. Similarly, charge no.8 relates to medical leave. Branch Manager D.C. Jagotra has admitted in his cross-
examination that workman was on leave on 26.05.2019 and he continuously submitted leave application along with
improper medical certificate. He has further admitted that he does not remember as to how medical certificate was
improper. Learned counsel of the workman contended that utmost Branch Manager was entitled to refer the matter to the
medical board rather to decide the genuineness of medical certificate without knowing anything about its validity. I am
of the opinion that contention of the workman-counsel is justified to the extent that Branch Manager without enquiring
genuineness of the medical certificate and referring the matter to the medical board has wrongly observed that medical
certificate submitted was improper. Thus, I am of the opinion that contention of the workman-counsel is justified in
given circumstances and it cannot be observed that workman made himself absent without sufficient reason on medical
grounds.
16.
The most contentious charge no.1 against the workman relates to creation of nuisance during business hour of
the bank and disrupting functioning when letter dated 28.05.2012 Ex.M-1. Regarding his unauthorized absence is served
to him and he in a threatening gesture said to the Manager that “no Branch Manager has dare to issue letter prior to me”
and tore the letter. The learned counsel of the claimant/workman would contend that these facts are not proved by the
statement of management-witness MW2 Arjun Singh and MW3 Amita Saini as Arjun Singh has submitted that he did
not remember his presence in the chamber of Branch Manager at the time of the alleged incident while Amita Saini has
alleged that occurrence took place between 11 am to 12 pm while occurrence is alleged to be happened at 4 pm onwards.
I am of the opinion that contention of the learned counsel of workman has no force in the light of the admission of the
workman himself during the cross-examination. He has clearly admitted that he uttered words “No Branch Manager has
dare to issue letter prior to me.” Legally speaking admitted facts need not be proved in view of Section 58 of the
Evidence Act. Though, workman has clearly denied that he did not tear the letter issued by the Branch Manager about his
absence. In fact, the incident of tearing of letter is not clearly visual in pendrive of CCTV footage but, I am of the
opinion that this specific facts has found place in charge no.1 framed against workman and he was in possession of the
letter issued to him by Branch manager which could be placed on record to substantiate the version of non-tearing of
letter but workman has not submitted the letter for the reason best known to him. So, adverse inference is plausible
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5699
conclusion against the workman on this issue. The CCTV footage also reveals the indicant conduct of the workman
which was not upto the mark as a disciplined-employee of bank at relevant time.
17.
Learned counsel of the workman while placing reliance in the case of Rama Kant Mishra Vs. State of UP
(1982)3 SCC page 346 argued that the behavior of the workman in chamber of Branch Manager could not be treated as
misconduct as there was no intention of the workman to defy the authority of Branch Manager or challenge the authority
by doing insubordination through such acts. As per learned counsel of the workman, Hon’ble Supreme Court has treated
such act in above mentioned case as use of indiscreet language or may be said to be indecent or may be disclosing a
threatening posture and misconduct attributed to the workman is not subversive of discipline. I am not convince with the
argument of the learned counsel as case relied by the counsel is distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand.
Language used by the concerned workman in above case disclosed through posture and occurrence took place during the
conversation/discussion between the workman and senior officers. Contrary to this, there is sufficient evidence, in case
in hand, regarding the subsequent conduct of the workman in tearing the letter issued by the Branch Manager, shouting
and making the offensive gesture towards Branch Manager which evidently prove the misconduct of the workman was to
not only defy the order of the Branch Manager but showing his authority as union leader by calling other employees
through telephone in chamber of Branch Manager.
18.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Government of N.C.T. Delhi & Ors.
Civil Appeal No.1815/2007 decided on 5.4.2007, has held that misconduct arising from ill-motive or intention and not an
act of negligence and errors of judgment are innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct. It is pertinent to
mention that motive or intention is abstract things which may be inferred from the conduct, gesture, demeanors or works
done during the course of incident. After receiving the letter workman entered in the chamber of the Branch Manager
used the indecent words, challenging the authority of the Branch Manager, indulging in heated discussion and
subsequently calling of other employees through phone in chamber of the Branch manager is indicative of his motive or
bad intention to challenge the authority of the Branch Manager which comes within the purview of gross misconduct
under Rule 5 sub-Clause (c) and (e) of Award Staff Settlement dated 14.04.2012 relied by the parties and punishable
with dismissal/removal from service or compulsory retirement etc.
19.
There is no dispute that Section 11-A of the Act empowers this Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of
punishment in appropriate cases(see decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
Versus Rawel Singh, 2008 AIR (SCW) 2099; of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case/s of Punjab National Bank
Vs. The Presiding Officer, CGIT & another 2012(2) SLR 631; Harnek Singh Versus State of Haryana & others
2010(3) SLR 276 and Joginder Lal Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & another 1996 SCT 436.
The discretion is to be exercised judiciously in such cases where order of punishment is quite harsh & disproportionate to
the gravity of misconduct of the official concerned on the basis of evidence on record.
20.
Next question remains to be seen whether the punishment awarded to the claimant/workman is disproportionate
to the gravity of the misconduct. Considering the scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment and referring to
various cases in Jai Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2013(4) S.C.T. 607: (2013) 11 SCC 187, the Apex
Court held as under:-
“What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily
rests in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An authority sitting in appeal over any such order on
punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of punishment as much as it
is entitled to examine whether the charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is
challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court the exercise of discretion by the competent authority
in determining and awarding punishment is generally respected except where the same is found to be so
outrageously disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that the Court considers it be arbitrary in that
it is wholly unreasonable. The superior courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which
has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. A punishment that it so excessive or
disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even when
courts are slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The law on the subject
is well settled by a series of decisions rendered by this Court…..”
21. Learned counsel of the management Sh. S.K. Gupta placing reliance in the cases of P.D. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank
of India and Oths. 2006(4) SLR Page 47, Supreme Court, Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha
Breco and Anr., 2008(5) SLR page 214, Supreme Court and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade, 2005
LLR 360, has contended that if the charges framed against the delinquent employee or found to be proved then Tribunal
has got no power under Section 11(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to minimize the punishment given by the
disciplinary authority. It is further contended that this is a case in which charges framed against the accused are fully
proved as such, he is not entitled to any leniency by this Tribunal on the pretext that punishment being disproportionate
to the gravity of misconduct. I have gone through the cases of the Supreme Court relied by the learned counsel of the
management. In the case of P.D. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India and Oths.(supra), Hon’ble Full Bench of the
Supreme Court has clearly laid down that even if the charges which have been proved justified imposition of punishment
of dismissal from service the Court or Tribunal may not exercises its power of judicial review. Similarly, in the case of
5700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco and Anr.(supra), Hon’ble Court has held that decision of
the Court should not to rest on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn a decision of the management on ipse dixit.
According to Hon’ble Court on his jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act although is a wide one must be judiciously
exercised. Judicial discretion, it is trite cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously it may analyze the
evidence but what is important is how it does so. Similarly in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B.
Naravade, 2005 LLR 360, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 20 of the judgment has held as follows:-
“20. It is no doubt that after introduction of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of
discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial, Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment
awarded by the management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of
discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to herein above and it is
certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can
be exercised under Section 11A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any
mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman
which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the
Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11A of the Act and reduce the
punishment.
21.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court apart from the judgment relied by the learned counsel of the management in
catena of cases has held that Tribunal or Court has power to interfere with the punishment only when punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscious of the Court. Admittedly, workman was in
the employment of the bank from the year 1979 since the date of termination i.e. 06.11.2013 meaning thereby that he had
put more than 33 years of service. Workman was Secretary of the workmen-union. There is nothing on record to prove
that there was no blameworthy conduct of the workman during the period of 33 years of service he rendered prior to the
incident of gross misconduct in question. The perusal of the documents filed by the workman reveals that his work was
outstanding throughout his career and he was given extension for 2 years which is not disputed by the management.
Hence, in my opinion punishment must be for misconduct proved. To some extant misconduct is a civil crime which is
vested with sufficient civil and pecuniary situation. In this case it has resulted in dismissal from service in order to avoid
the charge of vindictiveness justice equity and fairplay demand with punishment may be always be commensurate with
the gravity of charge. To my mind before exercising the discretion confirmed, the Court has to be satisfied with the order
of discharge or dismissal was justified in the facts and circumstance of the case. Thus, it is clear that for misconduct of
workman penalty has to be imposed but extreme penalty of dismissal does not appear to be justified in the facts and
circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that extreme penalty of dismissal from service is too harsh to
commensurate with the punishment of dismissal while workman has unblemished career of more than 33 years of service
and was at the end of superannuation of extended period of his service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case is State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nami Chand Nalwaya Civil Appeal No.5861 of 2007 dated 01.03.2011, has held that
in cases where proven charge did not involve either misappropriation or fraudulent conduct and other circumstances of
the case are favourable to the extent of substituting the punishment the Court may substitute the punishment according to
the nature of charge proved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has substituted the punishment of dismissal by compulsory
retirement in that case. The case in hand is not related with the misconduct of fraud, cheating or misappropriation of the
bank-property. The work and conduct of the workman-claimant has been remained outstanding throughout his career and
resulting his extension of service for two years. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal
uphold the finding of guilt regarding the proven charge discussed above and the punishment of dismissal is modified to
compulsory retirement with all consequential benefits.
22.
The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for
publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.
A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1344
1344
1344
1344.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस
साऊथ इिOडया माइस एOड िमनरल इंड;9ीज िलिमटेड के बंधतं* के संब+ िनयोजक, और उनके कमकार, के बीच अनुबंध
म िन-द. औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं /म यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या
74/2017) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 16.07.2019 को ा6 7आ था।
[सं. एल-29011/5/2017-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5701
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s South India Mines & Mineral Industries Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 16.07.2019.
[No. L-29011/5/2017-IR(M)]
D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT CHENNAI
Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 74/2017
Monday, the 8th July,2019
Sri G. Mariappan
S/o (Late) P. Ganapathy Konar
5/11, Yadava North Street
Pudur PO
Tirunelveli-627905
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Executive Director
M/s. South India Mines & Mineral Industrial Ltd.
315, Narayana Nagar, Sankar Nagar
Tirunelveli-627357
:
2nd Party/Management
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
Sri A. Krishnamoorthy, Authorized Representative
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-29011/5/2017 (IR(M) dtd.
27.06.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of South India Mines & Minerals Industries Ltd., Sankar Nagar in
terminating Sri G. Mariappan, an ex-mazdoor/worker from service w.e.f. 01.01.2015 is just, legal and fair? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is registered in ID
No. 74/2017 and notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to 21.07.2017. Since then, the
case is dragged for such a long period till 02.07.2019 intervening almost 17 adjournments i.e. 5 adjournments in the year
2017, 6 adjournments in the year 2018 and thereafter again the case posted to several dates i.e. 22.01.2019, 12.02.2019,
04.03.2019, 25.03.2019, 13.05.2019 and then to 02.07.2019.
It appears even if sufficient opportunities were made available to the petitioner, did not turn up. Thus, the Tribunal is not
in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the appropriate government due default in appearance and
participation of the petitioner. On the other hand, it deems there is non-existence of any Industrial Dispute for
adjudication. Hence the Final order .
In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
5702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1345
1345
1345
1345.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस ओ०एन०जी०सी० िलिमटेड के बंधतं* के संब+ िनयोजक, और उनके कमकार, के बीच अनुबंध म िन-द. औ ोिगक
िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं /म यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदभ सं1या 03/2016) को कािशत
करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.07.2019 को ा6 7आ था।
[सं. एल-30011/68/1999-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/LabourCourt,
Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management
of M/s O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17.07.2019.
[No. L-30011/68/1999-IR(M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
Ref. Case No.03 of 2016
i/c Ref. 05/2015 ( Ref. No.8(C)/2000
Arising out of W.P(C) No. 2139 of 2008
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-
Smti. Tulu Borah & 19 Ors, Sibsagar, Assam.
…Claimants/ Workmen
-Vrs-
The Management of O.N.G.C., Nazira, Sibsagar
…O.P./Management
APPEARANCES
For the Workmen : Mr. A.Dasgupta, Sr. Advocate.
For the Management. : Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. S.Senapati, Advocate.
Date of Award: 11.07.2019
AWARD
1.
The present industrial dispute between management of the ONGC and workers (as per list) was referred to this
Tribunal by the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi vide Notification
No. L-30011/68/99/IR(M) dt.16.3.2000 with the following schedule:-
“Whether the services of the workmen (list enclosed) working directly under ONGC management in the first
phase of service and later engaged on contract basis can be reinstated and regularized? If so, to what relief
they are entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the relevant parties. The parties appeared and filed their
respective written statements.
3.
The case of the concerned workers was that 19 of them (as per list enclosed) were serving as Typists, Khalasi,
Office Assistant in various establishments/offices of ONGC at Sibsagar. Initially they were directly engaged by the
ONGC in the year 1985-86 and they worked in that capacity till 1992 though on record it was shown that they had been
working as contract labourers under a Contractor named T.Phukon since 1987. The concerned workers claimed that since
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5703
the Contractor Mr. T.Phukan obtained his license only in the year 1992 so they could not be considered as contract
labourers under Mr. T.Phukan since 1987. It was also claimed that till 1992 these workers were directly paid by the
ONGC and they also worked along with regular employees. It was further stated that Shri Khirod Ch. Keot, Smti Tulu
Bora and Smti. Santi Prabha Das were engaged as Typists by the ONGC in the year 1985 and till December, 1996 they
were shown as the employees of ONGC Ltd. Subsequently they were shown as contract labourers engaged through the
contractor. It was also stated that engagement of contract labour in the job of typing in the establishment of ONGC Ltd.
was prohibited by the Government of India vide their Notification dated 08.01.1994 under CLR Act and hence, these
employees should be treated as casual employees directly under ONGC. It was further claimed that they ought to have
been regularized in the job. But, the management, on the contrary, suddenly dis-engaged them from the month of
December,1996. Shri Lalit Changmai, Sri Hira Nath Mahanta were engaged as Office Assistants in the Office of Central
Store at ONGC, Nowapukhuri Store. They performed the duties of carrying and maintenance of file in the office where
they worked. It was further claimed that these types of jobs cannot be performed through a contract labour. It was also
stated that these workers were directly engaged by the ONGC in the year 1985 and they worked under ONGC till 1992
though subsequently in the year 1997 they were dis-engaged and no notice of disengagement was issued and no
retrenchment compensation was given to them. It was also stated that one of the concerned workmen Sri Jatin Rajkonwar
preferred a Writ Application being Civil Rule No. 3366/95 on behalf of 21 contract labourers for regularization of service
and the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court called for a report from the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner.
Accordingly, an enquiry was held and the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted his report before the
Hon’ble High Court wherein the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner stated that the job performed by the workers
were perennial in nature and even after their disengagement another set of labours were engaged to perform the same
nature of job as was performed by them. It was further claimed that Hon’ble High Court on perusal of record and other
relevant documents came to a conclusion that these workers were directly engaged by the ONGC Ltd. and continued till
1992 and subsequently they were engaged as contract labours. Ultimately the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated
24.8.1998 directed the authorities of ONGC to consider the case of the workers for regularization within a period of
3 months. It was further ordered by the Hon’ble High Court that if the workers were still aggrieved they might approach
the appropriate authority for relief in accordance with law. Since the management did not favorably consider the matter,
these workers raised an Industrial Dispute.
4.
The management side in its written statement stated that the reference itself was bad in law and unsustainable.
According to them they concerned workers were never under the control and supervision of the management and as such,
they were not “workmen” under the management of ONGC. According to the management these workers were engaged
through contractors for execution of certain works mentioned in the contracts. It was also stated that the settled position
of law was that while exercising power under Section 10(1) of the I.D.Act, 1947 the function of the Central Government
is an administrative one and in performance of such administrative function, the Government could not deal with the
merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the litigation. It was further stated that on the basis of the
principle laid down in various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there can be no doubt that the Government was
not justified in deciding the issue whether the persons raising the dispute, were workmen or not. The management
categorically submitted that at no point of time the concerned workers were directly under ONGC as stated above. It was
also stated that the job contract, for which the workers were engaged through contractor, came to an end. It was also
claimed that the concerned workers were never directly engaged by the ONGC.
5.
Both parties examined witnesses and on conclusion of proceeding, the Tribunal, Guwahati (constituted by the
Government of Assam) disposed of the matter vide Award dated 31.12.2005. The Tribunal granted relief of reinstatement
and regularization to three workers while no relief was granted to the remaining 17 workers.
6.
After passing of the aforesaid award, the aggrieved parties i.e. the management of the ONGC and the workmen
who were not granted relief preferred Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court being No. W.P(C) No..2139/2008
and W.P(C) No. 5446/06. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the aforesaid Writ Petitions by common judgment dated
04.09.2015. By the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble High Court set aside the aforesaid award by holding it “perverse” and
remanded back the matter for “fresh decision by taking into account the existing and fresh evidence as may be adduced
by the parties”. After remand the reference was renumbered as Reference Case No. 03 of 2015.
7.
After remand of the matter, the worker side submitted examination in-chief of six more witnesses namely
W.W.5 to W.W.10. Those witnesses were cross-examined by the management side. It may be mentioned here that during
the earlier proceeding workmen side examined 4 witnesses. Hence, evidence of 10 witnesses i.e. W.W.1 to W.W.10 shall
be considered as evidence of the workmen side in this matter. The management side earlier examined 3 witnesses and
5704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
after the remand, they did not adduce any further evidence. I have heard argument from learned Senior Counsels
representing the workers and the management side. I have also gone through the materials on record.
8.
During argument Sri A. Dasgupta, learned Sr. Counsel for the workers referred to the evidence on records and
submitted that in exercise of the power conferred u/s10 of the CLR Act, 1970, the Government prohibited engagement of
contract labour in store keeping or helper of storekeeper vide Notification dated 08.01.1994, but the management still
continued with the practice and disengaged them between the year 1995 to 1996. According to him the concerned
workers should, therefore, be deemed as the casual employees of the ONGC and in that event the management was
bound to comply with the provision in respect of retrenchment under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. He also referred to
the Standing Order of the ONGC certified under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 wherein the
contingent employees were classified in two categories namely temporary and casual. He also referred to Civil Rule
No.3366/95 moved before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in which vide order dated 12.08.97 the Hon’ble High Court
asked for an enquiry report from the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), in respect of the status of the concerned
workers. It was also stated that as per the report which was exhibited as Exhibit-F, the concerned employees were casual
employees of the ONGC and completed not less than 240 days of work in a year. The Hon’ble High Court on perusal of
the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner directed the ONGC to consider the case of the concerned workers and
also observed that if the concerned workers were still aggrieved they could move appropriate authority as per law. He
further argued that since the management did not consider the matter favourbly, they ultimately raised the Industrial
Dispute which remained unresolved in conciliatory stage and ultimately the present reference was made by the
appropriate Government. He also submitted that on 31.12.05 an Award was passed by the Tribunal directing
regularization of three numbers of workmen namely Sri Khirod Keot, Smti Tulu Bora and Smti Shanti Probha Das while
relief was refused to the remaining workmen. Thereafter the aforesaid Award was challenged before the Hon’ble High
Court in two different Civil Rule Nos. W.P(C) No.5446/2006 and W.P.(C) No.2139 of 2008. He also drew the attention
of this Tribunal that both the aforesaid Civil Rules were disposed of in a common judgment dated 04.09.2015 whereby
the Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to this Tribunal. Admittedly after the remand of the matter workmen
side examined six numbers of additional witnesses. According to the learned Sr. Counsel for the workers, the contract
between the principal employer and the contractor through whom the workers were engaged was nothing but a paper
arrangement and hence, they should be considered as casual employees. Learned Sr. Counsel for the workers further
argued that from 1985/1986 to 1992 they were directly engaged by the ONGC and from 1992 to 1995/1996 they were
shown to have been engaged through contractor.
9.
Learned Sr. Counsel for the management side Mr. G.N. Sahewalla argued that at the time of their
disengagement, the petitioners were admittedly contract labourers engaged through contractor for working in the offices
of the principal employer. By referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “International Airport Authority
of India---vs--- International Air Cargo Workers Union and another reported in (2009) 13 SCC 374” he submitted
that to find out the nature of employment it is essential to determine the following points among others- (1) who pays the
salary, (ii) Who has the power to remove or dismiss from the service or initiate disciplinary action, (iii) who can tell the
employee the way in which the works should be done. By referring the aforesaid, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sahewalla
submitted that wages were paid by the contractor and ONGC did not enjoy any power to remove and dismiss them since
they were not in the pay role of ONGC. He went on to submit that ONGC had only limited control over them in
execution of day to day work. It was submitted that in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
the labours supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer
and such control of the principal employer does not render a right of casual employee to the concerned workers because
if the salary is paid by the contractor the ultimate supervision is with the contractor. According to the learned Sr. Counsel
for the management the workers therefore cannot be held to be casual employees directly under ONGC. He referred to
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors---vrs--- National Union Waterfront
Workers and others as reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1” where it was held that “…even if a contract is found to be not
genuine that could not automatically lead to regularization of the contract labour and if such process of operation of work
as was used and done by the concerned contract labourers were in operation and the principal employer intends to
employ regular workmen for such works, then the workmen who were working as contract labourers can be given
preference.”
10. Referring to the report of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), learned Senior Counsel for the management
submitted that since the concerned ALC was not brought as witness, his report could not be accepted as credible evidence
in as much as the management had been denied to examine the veracity of the report through cross-examination. He
further submitted that mere fact that the contractor did not have a license at the commencement of the contract cannot per
se render the contract invalid. He emphasized that the concerned workers were under the employment of the contractor
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5705
and it was the contractor who paid them their wages and this fact has been admitted by the concerned witnesses.
Referring to certain certificates issued by some officers of the ONGC, he submitted that those officers were not
competent to issue such certificates as would be evident from the evidence of Management Witness No. 3
11.
Let me now briefly consider the evidence adduced by the parties in the matter. Workmen witness No.1, Sri
Khirod Chandra Keot, deposed that he was directly engaged by the ONGC as Typist along with two others namely Smti
Tulu Bora and Smti Shanti Probha Das in the year 1985 and he worked as Typist till 1992. But subsequently they were
shown to have been engaged through contractor since 1989 under one Tuni Ram Phukan, who had no contractor license
at that time. He exhibit a copy of the said license of the contractor as Ext-A. He further stated that after issuance of
Notification u/s 10 of CLRA the Company was prohibited to appoint any Typist as contract labour. According to him he
and other workers were illegally and arbitrarily removed. During cross-examination he admitted that he did not submit
any appointment letter issued to him by ONGC. He admitted that Exhibit-H is a payment voucher but denied that it is a
document of the contractor. W.W.2 Sri Jotin Rajkanwar stated that he worked in ONGC from 1985 to 1995 and that
though he was a direct employee of the ONGC he was shown as contract labour engaged through a contractor named
Tuni Ram Phukan who did not have any valid license for the year 1989. The evidence of workmen witness No.1 to 4 are
more or less similar in nature.
12.
After the remand of the matter the workmen side examined six more witness, namely, W.W.5 to W.W.10.
W.W.5 Sri Aswani Borthakur deposed that he was directly engaged by ONGC in the Central Store in the month of
January,1985 and continued to work so till July, 1995 without any break. He further stated that gate passes were issued to
him by the Central Industrial Security Force which would indicate that he was continuously in service from 20.5.1993 to
10.06.1995. He exhibited such gate pass as Exhibit-U. He further deposed that his continuity of service from January,
1985 to December, 1986 and from January, 1987 to July 1995 was established by Exhibit-F which is a report submitted
by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). He also proved several gate passes issued in favour of another worker named
Jatin Rajkanwar. He however deposed that though he and others were engaged under direct payment system of ONGC
subsequently they were shown as contract labourers under Contractor Tuni Ram Phukan. He also deposed that while
discharging their duties they were under complete and direct control of the ONGC. He also exhibited certain certificates
through Exthibit-X and Exhibit-X(1) showing that concerned official of the ONGC issued a certificate to him showing
him as a regular contingent worker. During cross-examination it appears that at the time of deposition he was 61 years
old. Admittedly, he did not submit any appointment letter issued to him by ONGC engaging him as casual employee. He
also admitted that no salary slips were ever issued to them at the relevant time and he further admitted that in the gate
pass Exhibit-V(1), to V(5), the pass holders were stated as contract labour and it was a “non-employee pass”. He further
stated during cross-examination that later on they came to know that they have been shown to work under contractor
Tuniram Phukan. Exhibit-X is a certificate issued by an Officer of ONGC stating him to be regular contingent worker
from 1985 to 1993.
13.
Evidence of Workmen Witness No.6 Sri Nilamoni Dutta was more or less similar and in the same line as that of
W.W No.5. During cross-examination he stated that he left ONGC in the year 1995 because ONGC did not keep him in
service thereafter. He also admitted that when wages were given no salary slip was given to them. He however denied
that they ever worked under contractor named Tuni Ram Phukan. W.W.7Sri Anil Borah also stated that he worked
directly under ONGC from 1983 to 1995 as Khalasi and he was never appointed through contractor. He was also issued
gate pass. He was also issued a certificate Exhibit-Y © by an Officer of ONGC stating that he was an employee of
ONGC. During cross-examination he admitted that he did not submit any appointment letter. He also admitted that
Exhibit-Y(a) is a gate pass wherein signature of contractor Tuni Ram Phukan is there and in Exhibit-Y(b) it was written
that he was a contract labour. The W.W.8 Sri Bhabani Gogoi also claimed to have worked directly under ONGC from
1986 to 1995 and gate pass (Exhibit-Y(e) was proved. He also proved a certificate issued to him by an Officer of ONGC
as Exhibit-Y(f) showing him as an employee of ONGC. During cross-examination the witness admitted that no
appointment letter was ever issued to him and that to enter in the ONGC premises everybody requires a pass to be issued
by the CISF. He also proved Exhibit-Y(f), a certificate wherein it was mentioned that he has been working since April
1986. He also admitted that no salary slip was issued to them. He further admitted that when ONGC made any
appointment, the employees are given salary slip showing disbursement of the salary by the ONGC. W.W.9 Sri Abdul
Rahman also deposed that he worked under ONGC as Kahlasi upto 1995 without any break which can be proved by the
gate pass issued by CISF. He also stated that they were engaged under direct payment system and subsequently were
shown as contract labour under a contractor Tuni Ram Phukan which according to him was nothing but a paper
arrangement. During cross-examination he admitted that he knew that when ONGC made any appointment the
employees are issued salary slip and no such sheet was ever given to him. W.W.10 Sri Ranjan Borah also claimed that he
was directly engaged by ONGC from 1985 to 1995 and gate passes were issued to him by the CISF. He also stated that
5706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
he and others were engaged under direct payment system but subsequently were shown as contract labour under a
contractor Sri Tuni Ram Phukan which is nothing but a paper arrangement. He also proved a certificate Exhibit-Y(m)
issued to him by an officer of ONGC mentioning that he was a regular contingent worker. During cross-examination he
stated that in Exhibit-Y(J) the word “cont. Labour” has been mentioned and that after 1992 there was a break and he
joined in 1994. He however admitted that he was working under contractor Tuni Ram Phukan which he came to know
lateron.
14. The gist of the evidence of the management side was as under. They examined 3 witnesses. M.W No.1 Sri Ranjit
Borgohain, a manager in rank, stated that the contract workers were engaged by the contractor to execute certain works
namely, lifting, shifting, cleaning, stocking,& preservation of materials in godown, opening of boxes for inspection. He
proved the contract tender as Ext-1 and Ext-1A as job specification. He also exhibited the work orders as Ext-2 series
wherein the jobs mentioned were same as in tender (Ext-1). He also proved the bills submitted by the contractors to
ONGC in respect of the execution of the work mentioned in work order. He also exhibited a letter issued by the
contractor stating that after expiry of the contract on 31.03.1996, he had not engaged any contract labour since 1.4.1996.
He also exhibited licences issued to contractor T. Phukan by the competent authority under CLR Act, 1970 from
29.9.1989.
15. The contractor Sri Tuniram Phukan was examined by the management as M.W. No.2. He stated that the concerned
workers were engaged under him from 1987 to 1995. He also proved the payment register as Ext-12. He also stated that
loading, shifting, box opening, stocking were the kinds of jobs that were done by the concerned workers. He further
stated that he used to pay their wages. In this connection if we look at Ext 18, it would appear that names of the workers
as well as their wages and the signature of the contractor were there. It was also countersigned by an ONGC official as
per requirement.
16. The management side examined M.W No.3 Syed Abdul Khalek mainly to show that only a handful of very
senior officers in ONGC are authorized to issue certificates and if any certificate is issued by an officer who is not
authorized, action may be taken against him. It may be recalled here that several workmen witnesses exhibited
certificates issued by officers of ONGC stating that they were working in certain capacities directly under ONGC. M.W.
No.3 proved Ext-15 along with enclosures showing that such certificates cannot be issued by anyone other than those
mentioned therein. He also stated that such unauthorized issuance of certificated would attract actions against the erring
officials. Ext-16 also indicated that process of actions were being initiated against those officers who issued such
certificates unauthorizedly.
17. The concerned workers claimed that they were initially appointed directly by the ONGC but subsequently they
were shown to have been engaged through contractor which was nothing but a mere paper arrangement. But, there was
no evidence to show as to how they were directly appointed by ONGC. Admittedly, no appointment letter was produced.
Mere issuance of a certificate by an officer of the establishment could not make the workers direct casual workers under
ONGC. Another issue raised by the workers was that the contractor did not have a proper license when they were shown
to have been engaged through this contractor. Yet another issue raised was that the report of the Assistant Labour
Comissioner (C), Guwahati which claimed that they were being engaged by ONGC for a very long period and most of
such works done by them were perennial in nature which could not have been executed through contract labours.
Another issue was continuation of their engagement even after notification by the Government in the year 1994
prohibiting engagement of contract labours in ONGC in certain works. They also proved certain gate passes to show their
employment in ONGC. The claim of the concerned workers was that in view of above facts they were entitled to be
reinstated and regularized in service with consequential benefits.
18. In this matter the management side raised the fundamental issue of non existence of employer- employee
relationship among them and the concerned workers. According to them the concerned workers were contract labours
engaged through contractors and the management was nothing but the principal employer. Further contention of the
management was that though for some initial period the contractor did not have the license, this per se could not render
the contract invalid. It was also contended that issuance of notification under CLR Act,1970 for prohibition of contract
labours in the year 1994 did not cover the works done by the concerned workers. Lastly it was emphasized that the
concerned ALC who submitted the report narrating the nature of work of the concerned workers had not been brought as
witness. As a result, the veracity of the report could not be checked through cross-examination. According to the
management side such report therefore, could not be acted upon.
19. To establish employer- employee relationship, among others, the following facts need to be established by the
party claiming such relationship:- (i) who appoints the workers, (ii) who pays the wages, (iii)who has the authority to
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5707
dismiss, (iv) who can take disciplinary action, (v) extent of control of supervision, (vi) whether there is continuity of
service.
20. Coming to the question of payment of wages, it has been established that the wages were paid by the contractor
in presence of an officer of the principal employer as was required. There was absolutely nothing in the record to even
suggest that the concerned workers received their wages directly from the principal employer. It was established through
evidence that it was the contractor who used to pay the wages to the concerned workers according to number of their
working days. Ext-2 & Ext-18 are relevant in that matter. The gate passes proved by the concerned workers admittedly
were issued to facilitate their entry into the premises of the ONGC which was a protected area. But in those passes, as
discussed earlier, the words “c..labour” and “non-employee” pass was mentioned. There was not even an iota of evidence
to show that the concerned workers were appointed by the ONGC directly. It was therefore, clear that the ONGC did not
appoint the concerned workers directly and their wages etc were directly paid by the contractor.
21. In regard to control on the concerned workers, it would be natural that the institution where the workers would
be engaged by the contractor, would have some basic control because ultimately it was the institution’s work which was
being executed through the contract. The real test is one of total control including the power of removal or initiation of
disciplinary matters. There was absolutely nothing on record to show that the management of the ONGC had such
absolute control over the concerned workers. It was the contractor who used to pay the wages and it was he who had
ultimate control.
22. The claim of the workers that the “contract” was a mere paper arrangement also did not appear to be wholly
acceptable. The concerned contractor was examined as M.W No.2. He proved that he used to engage them and also used
to pay their wages. He also proved the contracts/agreements with the ONGC regarding execution of certain works for
which he engaged the concerned workers. He further stated that once the contract finally expired, he disengaged the
concerned workers. Admittedly, at the time of the first agreement he did not have a valid license though he acquired the
license soon after. But, non availability of license by the contractor cannot per se render the contract invalid.
23. Reliance of the workers on certain certificates, as discussed earlier, issued by some ONGC officials to claim
their direct engagement in the ONGC appeared to be misplaced in as much as those officers were not authorized to issue
such certificates. Evidence of the M.W. No.3 would show that actions were being taken such officers. That apart, if
employment of a person in an establishment is held to be proved only by issuance of a certificate by any officer of the
establishment, it would only lead to a chaotic situation. To prove any employment- permanent or casual- there has to be
some kind of appointment or engagement letter or at least, some document to show that the concerned establishment was
directly paying the wages to the workers. Admittedly, none could prove or produce any such document. On the contrary,
the documents proved by the management side, as discussed earlier, would categorically indicate that the concerned
workers were engaged through the contractor (M.W No.2). Coming to the notification issued by Government of India
under section 10 of the CLR Act,1970 on 8.1.1994, certain categories of jobs such as typist, storekeeping or helper of a
store keeper etc were prohibited to be executed through contract labours. But the nature of works mentioned in the
tenders (Ext-1 & 1A) did not seem to have such nature of jobs as mentioned in the notification. Another aspect argued by
the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sahewalla was that substantial work of ONGC is exploration of Rigs, and when certain
Rigs are abandoned, the contract for engagement of workers also come to an end. He submitted that some Rigs in the
relevant localities had long been abandoned. He also submitted that the establishment was already suffering the burden of
being over-staffed for which voluntary retirement scheme was introduced. He referred to Ext-17 & Ext-18 to prove that
point.
24. In view of the above discussion, it appears to me that the concerned workers failed to prove that there was
employer- employee relationship between the ONGC and them (concerned workers) within the meaning of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The concerned workers are, therefore, not entitled to any relief. The reference is, accordingly,
disposed of with a no relief Award.
Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal, this 11th day of July, 2019
MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer
5708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SHRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1346
1346
1346
1346.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस ओ.एन.जी.सी. िलिमटेड के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक
िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 04/2016) को कािशत
करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. एल-30011/69/1999-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour
Court Guwahati, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on
17.07.2019.
[No. L-30011/69/1999-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present: Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B. Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
Ref. Case No.04 of 2016
(Old number: Ref. No.4(C)/2000)
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-
Smti. Banti Baruah, Sibsagar, Assam.
… Claimant/ Workman
-Vrs-
The Management of O.N.G.C., Nazira, Sibsagar,
…O.P./Management
APPEARANCES :
For the Workmen. : Mr. P.K.Baruah, Advocate
For the Management. : Mr. G. N.Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate
Ms. S. Senapati, Advocate
Date of Award: 11.07.2019
AWARD
1.
The present industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate government vide Notification
No. L-30011/69/99/IR(M) dt.15.3.2000 with the following schedule.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the claim for regularization of Smti. Banti Baruah is justified or not on the ground that Smti. Banti
Baruah served on the post of typist during 1985 to 1990 and then worked under contractor during 1990 to 1995?
If yes, to what relief Smti. Banti Baruah is entitled ?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, both the parties were notified and in response to the notices they appeared and filed
their respective written statements.
3.
The case of the claimant was that she being a matriculate and a qualified Typist was appointed as a Typist by
the ONGC from December,1985 as a casual employee and she was also directly paid her wages by the ONGC. Her
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5709
wages was Rs.2/- per page of typing and in the similar manner she continued to work till 1995. She also claimed that
management issued Identity Card No.2051 on 28.4.1986 to her. It was also claimed that management was contemplating
to regularize her service and in that respect there were correspondences between the management of ONGC and the
Headquarters where she was working. According to her, as she was working on contingent basis she was entitled to be
regularized as regular employee on the basis of the Standing Order of ONGC as she had put in more than 240 days of
work per year during that period. On the basis of the above alleged facts the claimant prayed for an award in her favour
for regularization of her service with all consequential benefits.
4.
By filing W.S. ONGC denied that the concerned workman was ever appointed by the management. According
to them all appointments in the ONGC are done as per the concerned Recruitment Rules which are in force. The
management also claimed that they did not engage any workman directly who did the job as alleged by the claimant and
hence there was no question of regularization or absorption. It was further alleged that there is no procedure of
regularization without following the prescribed Rules of the ONGC. It was also stated that the Identity Card was issued
to all including the contract labours to facilitate their entry into the premises of the ONGC for security reasons, the
premises being protected area. It was also stated that Hon’ble High Court in C.R. No. 3366/95 only directed the
management to examine the cases of the workers in respect of the regularization and accordingly the case of the
petitioner was examined by the management but after such examination she was informed that she could not be absorbed
in contravention of the Rules and Regulation of the ONGC. She was also informed that in case of any future vacancy she
could apply for such post as per the advertisement.
5.
After hearing the matter the Tribunal vide Award dated 01.12.2005 held that the claim of the workman was
justified and the management was directed to re-engage her in the concerned post form the date of her termination and
also directed to regularize her service from the date of her re-employment. The matter was taken before the Hon’ble
High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 10.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 2816/2006 quashed the award
passed in Reference No.4(C)/2000 and remanded back the matter to this Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court held as
under:- “ Therefore the impugned award dated 1.12.2005 (Annexure-6) in the Reference No.4(C) of 2000 is set aside and
quashed. The case is thus remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh, in terms of the direction given in the
judgement dated 4.9.2015 in the WP(C) No.5446/2006. Since both the references are connected with each other, it would
be convenient to the Tribunal, if the two References are analogously heard.” Accordingly, the reference has been heard
analogously along-with the reference No.03/2016 (Old no. 8(C) of 2000).
6.
In the first round of proceeding before the Tribunal, Workman side examined 3 witnesses including the
workman. After remand of the matter the claimant re-examined herself and also examined another witness. The
management side however, did not examine any further witness.
7.
During argument the learned counsel for the workman side submitted that the management gave some artificial
break in her job and if all the working days are counted it will come to 1449 days within a period of 3 years 9 months
which will indicate that net working days were far more than 240 days in a year. He argued that from the evidence on the
record it would appear that the workman rendered typing services under the ONGC, in Eastern Region, O.T. Complex,
Sibsagar and hence there was employer and employee relationship between the ONGC and the workman. He further
argued that there was continuity in service from 1985 to 1995 and the management illegally deprived the workman and
without regularizing her service discontinued her from service. He further argued that from the materials on record it
would appear that the engagement of the workman in 1985 could be irregular but since she had requisite qualification for
the job at the relevant time, her service ought to have been regularized. According to the learned Counsel for the
workman there was employer and employee relationship between the ONGC and the workman and hence the workman
could not have been arbitrarily dismissed from service without following the relevant provisions in the I.D.Act, 1947.
8.
The gist of the argument made by the workman side was that the workman Smti Banti Barua was directly
engaged in ONGC for typing job from 1985 to 1989 and thereafter she along with other similarly situated employees
were shown to have been engaged through a nominal contract which was nothing but a camouflage. It was further argued
that after continuous service in ONGC from 1985 to 1989 the management illegally discontinued her service and hence,
she is entitled to reinstatement on regular basis along with all consequential benefits.
9. Management’s argument on the other hand was that the concerned claimant Smti Banti Barua was in a job contract
and before her engagement as contract labour she used to do some typing work in ONGC @ Rs.2/- per page which are
proved by her own exhibits. It was also argued that since the concerned worker was on a job contract she cannot be
considered to be a casual employee under ONGC. It was further argued that the claim of the employee for regularization
was completely illegal. In that respect learned Sr. Counsel of ONGC referred to para 47 of the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 in “Secretary, State of Karnataka and others...vrs.... Umadevi(3) and Others”.
The concerned paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is as under :
“47.
When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker
and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is
5710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person
cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the
post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation
with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully
advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any
promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The
State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a
positive relief of being made permanent in the post.”
It was further argued that no appointment letter was issued to the concerned worker at any point of time by the
management of ONGC and that is the reason for which the employee also could not submit any appointment letter. That
apart, it was further argued that before her engagement as contract labour under the contractor, she was on job contract of
typing at the time of necessity at the rate of Rs.2/- per page. It was also argued that the claimant was neither a direct
employee under ONGC nor was she eligible for regularization in as much as automatic regularization of service in a
Public Enterprise like ONGC is/was not permissible.
10. Let me now briefly discuss the evidence available on record. From the evidence of the concerned claimant Smti
Banti Baruah (W.W No.1) it appeared that initially she was appointed on job contract for typing @ Rs2/- per page by the
management. She also stated that she used to get payment on submission of bills by her. Such sanction orders were also
exhibited by her as Ext-1, 2, 3, 4 &5. She also exhibited some bills as Ext 6 to 8. Exhibit-12 which is a document by
which the then Additional Director (TPT) of ONGC, Sibsagar made a recommendation for continuing the job contract in
respect of the concerned workman. During cross-examination she admitted she had submitted her bill for payment of her
wages. During cross-examination she also stated that she did not know whether there was any appointment letter issued
to her and whether any such appointment letter is in the record. She also admitted that she used to work in an area which
was a protected area and for that purpose she was issued an Identity Card. In the re-examination she stated that in her
earlier examination in-chief she exhibited photo copy of “regularization of job contract personnel” issued by ONGC on
25.01.1990 as Exhibit-12 and now she has collected certain copy of the aforesaid documents and hence she exhibited the
same as Exhibit-12(1). She also proved a document as Exhibit-13(1) and also proved her educational qualification
certificate which shows that she was a matriculate and had a vocational training diploma in typing. She has also proved a
temporary identity card issued on 28.1.86 and medical certificates in respect of her treatment as Exhibit-17. She also
exhibited Exhibit-18 and Exhibit-18(1) which are certain documents relating to her employment in ONGC as contract
labour. After her re-examination she was again cross-examined by the learned Sr. Counsel of the ONGC in which she
admitted that she got Rs.2/- per page for typing from the year 1985 and that she used to type 2 and ½ page in an hour.
She also admitted that in Exhibit-12 it was mentioned that she was engaged in Planning Cell of TPT Section of ONGC
on job contract basis. She further admitted that for the period 03.05.1988 to 14.06.1988 she used to submit a bill for
Rs.950/- for typing 42 copies @ Rs.2/- per copy. She also admitted that she was used to be paid on the basis of her
actual work i.e. the number of sheets typed at the prevailing rate. She also admitted that later she was shown to have
worked under a contractor named Tuni Ram Phukan. She further stated that every person has to obtain identity card for
security reasons for which the identity card was issued. She however denied the suggestion that she was engaged through
a contractor and that she was on job contract of ONGC. She denied that she was not entitled for regularization. She also
admitted that she has no appointment letter issued to her by the ONGC. W.W.2, Sri Dilip Kumar Borkakoty, a retired
employee of the ONGC, stated that she knew the claimant who was on job contract as Typist in ONGC. He stated that he
could identify the signature of Additional Director in Exhibit-12. W.W.3, Arun Chandra Borthakur, retired employee of
ONGC, also proved the signature of the ONGC official on Exhibit-12 and 13. After the remand of the matter before this
Tribunal, workman side also examined another witness named Sri Jatin Rajkonwar (W.W No.4) who introduced himself
as Union Secretary of the ONGC Contractual Workers’ Union. He stated that initially he filed a Writ petition on
11.08.1995 to assist a total 21 ONGC workers including himself in a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court which
was registered as Civil Rule No.3366 of 1995. He further stated that as per order dated 12.08.1997 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated
05.01.1998 stating that the job of loading, unloading, handling as well as typing for which the work force were deployed
were jobs of perennial nature. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he did not depose earlier in the
matter. He also admitted that he was the Secretary of the Union only in the year 2005 although he knew Smti Banti
Barua since 1985.
11.
Management side examined 4 witnesses. M.W.1 Sri Girish Chandra Dutta was functioning as Sr. Personal &
Administrative Officer of the Department of Transport in ONGC, Sibsagar in the year 1993 and prior to that he was
posted at Planning Logistic Department since 1986 at Sibsagar. He stated that in the year 1986 the concerned claimant
Smti Banti Barua came to their Office seeking job of typing. He further stated that the Company did not enter into any
written contract with her for regular job but during exigency of works they used to give her typing job @ Rs.2/- per page.
He further stated after taking the work order she used to type the papers outside their office and he did not know where
she typed. He further stated that they got their permanent Typist and there was no vacancy in the office for Typist. He
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5711
further stated that there were Social Welfare Schemes in ONGC for maintaining a healthy relation with the local people
and one such scheme was to help the needy people by giving medical aid and such medical camps were also held in
nearby villages. He further stated that ONGC has their own Recruitment Rules and they used to advertise when there is
vacancy through newspapers and also through Employment Exchange. He further stated that there is no vacancy of
Junior Assistant. He also stated that for filling up any regular post in ONGC the concerned Recruitment Rules was
applicable. He also exhibited certain documents from Exhibits-A to Exhibit-I. During cross-examination he admitted that
the concerned workman never worked directly under him and he joined in 1991 in the present post. The witness also
admitted that he exactly did not know that when Banti Barua was working. He further stated that there was provision for
punishment of the concerned officer of the ONGC for issuing unauthorized certificates. Action is taken for violation of
Rules and for issuance of such unauthorized certificates. Management witness No.2, Sri Tuni Ram Phookon stated that
he was a contractor of the ONGC. He knew Smti Banti Barua and she was under him as contract labour. He exhibited
Exhibit-J the payment voucher Register and Exhibit-J(1) and J(2) being the relevant entries. He further stated that as per
the payment vouchers he used to make payment to the labourers including the workman Smti Banti Barua. He exhibited
his contractor license as Exhibit-K. During cross-examination he stated that he was contractor from 1987 to 1995. He
further admitted that he has not brought any specific document to show that he was a contractor from 1987 to 1990. He
further admitted that Exhibit-6, Exhibit-7 and Exhibit-8 which are the documents of bills of typing were not made by
him. He further stated that the concerned workman never worked as Typist under him. He further denied the suggestion
that Smti. Banti Barua never cleared the file or stacked. He denied the suggestion that Smti Banti Barua never worked
under him as contract labour. Management witness No.3, Md. Sayed Abdul Khalique stated that he worked as Manager
Stores in ONGC, Sibsagar from 1985 to 1995. He also stated that he knew Smti Banti Barua who worked in ONGC
under contractor in the Central Store of ONGC. He also stated that the contract labour used to do work of stacking and
cleaning of the files. He also stated that the work done by the claimant under contractor was of temporary nature. He
further stated that in 1997 since there was no need of work of stacking, shifting and cleaning, number of contract labour
were reduced because of non availability of such works in ONGC. He further stated that because of reduction of number
of Rigs in ONGC, Shibsagar, number of contracts were also reduced. He also stated that the works related to present
Rigs are done by the regular employees. He further stated that at the time of his giving evidence the number of workers
were more than the required available works. He also stated that because of overstaffing, ONGC introduced a Voluntary
retirement scheme. He exhibited the Scheme as Ext-P. During cross-examination the witness admitted that while he was
posted in OT Complex in 1999 to 2002 he did not find Smti Banti Barua there. He further stated that he never worked
with Smti Banti Barua in Office and she never worked under him. Management Witness No.4 Sri Putul Chandra Sarma,
the then Manager, Logistic, ONGC, Sibsagar stated that he joined in ONGC in 1967 and that he came to know Smti
Banti Barua in the year 1989 while he was working as Transport Officer in Transport and Planning and Provisioning
Cell. He also stated that Smti Banti Barua used to visit the office sometime and they used to give her some typing job
whenever there were excessive works. She typed the papers and delivered to us @ Rs.2/- per page. During cross-
examination he stated the he was working as Transport Officer since 1989. He further stated that Smti Banti Barua was
not an employee of the ONGC. He also stated during cross that payment of Smti Banti Barua for typing was made from
contingency fund.
12. From the evidence of the concerned claimant Smti Banti Baruah (W.W No.1) and remaining witnesses of the
workman side, as discussed earlier, it appeared that initially she was appointed on job contract for typing @ Rs2/- per
page by the management. She also stated that she used to get payment on submission of bills by her. Such job contract
could not be termed as direct casual employment under the ONGC. It appeared from the evidence on record that initial
engagement of the claimant on job contract of typing job as and when required, in any case, could not be said to be direct
employment. The claimant could not reasonably prove that she was a direct casual employee of the ONGC at any point
of time. Later, she was engaged through contractor for performing the works mentioned in the contract and the
contractor in his evidence, as discussed earlier, specifically mentioned that she never worked as typist under him. There
was absolutely nothing on record to show that at the time of her disengagement she was under direct employment of
ONGC. Even her initial engagement was on job contract and payment was made @ Rs.2/- per page of typing. Later, she
was engaged by a contractor and it was the contractor who used to pay the wages. In such circumstances it cannot be
held that there was a distinct employee-employer relationship between her and ONGC. Hence there was no question of
discontinuation of her services by the ONGC. The aforesaid fact was further reinforced by the evidence adduced by the
management side. From the evidence of management side it appeared that when she approached the concerned
authorities for some job she was given job contract of typing whenever there was excessive works because regular typists
were also there in the office. It was also proved that no further regular vacancy of typist was there in the office. That
apart, at some point of time, due to closure of some Rigs, some regular staffs became surplus for which the management
brought VRS scheme. In regard to issue of identity card, the management brought on record that such cards are issued to
all employees including contract labours to facilitate their entry into the premises of the ONGC which is admittedly a
protected area. Hence the identity card was issued to the claimant to facilitate her entry into the premises when required.
The claimant, therefore, could not be termed as a “workman” within the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
5712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Accordingly, the claimant does not appear to be entitled to any relief. The reference accordingly, is disposed of with a no
relief Award.
Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal this 11th day of July, 2019.
MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1347
1347
1347
1347.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस इि8डयन ऑयल काप<रेशन िलिमटेड एवं अय के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच अनुबंध म
िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या
09/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 19.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour
Court Kolkata, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 19.07.2019.
[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Application No. CGIT-09 of 2018
(Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947)
Parties: Shri Babulal Halder,
S/o. Late Gopal Chandra Halder,
B-1, 5/1A, New BBT Road, Sarangabad,
Kolkata – 700137
…. Applicant
- Vs –
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division),
Eastern Region, Indian Oil Bhavan,
2, Gariahat Road (South), Dhakuria,
Kolkata – 700068
2. IBP Company Ltd., Acting through Indian Oil
Corporation (Marketing Division) Eastern Region,
2, Gariahat Road (South), Dhakuria,
Kolkata – 700068
3. IBP Co. Ltd. (An Indian Oil Group Company),
Regional Office, Kolkata,
Shanti Niketan (12th Floor),
8, Camac Street,
Kolkata – 700017
…Opp. Parties
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Applicant : Mr. S. Mukherjee, Learned counsel with Mrs. P. Shaw, Learned counsel
On behalf of the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Karmakar, Learnd counsel with Mr. R. Talukder, Learned counsel
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Petroleum.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5713
Dated: 12th July, 2019.
AWARD
This is an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act of
1947 for convenience) filed by the concerned workman, Shri Babulal Halder challenging his termination order dated
12.09.2008/15.09.2008 as illegal and also praying for his reinstatement with full back wages. The Opposite Party has
filed its reply in which the maintainability of application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 has been challenged on the
ground of limitation.
2.
When the case was taken up today for hearing, an application has been moved on behalf of the Applicant to
withdraw the application moved under Section 2A of the Act of 1947. Though technical mistake in the application has
been made a aground to withdraw the application, but the learned counsel has failed to demonstrate any technical
lacunae in the application.
3.
In the circumstances of the case, Applicant is permitted to withdraw the application. The application under
Section 2A of the Act of 1947, however, shall be treated to have been dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly.
Dated, Kolkata,
The 12th July, 2019
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1348
1348
1348
1348.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस इि8डयन ऑयल काप<रेशन िलिमटेड एवं अय के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच अनुबंध म
िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या
11/2018) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 19.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour
Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others and their workman, which were received by the Central
Government on 19.07.2019.
[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Application No. CGIT-11 of 2018
(Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947)
Parties: Shri Gyan Prakash Balmiki,
S/o. Late K. Balmiki,
219/03/1, Dharamtala Road,
Kolkata – 700137
… Applicant
- Vs –
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division),
Eastern Region, Indian Oil Bhavan,
2, Gariahat Road (South), Dhakuria,
Kolkata – 700068
2. IBP Company Ltd., Acting through Indian Oil
Corporation (Marketing Division) Eastern Region,
2, Gariahat Road (South), Dhakuria,
Kolkata – 700068
5714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. IBP Co. Ltd. (An Indian Oil Group Company),
Regional Office, Kolkata,
Shanti Niketan (12th Floor),
8, Camac Street,
Kolkata – 700017
…Opp. Parties
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer
Appearance:
On behalf of the Applicant
: Mr. S. Mukherjee, Learned counsel with Mrs. P. Shaw, Learned counsel.
On behalf of the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Karmakar, Learnd counsel with Mr. R. Talukder, Learned counsel.
State: West Bengal.
Industry: Petroleum.
Dated: 12th July, 2019.
AWARD
This is an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act of
1947 for convenience) filed by the concerned workman, Shri Gyan Prakash Balmiki challenging his termination order
dated 11.09.2008 as illegal and also praying for his reinstatement with full back wages. The Opposite Party has filed its
reply in which the maintainability of application under Section 2A of the Act of 1947 has been challenged on the ground
of limitation.
2.
When the case was taken up today for hearing, an application has been moved on behalf of the Applicant to
withdraw the application moved under Section 2A of the Act of 1947. Though technical mistake in the application has
been made a aground to withdraw the application, but the learned counsel has failed to demonstrate any technical lacunae
in the application.
3.
In the circumstances of the case, Applicant is permitted to withdraw the application. The application under
Section 2A of the Act of 1947, however, shall be treated to have been dismissed as withdrawn.
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1349
1349
1349
1349.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस एयरपोट अथॉ@रटी ऑफ इंिडया के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या
68/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 22.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. एल-11012/4/1997-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
22.07.2019.
[No. L-11012/4/1997-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5715
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No.1,
NEW DELHI
ID No. 68/2011
Shri Anil s/o. late Shri Jagdish
Qr.No. 5/6, TSF Near Base Hospital, Sumiron Lines,
Delhi 110010.
……Workman/Claimant
Versus
Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division)
Through its Executive Director (Personnel),
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
New Delhi 110003.
…Management/Respondent
AWARD
This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-11012/4/97-IR(M) dated 31.12.1997 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) New Delhi
in terminating the services of Shri Anil, Book Binder w.e.f. 14/12/1996, is justified ? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?’
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Anil filed his statement of claim, with the averments that on
1/7/1989 he was engaged as a Book Bider by the National Airports Authority Printing Press & was initially paid an
amount of Rs.500/- per month which was subsequently revised and his drawn wags for the month of September, 1996
was Rs.1700/- per month. Though the workman served the above Press owned and run by the Management for the
subsequent period from 1/10/1996 to 13/12/1996 but he was not paid wages for the same despite numerous requests to
the Manager of the Press and other superior authorities at his own and through Airports Authority Kamgar Union
(NAAKU) of which he was a Member but to no avail. Thereafter the aforesaid Union approached the Conciliation
Officer but to no success. It is pleaded that the Manager of the Press or the Management of Airport Authority of India
did not give any appointment letter, identity card, medical facility etc. to the workman. The Management sealed the
Printing Press in the evening of 13th December, 1996 when the workman and his fellow colleagues left the press after
performing duty and when they reported for work in the morning of 14/12/1996 at 9.30 AM, they came to know about
the wrongful/illegal lock out of the Press and in this way the services of the workman/claimant who had worked for more
than 240 days with the Management, were terminated without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment
compensation and as such action of the Management is illegal and wrong. Prayer has been made for reinstatement with
full back wages in the industrial pay-scale of Rs.2550-3660 w.e.f. 14/12/1996 and continuity of services and all
consequential benefits vis-à-vis grant of next higher pay scale of Rs. 2720-4400 on completion of 8 years service w.e.f
1/7/1997. He has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the entitled amount, as a matter incidental to the main
dispute.
3.
Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections
that the claim is not maintainable as there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties because the
claimant/applicant was never the employee of the Management and as such no industrial dispute existed between the
parties Even no valid/prior demand notice was served upon the Management. The claim is not maintainable for non
joinder of necessary party viz contractor . While denying all the allegations of the claimant, it has been pleaded that the
Management had never engaged any such person including the claimant and completion of 240 days by him is a mere
concoction for creating a claim and the Management never terminated the services of any workman. It is alleged that the
printing press was closed perfectly in a legal manner as per terms and conditions of the contact between the contractor
Shri N.Lall and the Management. Prayer has been made for rejection of claim petition.
4.
The claimant/workman filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations made in
the written statement.
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27/5/2011 :-
5716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(1) Whether there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?
(2) Whether the press was being run by the Management through a contractor, who employed the claimant in
the said Press ?
(3) As in terms of reference ?
(4) Relief.
6.
Perusal of the record shows that number of opportunities were granted to the claimant to lead evidence to prove
his case but he failed to do so and on 21/7/2011 Shri H.S. Vats, A/R for the claimant had stated that the claimant was not
in his contact and as such he closed his evidence.
7.
On the other hand, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri O.P. Chamoli, Asstt. General
Manager (HR) and Shri Girish Kumar, Manager (Personnel), who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW2/A and
Ex.MW3/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex,.MW1/1 and Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/7.
6.
I have heard Shri Manish Sherawat and Shri Digvijay Rai, A/R for the Management since none appeared on
behalf of the claimant. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.
Issue No.1 to 3 :-
7.
All these issues are taken up together as they can be disposed of conveniently by common discussion.
8.
Onus to prove the case that the claimant had been working as Book Binder in the Printing Press of the
Management from 1/7/1989 till 13/12/1996 either directly or through the contractor or that his services were illegally
terminated by the Management on 14/12/1999, lies on the workman/claimant. He has not led any oral or documentary
evidence to discharge the onus or to prove that he was engaged by the Management. On the other hand, the Management
has examined two witnesses namely MW2 OP Chamoli and MW3 Girish Kumar. It would be a futile exercise to
discuss and analyse the testimony of the witnesses examined by the Management, inasmuch as the claimant has not led
any evidence to show that he was engaged by the Management at its printing press or that there existed relationship of
employee-employer between the parties or that his services were illegally terminated by the Management on 14/12/1989.
In the circumstances, this Tribunal has no option but to hold that the claimant has failed to prove his case. These issues
are accordingly decided against the workman/claimant.
Issue No.4/Relief :-
9.
In view of my findings on issue No.1 to 3 above, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the claimant is not
entitled to any relief whatsoever. Accordingly, no dispute Award is passed.
Date : 15.7.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1350
1350
1350
1350.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस एयरपोट अथॉ@रटी ऑफ इंिडया के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या
69/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 22.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. एल-11012/5/1997-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
22.07.2019.
[No. L-11012/5/1997-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5717
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT No.1,
NEW DELHI
ID No. 69/2011
Shri Baldev Singh s/o. late Shri Ram Singh ,
Qr.No. RZ-69 Bindapur Extension, Near Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi 110059.
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division)
Through its Executive Director (Personnel),
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
New Delhi 110003.
...Management/Respondent
AWARD
This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-11012/5/97-IR(M) dated 31.12.1997 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) New Delhi
in terminating the services of Shri Baldev Singh, Machine Man, w.e.f. 14/12/1996, is justified ? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?’
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Baldev Singh filed his statement of claim (dated 26/3/1988),
with the averments that in the first week of January, 1989 he was engaged as a Machine-man by the National Airports
Authority Printing Press & was initially paid an amount of Rs.1200/- per month which was subsequently revised and his
drawn wags for the month of September, 1996 was Rs.2500/- per month. Though the workman served the above Press
owned and run by the Management for the subsequent period from 1/10/1996 to 13/12/1996 but he was not paid wages
for the same despite numerous requests to the Manager of the Press and other superior authorities at his own and through
Airports Authority Kamgar Union (NAAKU) of which he was a Member but to no avail. Thereafter the aforesaid Union
approached the Conciliation Officer but to no success. It is pleaded that the Manager of the Press or the Management of
Airport Authority of India did not give any appointment letter, identity card, medical facility etc. to the workman. The
Management sealed the Printing Press in the evening of 13th December, 1996 when the workman and his fellow
colleagues left the press after performing duty and when they reported for work in the morning of 14/12/1996 at
9.30 AM, they came to know about the wrongful/illegal lock out of the Press and in this way the services of the
workman/claimant who had worked for more than 240 days with the Management, were terminated without giving any
notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation and as such action of the Management is illegal and wrong. Prayer
has been made for reinstatement with full back wages in the industrial pay-scale of Rs.2720-4400 w.e.f. 14/12/1996 and
continuity of services and all consequential benefits vis-à-vis grant of next higher pay scale of Rs. 2950--5270 on
completion of 8 years service w.e.f 1/1/1997. He has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the entitled amount, as
a matter incidental to the main dispute.
3.
Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections
that the claim is not maintainable as there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties because the
claimant/applicant was never the employee of the Management and as such no industrial dispute existed between the
parties Even no valid/prior demand notice was served upon the Management. The claim is not maintainable for non
joinder of necessary party viz contractor . While denying all the allegations of the claimant, it has been pleaded that the
Management had never engaged any such person including the claimant and completion of 240 days by him is a mere
concoction for creating a claim and the Management never terminated the services of any workman. It is alleged that the
printing press was closed perfectly in a legal manner as per terms and conditions of the contact between the contractor
Shri N.Lall and the Management. Prayer has been made for rejection of claim petition.
4.
The claimant/workman filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations made in
the written statement.
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27/5/2011 :-
(1)
Whether there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?
5718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2)
Whether the press was being run by the Management through a contractor, who employed the claimant
in the said Press ?
(3)
As in terms of reference ?
(4)
Relief.
6.
In order to prove the case, Smt. Nirmala Devi wife of Shri Baldev Singh appeared in the witness box as WW1.
7.
On the other hand, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri O.P. Chamoli, Asstt. General
Manager (HR) and Shri Girish Kumar, Manager (Personnel), who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW2/A and
Ex.MW3/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex,.MW1/1 and Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/7.
6.
I have heard Shri Manish Sherawat and Shri Digvijay Rai, A/R for the Management since none appeared on
behalf of the claimant. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.
Issue No.1 and 2 :-
7.
Both these issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common
discussion.
8.
At the outset I may mention that case of the claimant/workman is that he had been working as Machine-Man in
the Printing Press of the Management from 1st week of 1989 till 13/12/1996 and that his services were illegally
terminated on 14/12/1996, whereas contention of the Management is that the workman/claimant was never engaged by it
and there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the parties.
9.
According to the testimony of Smt. Nirmala Devi wife of the claimant WW1 (which was recorde4d on
4/7/2011), her husband Baldev Singh used to work as Machine-Man under Airport Authority. He was engaged under
the Management on 1.1.1989. He was getting Rs.1400 to Rs.1500/- per month as wages She deposed that it was
Saturday on 14/12/1996 when her husband had gone for duty but he returned home at 5 PM and informed her that the
press was locked. Her husband had have orally requested the Management for regularization of his services but same
was not accepted rather his services were terminated without any notice. Her husband had made efforts to search job but
he was not given any job by any employer, saying that he has been terminated from government job and as such her
husband was unemployed since after termination of his services. Whereabouts of her husband are not known since
29/5/1999 and she had made a complaint to the police in this regard and copy of the same is Ex.WW1/10. She has also
filed on record copy of the application made to the SDM, Punjabi Bagh (as Ex.WW1/9) regarding verification of death of
her husband Shri Baldev Singh who was missing since 29/5/1999. She had also submitted an application to the
Management for giving appointment on compassionate ground to her son Sandeep kumar and copy of the same is
Ex.WW1/1. In cross examination she deposed that she does not have any document of PF and ESI benefits availed by
her husband. She denied the suggestion that her husband had disclosed her that he was a contractual employee and was
working in the office of the Management through the contractor Mr. Lall.
10.
According to the testimony of MW2 OP Chamoli, the Printing Press owned by Airport Authority of India was
run by Shri N. Lall – a contractor on monthly consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- initially and the said Press ran upto 31st
December, 1996. Copy of the letter of Award of contract dated 1/1/1989 (Ex.MW2/1) has been filed on record. In
cross examination MW2 Shri O.P. Chamoli admitted that document Ex.MW2/3 accords sanction for payment of printing
contract charges for a period of three years. He showed his ignorance if there were seven machines installed in the
printing press or that out of those seven machines, five machines were power driven and remaining two machines were
manual driven. He failed to affirm or deny whether there were 17 to 21 employees working in the printing press or that
Ex.MW2/W-3 is the job card which was being used in the printing press. He showed his ignorance whether any
document has been filed by the Management to show that N.Lal was awarded contract to run the press. He denied the
suggestion that Shri N.Lal was working as Manager in the press and was not a contractor. It is noteworthy to mention
here that in the document Ex. MW2/3 (dated 14.10.1992) the designation of Shri N.Lall has been described as Manager,
NAA (National Airport Authority) Printing Press. Though this witness had taken time to produce record relating to pay
bill receipts and muster roll, however he failed to produce the same and simply stated that the record is not available.
11.
MW3 Girish Kumar in his testimony/affidavit Ex.MW3/A also tried to support the version of the Management
that contract/agreement Ex.MW2/1 was awarded to Shri N.Lal and that the workers including the claimant were engaged
by the contractor. He also stated that the printing press was closed by the Management and the assets of the printing
press had been sold out. In cross examination this witness stated that the Management did not have documents to show
that the workman/claimant was in the employment of the contractor. He showed his ignorance whether the Management
was duly registered under Section 7 of CLRA Act or the contractor had obtained licence under Section 12 of CLRA Act.
12.
The Management has neither examined Mr. Lall –the contractor nor produced any other document to show that
the claimant/Baldev Singh was working in the Printing Press through the contractor Mr.Lall. Even perusal of the
contract Ex.MW2/1 shows that the award/contract was primarily for running of the printing press with required
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5719
manpower to be provided by the contractor at Headquarter of National Airports Authority. The
contract/agreement was valid for three years, that is upto 31st December, 1991. There is nothing on record to suggest
that the contract/award ExMW2/1 which expired on 31/12/1991 was renewed / extended in favour of the said
contractor or any fresh contract/agreement was executed in favour of some other contractor for running the
Printing Press of the Management, which was run upto 31st December, 1996. It is manifest from the reading of
contract Ex.MW2/1 that machinery, space/accommodation, electricity and paper used for printing were supplied by the
Management and role of the contractor or the Manager Shri N.Lal was just to supply or supervise the manpower for
printing of the printing material of the Management at the AAI Printing Press. It emerges that workers including the
claimant were hired by Airport Authority of India through the contractor/ Manager M/s N.Lall for doing the printing
work. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Management had awarded contract to M/s N.Lal for completion of
any project or that the said contractor himself was fully responsible for carrying out the project of the Management.
13.
It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially
social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers
under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section
10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract
labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of
the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to
get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.
14.
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 notices the following circumstances under which contract
labour would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-
“107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :
(i)
Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment establishment
and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court
ordered abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1)
of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was
ordered.
(ii)
Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the
contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality,
the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of
contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct
position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.
(iii)
Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal
employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would
indeed be the employees of the principal employer.
15.
In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on
19/2/2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as
safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who
had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect
that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and
camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.
16.
I may mention that situation in the instant case is not distinct. It is evident from the evidence adduced on record
that the contract Ex.MW2/1 awarded to the contractor was for supply of workforce/manpower to the Management
Airport Authority of India for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management. Even control and
supervision over the work of the claimant/workman was that of the Management. Thus, it emerges from the record that
the workman/claimant had not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor rather he had been hired by the
contractor for the work of the Management, that is to say for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the
Management/Airport Authority of India. This is indicative of the fact that contract/s between the Management and
N.Lall was a sham and mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and employee between it and the
claimant herein. It is manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the workman Baldev Singh had been working
regularly without any breaks from January, 1989 till 13/12/2014 whereas his services were terminated w.e.f.14/12/1996.
As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of employer –employee between the
Management/Airport Authority of India and the workman/ claimant herein. Both these issues are decided accordingly
in favour of the claimant and against the Management.
5720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue No.3 :-
17.
It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated without issuing any notice or without any notice
pay/compensation. It is a matter of record that the Management has not filed on record any document to show that any
notice or retrenchment compensation has been paid to the claimant prior to his termination. Thus it can be inferred that
no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant by the Management and termination of the
claimant/workman by the Management was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show
that the Management terminated the services of the claimant/workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of
the Act.
18.
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 either any notice was issued by the
Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the
Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
19.
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.
20.
Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the
time of termination of his services 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. 14.12.1996 is held to be illegal and void.
21.
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 stands proved on record that claimant was continuously in
the employment of the Management from January, 1989 to 13.12.1996. His last drawn wages were Rs.1400- 1500/-
per month. Services of the claimant were illegally terminated on 14.12.1996. Thereafter the claimant approached the
Conciliation Officer but to no avail and ultimately the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication under Section
10 of the Act vide letter dated 31.12.1997. Onus was upon the claimant/workman to plead and prove that he is
unemployed since after his termination. Although it was not pleaded in the statement of claim that the workmen was/is
unemployed since after termination of his services, however WW1 Smt Nirmala Devi –wife of the workman deposed that
after termination her husband had tried for job but was not granted. It would not be out of place to mention here that the
workman Baldev Singh has been missing and untraceable since 29.5.1999 as per testimony of WW1 which fact finds
support from the documents Ex.WW1/9 and Ex.WW1/0 – as referred to above, There is nothing on record to suggest
that the workmen Baldev Singh was selected through due process of selection or he was a regular / permanent employee
of the Management.
22.
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
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5721
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 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.”
23.
Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that when a
person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that situation full back wages are
not to be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering
the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food
Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-
“ Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in
a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed
procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order
of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of
reinstatement should not, however, automatically be passed. The award of reinstatement with full back
wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of
termination, particularly daily wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead
compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who
does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in
such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non
payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate
the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.
24. Having regard to the recent judicial trends coupled with aforesaid peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. One lakh (Rupees One Lakh) as compensation would be just and
reasonable, and the same is awarded in favour of the workman/claimant herein. The amount would be payable to the
legal heirs of the workman in case they file requisite certificate/declaration to the effect that the workman Baldev Singh
(being not traceable since 29/5/1999) is presumed to have died. In case this compensation amount is not paid by the
Management within one month from the date of publication of this Award, then the claimant will be entitled to recover
the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.
Award is passed accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management..
Date : 18.7.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA , Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 135
135
135
1351.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मैसस एयरपोट अथॉ@रटी ऑफ इंिडया के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या
70/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 22.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. एल-11012/3/1997-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
22.07.2019.
[No. L-11012/3/1997-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
5722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1,
NEW DELHI
ID No. 70/2011
Shri Ganga Singh s/o. Shri Diwan Singh,
Qr.No T-3/2-4 INA Colony,
New Delhi 110023.
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
1-Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division)
Through its Executive Director (Personnel),
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
New Delhi 110023.
…Management/Respondent
AWARD
This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-11012/3/97-IR(M) dated 06.01.1998 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) New Delhi
in terminating the services f Shri Ganga Singh, Machine Man, w.e.f. 14.12.1998, is justified ? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?’
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Ganga Singh filed his statement of claim, with the averments
that he was initially engaged as a Machine Man by the National Airports Authority Printing Press w.e.f. 1st week of July,
1989 an was paid an amount of Rs.500/- per month which was subsequently revised and his drawn wags for the month of
September, 1996 was Rs.2200/- per month. Though the claimant/workman served the above Press owned and run by the
Management for the subsequent period from 1.10.1996 to 13.12.1996 but he was not paid wages for the same despite
numerous requests to the Manager of the Press and other superior authorities at his own and through Airports Authority
Kamgar Union (NAAKU) of which he was a Member but to no avail. Thereafter the aforesaid Union approached the
Conciliation Officer but to no success. It is pleaded that the Manager of the Press or the Management of Airport
Authority of India did not give any appointment letter, identity card, medical facility etc. etc; to the workman. The
Management sealed the Printing Press in the evening of 13th December, 1996 when the workman and his fellow
colleagues left the press after performing duty and when they reported for work in the morning of 14.12.1996 at 9.30
AM, they came to know about the wrongful/illegal lock out of the Press and in this way the services of the
workman/claimant who had worked for more than 240 days with the Management, were terminated without giving any
notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation and as such action of the Management is illegal and wrong. Prayer
has been made for reinstatement with full back wages in the industrial pay-scale f Rs2720-4400 w.e.f. 14.12.1996 and
continuity of services and all consequential benefits vis-à-vis grant of next higher pay scale of Rs.2950-90-3850-100-
4850-110-5270 on completion of 8 years service w.ef 1.7.1997. He has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the
entitled amount, as a matter incidental to the main dispute.
3.
Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections
that the claim is not maintainable as there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties because the
claimant/applicant was never the employee of the Management and as such no industrial dispute existed between the
parties Even no valid/prior demand notice was served upon the Management. The claim is not maintainable for non
joinder of necessary party viz contractor. While denying all the allegations of the claimant, it has been pleaded that the
Management had never engaged any such person viz claimant Ganga Singh and completion of 240 days by him is a
mere concoction for creating a claim and the Management never terminated the services of any workman. It is alleged
that the printing press was closed perfectly in a legal manner as per terms and conditions of the contact between the
contractor and the Management. Prayer has been made for rejection of claim petition.
4.
The claimant/’workman filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations made in
the written statement.
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27.5.2011 :-
(1) Whether there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5723
(2) Whether the press was being run by the Management through a contractor, who employed the claimant in
the said Press ?
(3) As in terms of reference ?
(4) Relief.
6.
In order to prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW1 & reiterated the averments as mentioned in
the claim petition.
7.
On the other hand, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri O.P. Chamoli, Asstt. General
Manager (HR) and Shri Girish Kumar, Manager (Personnel), who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW2/A and
Ex.MW3/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/7 and Ex.MW3/1.
6.
I have heard Shri Radhey Shyam Soni, A/R for the workman./claimant and Shri Manish Sherawat & Shri
Digvijay Rai, A/Rs for Management. I have also gone through the record carefully. My findings on above issues are as
follows.
Issue No.1 and 2 :-
7.
Both these issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common
discussion.
8.
At the outset I may mention that case of the claimant/workman is that he had been working as Machineman in
t.e Printing Press of the Management w.e.f. 1.7.1989 till 13.12.1996 and that his services were illegally terminated
w.e.f. 14.12.1996 as the Press was locked out, whereas contention of the Management is that the workman/claimant was
never engaged by it and there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the parties.
9.
In his oral testimony, the claimant has testified that he worked as Machineman under the Management from
1.7.1989 till 13.12.1996 continuously and without any break. On 14.12.1996 the Management locked out and he was
illegally terminated from service without any notice. He explained that he used to do job of card printing and paper
printing . His last drawn wages were Rs.2200/- per month and wages used to be paid to him by the Management
through vouchers duly signed by me. In cross examination, he admitted that the Management had not issued any
appointment letter to him. He has got no document to show that the Management used to pay wages to him. He has also
got no document to show that his PF and ESI contributions used to be deducted by the Management. He has got no
proof to show he used to get his attendance marked with the Management. He denied the suggestion that he did not
mark his attendance in the register of the Management. He explained that he used to work under Shri Lal, Manager.
He showed his ignorance that Shri Lal was the contractor. He admitted that the Press has been lying closed since
14.12.1996. He denied the suggestion that the Management never terminated his services. He, however, admitted that
he is presently working in NOIDA and earning around Rs3500/- to Rs.4000/- per month.
10.
As per the testimony (affidavit Ex.MW2/A) of MW2 OP Chamoli, the Printing Press owned by Airport
Authority of India was run by Shri N. Lall – a contractor on monthly consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- initially and the
said Press run upto 31st December, 1996. He has filed on record copy of the Award letter dated 1.1.1989 (Ex.MW2/1).
There is nothing on record to suggest that the contract/award ExMW2/1 which expired on 31.12.1991 was
renewed/extended in favour of the said contractor or any fresh contract/agreement was executed with some other
contractor for running the Printing Press of the Management, which was run upto 31st December, 1996. In cross
examination MW2 Shri O.P. Chamoli showed his ignorance whether N.Lal was awarded contract to run the press. He
denied the suggestion that Shri N.Lal was working as Manager in the press and was not a contractor. It is noteworthy to
mention here that in the document Ex.MW2/3 ( dated 14.10.1992) the designation of Shri N.Lall has been described as
Manager, NAA (National Airport Authority) Printing Press. Though this witness had taken time to produce record
relating to pay bill receipts and muster roll, however he failed to produce the same and simply stated that the record is not
available. He showed his ignorance if there were seven machines installed in the printing press or that out of those seven
machines, five machines were power driven and remaining two machines were manual driven. He failed to affirm or
deny whether there were 17 to 21 employees working in the printing press or that Ex.MW2/W-3 is the job card which
was being used in the printing press.
11.
MW3 Girish Kumar in his testimony/affidavit Ex.MW3/A also tried to support the version of the Management
that contract/agreement Ex.MW1/1 was awarded to Shri N.Lal and that the workers including the claimant were engaged
by the contractor. He also stated that the printing press was closed by the Management and the assets of the printing
press had been sold out. In cross examination this witness stated that the Management did not have documents to show
that the workman/claimant was in the employment of the contractor. He showed his ignorance whether the Management
was duly registered under Section 7 of CLRA Act or the contractor had obtained licence under Section 12 of CLRA Act.
12.
Perusal of the contract Ex.MW2/1 shows that the award/contract was primarily for running of the printing press
with required manpower to be provided by the contractor at Headquarter of National Airports Authority. The
5724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract/agreement was valid for three years, that is upto 31st December, 1991. It is manifest from the reading of
contract Ex.MW2/1 that machinery, space/accommodation, electricity and paper used was supplied by the Management
and role of the contractor or the Manager Shri N.Lal was to supply the manpower for printing of the printing material at
the AAI Printing Press. It emerges that workers including the claimant were hired by Airport Authority of India through
the contractor/Manager M/s N.Lall for doing the printing work. There is nothing on record to suggest that the
Management had awarded contract to M/s N.Lal for completion of any project or that the said contractor himself was
fully responsible for carrying out the project of the Management.
13.
It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially
social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers
under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section
10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract
labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of
the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to
get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.
14.
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs.
National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 notices the following circumstances under which contract labour
would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-
“107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :
(i)
Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment establishment
and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court
ordered abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1)
of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was
ordered.
(ii)
Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the
contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality,
the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of
contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct
position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.
(iii)
Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal
employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would
indeed be the employees of the principal employer.
15.
In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on
19.2.2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as
safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who
had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect
that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and
camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.
16.
I may mention that situation in the instant case is not distinct. It is evident from the evidence adduced on record
that the contract Ex.MW2/1 awarded to the contractor was for supply of workforce/manpower to the Management
Airport Authority of India for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management. Even control and
supervision over the work of the claimant/workman was that of the Management. Thus, it emerges from the record that
the workman/claimant had not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor rather he had been hired by the
contractor for the work of the Management, that is to say for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the
Management/Airport Authority of India. This is indicative of the fact that contract/s between the Management and
N.Lall was a sham and mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and employee between it and the
claimant herein. It is manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the workman had been working regularly
without any breaks since 4/7/2008 till 5/7/2013 when his services were terminated. As such, this Tribunal has no
hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of employer –employee between the Management/Airport Authority of
India and the workman/ claimant herein. Both these issues are decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against
the Management.
Issue No.3 :-
17.
It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated without issuing any notice or without any notice
pay/compensation. Admittedly the Management has not filed on record any document to show that any notice or
retrenchment compensation has been paid to the claimant prior to his termination. Thus it can be inferred that no notice
or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant by the Management and as such termination of the
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5725
claimant/workman by the Management was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show
that the Management terminated the services of the claimant/workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of
the Act.
18.
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 either any notice was issued by the
Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the
Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
19.
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.
20.
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. 14.12.1996 is held to be illegal and void.
21.
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 stands proved on record that claimant was continuously in
the employment of the Management from July, 1989 to 13.12.1996. His last drawn wages were Rs.2200/- per month.
Services of the claimant were illegally terminated on 14.12.1996. Thereafter the claimant approached the Conciliation
Officer but to no avail and ultimately the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act
vide letter dated 6/1/1998. In his testimony recorded on 4.7.2011 the claimant had admitted that he had been working in
NOIDA and earning around Rs.3500/- to Rs.4000/- per month. Thus, it is evident from the testimony of the claimant
that presently he is gainfully employed.
22. Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that when a
person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that situation full back wages are
not to be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering
the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation
of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-
“ Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given
fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.
Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment
passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman
has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages has not
been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme
Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The
reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination
is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily
required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the
management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.
5726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23. Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of Rs. 2
lakh (Rupees Two Lakhs) appears to be just and reasonable, and the same is payable to the claimant herein by the
Management. In case this compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date of publication of this Award,
then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the
claim petition till realization of the amount. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 15/7/2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 22 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1352
1352
1352
1352.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार
मेसस एयरपोट अथॉ@रटी ऑफ इंिडया के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ,म यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या
111/2011) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 22.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. एल-11012/7/1997-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2019
S.O. 1352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour
Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
22.07.2019.
[No. L-11012/7/1997-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. 1
NEW DELHI
ID No. 111/2011
Shri Virendra Kumar s/o. Shri Charan Singh ,
Qr.No.443 Chaudharana Pana, Vill. Badli,
District Jhajjar (Haryana).
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division)
Through its Executive Director (Personnel),
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
New Delhi 110003.
…Management/Respondent
AWARD
This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter
No.L-11012/7/97-IR(M) dated 31.12.1997 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of Airport Authority of India (National Airports Division) New Delhi
in terminating the services of Shri Virender Kumar, Paper Man, w.e.f. 14/12/1998, is justified ? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?
2.
Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Virender Kumar filed his statement of claim, with the
averments that he was initially engaged as a Paperman by the National Airports Authority Printing Press w.e.f. 2nd week
of November, 1990 and was initially paid an amount of Rs.600/- per month which was subsequently revised and his
drawn wags for the month of September, 1996 was Rs.1700/- per month. Though the claimant/workman served the
above Press owned and run by the Management for the subsequent period from 1/10/1996 to 13/12/1996 but he was not
paid wages for the same despite numerous requests to the Manager of the Press and other superior authorities at his own
and through Airports Authority Kamgar Union (NAAKU) of which he was a Member but to no avail. Thereafter the
aforesaid Union approached the Conciliation Officer but to no success. It is pleaded that the Manager of the Press or
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5727
the Management of Airport Authority of India did not give any appointment letter, identity card, medical facility etc. etc;
to the workman. The Management sealed the Printing Press in the evening of 13th December, 1996 when the workman
and his fellow colleagues left the press after performing duty and when they reported for work in the morning of
14/12/1996 at 9.30 AM, they came to know about the wrongful/illegal lock out of the Press and in this way the services
of the workman/claimant who had worked for more than 240 days with the Management, were terminated without giving
any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation and as such action of the Management is illegal and wrong.
Prayer has been made for reinstatement with full back wages in the industrial pay-scale of Rs.2550-3660 w.e.f.
14/12/1996 and continuity of services and all consequential benefits vis-à-vis grant of next higher pay scale of Rs. 2720-
4400 on completion of 8 years service w.ef 1/7/1998. He has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the entitled
amount, as a matter incidental to the main dispute.
3.
Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections
that the claim is not maintainable as there is no employer and employee relationship between the parties because the
claimant/applicant was never the employee of the Management and as such no industrial dispute existed between the
parties Even no valid/prior demand notice was served upon the Management. The claim is not maintainable for non
joinder of necessary party viz contractor . While denying all the allegations of the claimant, it has been pleaded that the
Management had never engaged any such person including the claimant and completion of 240 days by him is a mere
concoction for creating a claim and the Management never terminated the services of any workman. It is alleged that the
printing press was closed perfectly in a legal manner as per terms and conditions of the contact between the contractor
Shri N.Lall and the Management. Prayer has been made for rejection of claim petition.
4.
The claimant/’workman filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating his own case and denied the allegations made in
the written statement.
5.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 27/5/2011 :-
(1) Whether there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties ?
(2) Whether the press was being run by the Management through a contractor, who employed the claimant in
the said Press ?
(3) As in terms of reference ?
(4) Relief.
6.
In order to prove his case, the workman himself appeared in the witness box as WW1 & reiterated the
averments as mentioned in the claim petition.
7.
On the other hand, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri O.P. Chamoli, Asstt. General
Manager (HR) and Shri Girish Kumar, Manager (Personnel), who filed their respective affidavits as Ex.MW2/A and
Ex.MW3/A and they placed reliance on the documents Ex,.MW1/1 and Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/7.
6.
I have heard Shri Radhey Shyam Soni, A/R for the workman./claimant and Shri Manish Sherawat and Shri
Digvijay Rai, 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 :-
7.
Both these issues being inter-related are taken up together and they can be disposed of conveniently by common
discussion.
8.
At the outset I may mention that case of the claimant/workman is that he had been working as Paper-Man in the
Printing Press of the Management from 1/11/1990 till 13/12/1996 and that his services were illegally terminated on
14/12/1996, whereas contention of the Management is that the workman/claimant was never engaged by it and there
existed no relationship of employer-employee between the parties.
9.
In his oral testimony, the claimant WW1 has testified that he was engaged under the Management on
1.11.1990. Initially he was getting Rs.500/- per month as wages which were revised to Rs.550/- per month after six
months of his service. In December, 1996 his wages were Rs.900/=- per month. He claimed to have orally requested
the Management in March, 1996 for regularization of his services but same was not accepted. Thereafter he filed his
claim before Labour Authority/conciliation officer. However, on 14th December, 1996 his services were terminated by
the Management without any notice or notice compensation. In cross examination, he deposed that Shri Lal Sahib who
was the Manager of the Printing Press used to pay him wages. His uncle Shri Shiv Chran who ws employee of Airport
Authority had got him employed under the Management, for which he had not given any application or interview. He
got the job on recommendation of his uncle. He clarified that he was getting bonus every year and payment of the same
was paid through voucher duly signed by him. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Lal Sahib was the contractor who used
to run the printing press. He denied the suggestion that he did not work under the Management from 1/11/1990 till
13/12/1996. He admitted that the printing press was closed after 13/12/1996 and that is why his employment came to an
end.
5728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
According to the testimony of MW2 OP Chamoli, the Printing Press owned by Airport Authority of India was
run by Shri N. Lall – a contractor on monthly consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- initially and the said Press ran upto 31st
December, 1996. Copy of the letter of Award of contract dated 1/1/1989 (Ex.MW2/1) has been filed on record. In
cross examination MW2 Shri O.P. Chamoli admitted that document Ex.MW2/3 accords sanction for payment of printing
contract charges for a period of three years. He showed his ignorance if there were seven machines installed in the
printing press or that out of those seven machines, five machines were power driven and remaining two machines were
manual driven. He failed to affirm or deny whether there were 17 to 21 employees working in the printing press or that
Ex.MW2/W-3 is the job card which was being used in the printing press. He showed his ignorance whether any
document has been filed by the Management to show that N.Lal was awarded contract to run the press. He denied the
suggestion that Shri N.Lal was working as Manager in the press and was not a contractor. It is noteworthy to mention
here that in the document Ex.MW2/3 ( dated 14.10.1992) the designation of Shri N.Lall has been described as Manager,
NAA (National Airport Authority) Printing Press. Though this witness had taken time to produce record relating to pay
bill receipts and muster roll, however he failed to produce the same and simply stated that the record is not available.
11.
MW3 Girish Kumar in his testimony/affidavit Ex.MW3/A also tried to support the version of the Management
that contract/agreement Ex.MW2/1 was awarded to Shri N.Lal and that the workers including the claimant were engaged
by the contractor. He also stated that the printing press was closed by the Management and the assets of the printing
press had been sold out. In cross examination this witness stated that the Management did not have documents to show
that the workman/claimant was in the employment of the contractor. He showed his ignorance whether the Management
was duly registered under Section 7 of CLRA Act or the contractor had obtained licence under Section 12 of CLRA Act.
12.
Perusal of the contract Ex.MW2/1 shows that the award/contract was primarily for running of the printing press
with required manpower to be provided by the contractor at Headquarter of National Airports Authority. The
contract/agreement was valid for three years, that is upto 31st December, 1991. There is nothing on record to suggest
that the contract/award ExMW2/1 which expired on 31/12/1991 was renewed/extended in favour of the said
contractor or any fresh contract/agreement was executed with some other contractor for running the Printing
Press of the Management, which was run upto 31st December, 1996. It is manifest from the reading of contract
Ex.MW2/1 that machinery, space/accommodation, electricity and paper used for printing were supplied by the
Management and role of the contractor or the Manager Shri N.Lal was just to supply or supervise the manpower for
printing of the printing material of the Management at the AAI Printing Press. It emerges that workers including the
claimant were hired by Airport Authority of India through the contractor/Manager M/s N.Lall for doing the printing
work. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Management had awarded contract to M/s N.Lal for completion of
any project or that the said contractor himself was fully responsible for carrying out the project of the Management.
13.
It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially
social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers
under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section
10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract
labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of
the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to
get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.
14.
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs.
National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 notices the following circumstances under which contract labour
would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-
“107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :
(i)
Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment establishment
and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court
ordered abolition of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1)
of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was
ordered.
(ii)
Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the
contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality,
the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of
contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct
position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited.
(iii)
Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal
employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would
indeed be the employees of the principal employer.
15.
In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on
19/2/2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as
safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5729
had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect
that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and
camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.
16.
I may mention that situation in the instant case is not distinct. It is evident from the evidence adduced on record
that the contract Ex.MW2/1 awarded to the contractor was for supply of workforce/manpower to the Management
Airport Authority of India for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the Management. Even control and
supervision over the work of the claimant/workman was that of the Management. Thus, it emerges from the record that
the workman/claimant had not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor rather he had been hired by the
contractor for the work of the Management, that is to say for doing the printing work at the Printing Press of the
Management/Airport Authority of India. This is indicative of the fact that contract/s between the Management and
N.Lall was a sham and mere camouflage so as to deny relationship of employer and employee between it and the
claimant herein. It is manifest from the evidence adduced on record that the workman had been working regularly
without any breaks from 1/11/1990 till 13/12/2014 whereas his services were terminated w.e.f.14/12/1996. As such, this
Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of employer –employee between the
Management/Airport Authority of India and the workman/ claimant herein. Both these issues are decided accordingly
in favour of the claimant and against the Management.
Issue No. 3 :-
17.
It is the case of the claimant that his services were terminated without issuing any notice or without any notice
pay/compensation. It is a matter of record that the Management has not filed on record any document to show that any
notice or retrenchment compensation has been paid to the claimant prior to his termination. Thus it can be inferred that
no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant by the Management and termination of the
claimant/workman by the Management was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show
that the Management terminated the services of the claimant/workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of
the Act.
18.
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 either any notice was issued by the
Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the
Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
19.
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.
20.
Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the
time of termination of his services 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. 14/12/1996 is held to be illegal and void.
21.
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 stands proved on record that claimant was continuously in
the employment of the Management from 1/11/1990 to 13/12/1996. His last drawn wages were Rs.900/- per month.
Services of the claimant were illegally terminated on 14/12/1996. Thereafter the claimant approached the Conciliation
Officer but to no avail and ultimately the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act
vide letter dated 31/12/1997. Onus was upon the claimant/workman to plead and prove that he is unemployed since
after his termination. Although the claimant has prayed for reinstatement of his services alongwith back wages,
however he has neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence to show that he is unemployed since after termination of his
5730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
services. The claimant has also not filed on record any document to show that he having been selected through due
process of selection, was a regular or permanent employee of the Management.
22.
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 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.”
23.
Latest trend itself discernable from the various pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that
when a person has been engaged on daily wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that situation full back
wages are not to be awarded. There are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while
considering the question of reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs.
Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-
“ Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in
a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed
procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order
of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of
reinstatement should not, however, automatically be passed. The award of reinstatement with full back
wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of
termination, particularly daily wages has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead
compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who
does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in
such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal, because of non
payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate
the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.
24. Having regard to the recent judicial trends coupled with aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case , this Tribunal
is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 2 lakh (Rupees Two Lakhs) would be just and reasonable, and the same is
awarded in favour of the claimant herein. In case this compensation amount is not paid by the Management within one
month from the date of publication of this Award, then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount. Award is passed
accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management..
Date : 15.7.2019
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1353
1353
1353
1353.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म, केीय सरकार
मेसस डबलू. सी. एल. के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच, अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म
केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-,म यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 14/2009) को कािशत करती है
जो केीय सरकार को 15.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. एल-22012/136/2008-आईआर (सी एम-II)]
राजे Cसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5731
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur 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 15.07.2019.
[No. L-22012/136/2008-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/14/2009
Date: 11.06.2019
Party No.1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL,
Post- Rayatwari,
Yabatmal (MS)- 445307.
Versus
Party No.2
:
Vice President,
Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union,
Dadmahal Ward, Hanuman Khidki,
Chandrapur (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 11th June, 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 Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL and the Union, Jharkhand
Colliery Mazdoor Union for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/136/2008-IR (CM-II) dated 31.03.2009, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of M/S WCL in denying employment to the dependent of late
Shri Ramdhari Mukaram is legal and justified? To what relief the claimant is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union “Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union (“the union” in short) filed the statement of
claim on behalf of the applicant, Shri Dinesh Ramdhari Mukaram (“the applicant” in short) and the management of WCL
(here-in-after referred to as the “Party No. 1”) filed its written statement.
The case of the applicant as projected by the union in the statement of claim is that the deceased father of the
applicant, Ramdhari Tukaram was appointed as a loader by party No.1 on 19. 10. 1972 and he worked with party No.1
till 22.07.2001, the date of his death and deceased Ramdhari was a permanent employee of party No.1 and after the
death of Ramdhari, his widow applied for compassionate appointment for her son, the present applicant by submitting
applications dated 15.01.2005 and 11.11.2006, but the party no.1 deliberately and illegally avoided to give employment
to the applicant by applying illegal parameter, which is clear cut discrimination towards the applicant and as in the mean
time, mother of the applicant died, the applicant approached it (union) and authorized it to pursue the matter before the
concerned authority on his behalf and though it raised the issue before the party No.1, on behalf of the applicant, to
provide him compassionate employment, party No.1 failed to take cognizance of its application.
It is further pleaded by the union that the deceased workman had discharged his duty for 24 years as a
permanent employee till his death and as per the provisions of Coal Wages Agreements, the applicant is entitled for
employment on the basis of compassionate and the claim of the applicant was rejected by the party No.1 saying that
deceased Ramdhari , the late father of the applicant was a “Badli” worker, but “Badli’ worker also falls within the
definition of “workman” and “Badli” worker is also entitled to the benefits under all industrial laws and the applicant is
entitled for employment on compassionate ground and as party No.1 refused to give employment to the applicant, the
union raised the dispute before the ALC and ultimately, the dispute was referred by the Central Government to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
Prayer has been made by the union to direct the management to provide employment to the applicant with all
consequential benefits.
5732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the present reference is vague, as the establish
in which, the workman was working, his designation etc have not been mentioned and hence, the reference is not
maintainable and the dispute has been raised by the union, but the union has not produced any material on record to show
that deceased Ramdhari Mukaram was a member of the union and the union is not competent to raise an industrial
dispute of this nature and the dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined under section 2 (k) of the Act.
It is further pleaded by party no.1 that deceased Ramdhari was appointed as a loader on 19.10.1972 at Ballarpur
Pit no. 3 & 4 and as Ramdhari was unauthorisedly absent from duty, the management vide its communication No. 373
dated 06.05.1996 advised him to join duties and also informed him that in case of his failure to join duties, he would be
treated as a ‘Badli’ worker and as Ramdhari did not join duties, vide letter 489 dated 12/15.06.1996, he was made a Badli
worker and the placement/ conversion of Ramdhari as a Badli worker was not protested by the workman or his union and
Ramdhari joined at Mahakali colliery as a Badli worker w.e.f. 15.06.1996 and worked as such till his death on
21.07.2001 and due to his death, his name was removed from the roll of Badli workers of Mahakali colliery and
Ramdhari did not complete 240 days as Badli worker in any calendar year and wife of deceased workman after a gap of
4/5 years, requested the management to consider the case of her son for employment vide applications dated 15.01.2005
and 11.11.2006 and there was inordinate delay on the part of the applicant requesting the management to appoint him on
compassionate ground and the applications were rejected by the competent authority on the grounds that deceased
workman, Ramdhari Mukaram was not a permanent employee and he was on Badli roll at the time of his death, which
was in tune of the prevailing policy and therefore, its action is justified and legal and interestingly, the applicant, Dinesh
did not make any application himself for employment, soon after the death of his father, even though he was already a
major at that time and it is obvious that he was not interested in securing the employment and the applicant is not entitled
for any relief.
4.
Both the parties have adduced oral evidence in support of their respective claim, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence. The union has examined Shri Kishore Potanwar, the Vice-President of the union as a witness in
support of the claim. Shri Shrikrishna Shelke, the Senior Personnel Manager of Rayatwari Sub Area has been examined
as a witness by the party no.1. On considering the evidence of both parties and argument, my predecessor passed an
award on 13.01.2014. After that, the Hon’ble High Court on considering argument of both parties in Writ Petition No.
6027/2014, remitted back this case to this Tribunal “To record finding on the claim of Respondent and then proceed to
decide the matter in accordance with law”.
5.
This Tribunal gave opportunities to the both parties afresh as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. On
behalf of the union, they filed additional affidavit of Vice President of the union, Shri Kishor Potanwar and on behalf of
the Party No. 1, they filed evidence on affidavit of Shri Ramkrishna Singh (MW-2) and Shri Naresh Bahadur Singh
(MW-3), both are the Personnel Manager of Party No. 1. All these witnesses were cross-examined by the opposite party.
6.
Point of determination:
i.
Whether Ramdhari was Badli worker or under regular employment?
ii.
Whether his dependent, Dinesh is entitled to compensatory appointment?
iii.
Whether the action of the Party No. 1 is legal & justified?
Or
iv.
Whether denying the employment is illegal and unjustified?
v.
Whether the applicant is entitled to any other relief?
Reason of determination:
7.
On behalf of the union, it was argued that, Shri Ramdhari Mukaram was in employment of Party No. 1 as a
loader from 19.10.1972 to 09.01.1997 as permanent employee, Shri Dinesh Mukaram is the son of Ramdhari Mukaram,
according to the union, the applicant i.e. Shri Dinesh is entitled for employment on compensatory ground. They relied on
case laws: Employees in relation to the management of Bhowra (N) colliery of BCCL Vs Their workmen Case No. 93 of
1987 Hon’ble Patna High Court dated of order 10.10.1991(1991 Law Suit (PAT) 317) and Panyam Cements employees
Union, Kurnool Vs Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad. That argument was denied by the Party No. 1 by asserting
that, Badli worker is not covered by the definition of workman as contemplated U/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act and also argued
that, applicant is not entitled for compensatory appointment. They relied on case laws: WCL Vs. Shri Lomesh W.P. No.
3203/2012 date of order 22.07.2013, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport corpn. Vs. T.V. Aanndappa (2009) 17 SCC 473,
K.S.R.T.C. Vs. S.G. Kotturappa 2005 II LLJ SC 161, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Vs. P.O. 2013 III LLJ All
213, Shri Munnalal Batham Vs. Regional Manager CGIT Jabalpur Case No. 2/92 date of award 11.06.2013, M.P. State
Agro Industries Development Vs. S.C. Pandey (2006) 2 SCC 716, Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai
Amarsinh (2005) 8 SCC 750 and Post Master General Vs. Tutu Das (2007) 5 SCC 317.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5733
8.
On perusal of the record, it appears that, my predecessor decided this case on merit on 13.01.2014 and Hon’ble
High Court in Writ Petition No. 6027/2014, WCL Vs. Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union, remanded this case with the
directions that, “Tribunal to record finding on the claim of the respondent and then proceed to decide the matter in
accordance with law”. The Hon’ble High Court also directed that, “The deceased employee had acquired the status of
permanent employee after 12.06.1996 though initially he was appointed as Loader ……. Without recording any finding
on this aspect of the matter – the petitioner is directed to give employment to the respondent on compassionate ground”.
Now I see the legal position.
9.
In case 2004 I CLR 872 Panyam Cements Employees, Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held that, “Denial of right of
Badli worker to join Trade Union amounts to unfair labour practice …….any dispute between Badli workers and
management is a trade dispute”, but in case laws, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, K.S.R.T.C, U.P. State
Warehouse Corporation and U.P. State Agro Industrial Development, The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court held
that:-
i.
Daily wager does not hold a post as he is not appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules
framed there under and therefore he does not derive any legal right.
ii.
“Requirement of 240 days continuous service --- Onus to prove --- Evidence to be led --- Held, burden of
proof lies on workman ------ It is for workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself -------
Workman has failed to discharge the burden ---- It is improbable that a workman claiming to have been in
employment for ten years would not posses any documentary evidence to prove nature of his employment
and period of work undertaken with his employer”.
iii.
“Equality is a positive concept and cannot be invoked where any illegality has been committed or where no
legal right is established”.
iv.
Held that, “Their service as Badli workers, the Supreme Court held, gave them no status, their services were
not protected by any statute and they did not hold any civil post”.
v.
“Standing Order encourage a Badli worker to complete240 days attendance in a calendar year and thereafter
enjoy all the benefits ----------NCWA makes no difference between the Badli workman and permanent
workman ---------While reading agreement, one has to keep in mind the difference between status of Badli
and Permanent worker ------- suggestion by the learned counsel for the respondent is not acceptable”.
This order is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by SLP No. 11902—11903/2014 date of order
19.08.2014. Now I want to see the evidence of the union.
10.
On behalf of the union, they examined Shri Kishor Potanwar as a Vice President of the union. He admitted that,
their union is registered at Jharkhand, but copy of the Constitution of Union, Registration Certificate and Authority Letter
has not been filed by the union. He also admitted that, he did not file any document, which shows that, union has
authorized to him to raise such dispute before this Tribunal. He also did not file any document, which shows that,
Ramdhari was a member of their union. In this way, union did not file any document, which shows that, Kishor
Potanwar is authorized by the union to raise this dispute before this Tribunal or regarding the membership of Ramdhari.
11.
Shri Kishor Potanwar in para 7 of his cross-examination admitted that, Ramdhari was died on 22.07.2001 but he
was working in WCL as a Badli worker. He also admitted that, Ramdhari was not attending his duty at the time of his
death. He also admitted that, gratuity and other benefits of Ramdhari have already been paid to the legal heirs. He also
admitted that, Ramdhari’s wife Smt. Jagwanti Devi applied for compensatory appointment before the ALC(C),
Chandrapur on 15.02.2007. In second time, this witness was examined on 13.04.2018. At that time, he filed three
documents, which were marked as W-1 to W-3. He also admitted that, these documents were provided by the family
member of Ramdhari. He also admitted that, their union maintained attendance register and membership register of their
members, but they did not file any document regarding the attendance of Ramdhari. In this way, he rebutted his
examination in chief regarding Ramdhari’s working in WCL and nature and period of the work. Now I see the evidence
of the Party No. 1.
12.
On behalf of the Party No. 1, Shri Shrikant Shelke, MW-1, Shri Ramkrishna Singh, MW-2 and Shri Naresh
Bahadur Singh, MW-3 were examined in support of their written statement as well as their defence.
13.
Shri Shrikant Shelke, MW-1 in para 11 of his cross-examination, admitted that, Ramdhari was working in WCL
from 1972 to 2001. He also admitted that, he was working as a permanent loader from 19.10.1972, but they did not file
any order, which shows that, Ramdhari was converted from permanent loader to badli worker. He also admitted that,
Party No. 1 did not file any document showing the attendance of Ramdhari prior to 1997. He also admitted that, in
NCWA-VII there was a provision of compensatory appointment but based on conditions. In this way, he admitted some
facts in cross-examination without proving any document, which shows that, he is deposing his evidence on the basis of
documents, but he admitted some facts without documents.
5734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
Shri Ramkrishna Singh, MW-2 was working as Sr. Personnel Officer at Mahakali Colliery in the period from
02.06.2002 to 12.08.2008. He gave some details regarding attendance of Ramdhari from 1997 to 2001. He also admitted
that, Ramdhari was not working with him and in mines, there is a Attendance Register i.e. ‘C’ Register. On perusal of
his statement, he is giving his statement on the basis of documents, but he has no knowledge that, M-10 document was
received by Ramdhari or not? He is not in position to say that, Ramdhari was continuous in service from 1972 till death,
but he admitted that, he was Badli worker. In this way, his statement is based purely on documents without personal
knowledge.
15.
Shri Naresh Bahadur Singh, MW-3 was also a Personnel Manager, who was posted at Mahakali Colliery in the
period from 17.01.1995 to 26.05.1999. In para 15 of his cross-examination, asserted that, order was issued on
06.05.1996 to Ramdhari regarding unauthorized absenteeism, but he admitted that, letter is not produced on record i.e.
this is a part of order of badli. On perusal of his statement, shows that, mostly his statement is based on record. In this
way, he remained unrebutted his statement. So, his evidence appears to be true.
16.
In para 34 of the case of BCCL, Hon’ble Patna High Court held that, “In Yogendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of
India, reported in 1987 SC page 1015, the Supreme Court while striking down rules 12.14 and 12.15 of the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934, however stated while it may be permissible to appoint a person who is the son of a police officer who dies
in service or who is incapacitated while rendering service …….. The children or wards or other relatives of such police
officers would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution”.
17.
But Hon’ble High Court, Jharkhand on the basis of Case law, Yogender Pal Singh and others Vs. Union of India
and others AIR 1987 SC 1015, in case Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra Area No. XI of Ms BCCL,
Dhanbad Vs. the Presiding Officer, Dhanbad W.P. (L) No. 2412 of 2002 dated 26.07.2012, in which Hon’ble Court laid
down the following principles:-
i.
“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to
any office under the state”.
ii.
“No dependent of an employee of the State or its instrumentality is entitled to claim preference in the matter
of on public employment on the basis of the service of his father/parent is no longer res integra in view of
the specific provision contain in Part III of the Constitution of India and also laid down in the judgment
delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases”.
iii.
“Article 16, cl. (1), guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State: and cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on certain grounds in respect
of any such employment or appointment …………….. We do not see any reason why the full ambit of the
fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 16 in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under
the State should be cut down by a reference to the provisions in Part XIV of the constitution which relate to
services or to provisions in the earlier Constitution Acts relating to the same subject”.
iv.
“The new offices which were created for the new village or villages should be filled up by the Collector by
selecting the persons whom he considered best qualified ………………… Collector to dull up the said new
offices by selecting persons from among the families of the last holders of the offices was opposed to
Article 16 of the constitution”.
Ongoing above discussions and principles laid down in the above case laws, with regard and full respect of
above case laws, my humble opinion is that, the principle laid down in cases, Yogender Pal Singh and Employers in
relation to the management of Bhowra Area cases, is more appropriate in regard to the fact and circumstances of this
case.
18.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, my humble opinion
is that, union fails to prove that, Ramdhari was a permanent employee as a loader or he worked for 240 days in a calendar
year as a badli worker. Union also fails to prove that, union authorized Shri Kishor Potanwar to raise this dispute before
this Tribunal. Union also fails to prove through its reliable evidence, that Ramdhari was fulfilled the condition as a
compensatory appointment as per NCWA. Union also fails to prove that, applicant is covered under particular NCWA,
which was prevailed at the time of retirement of Ramdhari. So, Party No. 1 i.e. management in denying the employment
to Dinesh/applicant appears to be legal and justified. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of M/S WCL in denying employment to the dependent of late Shri Ramdhari
Mukaram is legal and justified. The applicant is not entitled to any relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5735
नई द ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1354
1354
1354
1354.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म, केीय सरकार
अिसD टट किमE नर के ीय िव ालय के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच, अनुबंध म िन)द*
औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-,म यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 5/2006) को
कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.07.2019 को ा4 5आ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/33/2005-आईआर (सी एम-II)]
राजे Cसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of Assistant Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.07.2019.
[No. L-42012/33/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
अनुबंध
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 5@2006
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/33/2005–IR(CM-II)fnukad 06@12@2005
'kadjyky iq= Jh dUgS;k yky
fuoklh&ykxfM;k okl] iks0 lk;iqjk]
rg0 teokjkex<+] ftyk t;iqjA
v/s
1-
vflLVsaV dfe'uj] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] 92] xka/kh uxj ekxZ] ctkt uxj] t;iqj A
2-
izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj ftyk vtesjA
3-
izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] vtesj A
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh dq.kky jkor & vfHkHkk"kd
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh gok flag & vfHkHkk"kd
% vf/kfu.kZ; %
fnukad % 14- 06- 2019
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 6-12-2005 dks fuEukafdr ,d fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼?k½ ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa bl vf/kdj.k dks
lanfHkZr fd;k x;kA
**D;k izkpk;Z] dsUnzh; fo|ky;] dkWyst jksM+] C;koj }kjk vius deZdkj Jh 'kadjyky iq= Jh dUgS;kyky] nSfud Hkksxh
deZpkjh dks ekg ekpZ 1997 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr djuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj vius
fu;kstd ls fdl jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**
2-
bl lUnHkZ ds izkIr gksus ij mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd og vius nkos dk
vfHkdFku izLrqr djsaA bl funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ us fnukad 27-2-2006 dks vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ
ds vuqlkj fnukad 1-7-1993 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds ;gka mls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;kA
fnukad 2-9-1995 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 }kjk izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 ds ;gka LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa
fnukad 1-7-1993 ls ekpZ 1997 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ dks ekpZ 1997 esa vizkFkhZ }kjk ekSf[kd :i ls lsokeqDr dj
5736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fn;k x;kA rRi'pkr izkFkhZ us dbZ ckj vizkFkhZ ls mls dke ij ysus gsrq fuosnu fd;k fdUrq mls vk'oklu ds vfrfjDr dqN
ugha feykA bl ij izkFkhZ us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k ifjokn fd;kA le>kSrk okrkZ vlQy gksus ij dsUnzh; ljdkj us ;g
fookn lanfHkZr fd;kA lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ izkFkhZ dks u rks dksbZ vkjksi i= fn;k vkSj uk gh uksfVl] uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh
izfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;kA izkFkhZ us ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS fdUrq vizkFkhZ us /kkjk 25 (,Q)
vf/kfu;e rFkk fu;e 77 ,oa 78 dk vuqikyu ugha fd;kA vr% vizkFkhZ }kjk dh x;h lsokeqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, lsok
dh fujUrjrk] cdk;k osru ,oa ifjykHkksa lfgr izkFkhZ dks cgky fd;k tkosA
3-
vizkFkhZx.k us izfrmRrj esa izkFkhZ ds dFkuksa dks vLohdkj fd;kA mudk dFku gS fd foi{khx.k ^*m|ksx** dh ifjHkk"kk
dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrsA izsf"kr fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vf/kfu.khZr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vizkFkhZ laLFkku
,d 'kSf{kd laLFkku gSA izkFkhZ dks nSfud ikfjJfed ij dk;Z dh miyC/krk ds dkj.k vLFkk;h :i ls fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA
mldk dHkh LFkkukUrj.k ugha fd;k D;ksafd og LFkk;h deZpkjh ugha FkkA izkFkhZ us fnukad 1-7-1993 ls ekpZ 1997 rd yxkrkj
dk;Z ugha fd;k vkSj u gha mls vizkFkhZ }kjk lsokeqDr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh dfFkr lsokeqfDr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh]
blfy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;s tkus dk dksbZ volj ugha vk;kA izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 93 ls
Qjojh 94 rd dqy 125 fnu nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i eas dk;Z fd;k vr% nkok vLohdkj fd;k tkosaA
4-
izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Loa; 'kadjyky dks ifjf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn’kZ&MCY;w 1 i= iznf'kZr fd;kA
5-
foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa Jherh m"kk fdj.k jkBh dks ijhf{kr fd;k ,oa izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr dhA
6-
fnukad 30-1-2014 dks bl vf/kdj.k }kjk iapkV ikfjr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk dksbZ vf/kdkjh ugha
ekuk x;k vkSj ;g fu"df"kZr fd;k fd izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer gSA
7-
bl iapkV ds fo:) izkFkhZ us ekuuh; jktLFkku mPPk U;k;ky; ds le{k ,l-ch- flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k
11]210@2014 'kadjyky cuke vflLVsUV dfe'uj dsUnzh; fo|ky;] ,oa vU; izLrqr dhA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPPk U;k;ky; us
fnukad 10-12-2018 dks fjV ;kfpdk dks vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj djrs gq, bl vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr iapkV 30-1-2014 dks
vikLr dj fn;k vkSj vf/kdj.k dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k fd og ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;s x;s rF;ksa ,oa
i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr fd;s tkus okys izys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fookn dk iqu%ijh{k.k djsa vkSj lUnfHkZr fookn dk 4 ekg dh vof/k
esa fofu'p; djsaA
8-
bl vkns'k ds izkIr gksus ij mHk;i{k dks ;g volj fn;k xk;k fd os tks Hkh lk{; izLrqr djuk pkgsa izLrqr djsaA
fnukad 5-3-2019 dks mHk;i{k us vfHkys[k izLrqr fd;sA izkFkhZ us dksbZ vfrfjDr lk{kh ijhf{kr ugha fd;k tcfd foi{kh us vius
vfrfjDr lk{; esa xksfoUn flag esgrk dks ijhf{kr fd;kA rRi'pkr mHk;i{k us nks LFkxu cgl gsrq fy;s vUrr% 28-5-19 dks
eSusa mHk;i{k ds rdZ&fordZ lqus vkSj lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;kA
9-
izkFkhZ ds vfHkHkk"kd dk ;g rdZ gS fd izn’kZ&MCY;w1 foi{kh dk i= gSA bl i= esa Li"V :i ls izkFkhZ dks xqzi *Mh*
laoxZ esa fu;qfDr fd;k tkuk of.kZr gSA dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj o vtesj ,d gh lgk;d vk;qDr ds v/khu fo|ky; gSA izkFkhZ
us fnuakd 1-7-1993 ls 1-9-96 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa dk;Z fd;kA rRi'pkr 2-9-96 ls ekpZ 97 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky;
vtesj 2 esa dk;Z fd;kA mudk ;g izcy rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds :i esa Hkh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr
,d deZdkj gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fu;qfDr i= ,oa lsok lekfIr i= ugha fn;k x;kA dsoy mifLFkfr iaftdk ¼eLVj
jksy osru½ vkSj iaftdk gh ,sls vfHkys[k gS tks izkFkhZ dh lsok dk izek.k gks ldrs gS fdUrq foi{kh us tkucw>dj izkFkhZ ds
C;koj ds dk;Z ds mifLFkfr jftLVlZ izkFkhZ }kjk ryc djokus ij Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;sA blfy;s foi{kh ds fo:) izfrdwy
mi/kkj.kk dh tkuh pkfg;sA vkSj ;g izekf.kr eku fy;k tkuk pkfg;s fd ftl vof/k ds mifLFkfr jftLVlZ foi{kh us izLrqr
ugha fd;s ml vof/k vFkkZr fnukad 1-7-1993 ls ekpZ 1997 rd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu lsokjr jgk gSA mifLFkfr dk vfHkys[k
j[kuk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼ch½ ds vUrxZr j[kuk vfuok;Z gSA blfy;s foi{kh ;g ugha dg ldrk gS fd bl vof/k ds
mifLFkfr vfHkys[k la/kkfjr ugha fd;s x;sA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ }kjk fuEukafdr fof/kd n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s x;s %&
¼1½
,- vkbZ- vkj- 2006 lqizhe dksVZ dSlst 355 ¼1½ vkj- ,e- ;sYykV~Vh cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wVho bUthfu;j
¼2½
,- vkbZ- vkj- 2011 lqizhe dksVZ dSlst 2532 nsosUnz flg cuke E;wufliy dkSafly lkukSj
¼3½
,- vkbZ- vkj- 2015] lqizhe dksVZ 357 rkWi'k dqekj ikWy cuke ch-,l-,u-,y- o vU;
¼4½
,- vkbZ- vkj- 2007 lqizhe dksVZ 1370 Jh jke bUM+LVªh;y ,UVjizkbZtsal fy- cuke egd flag o vU;
10-
blds foijhr vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 93 ls Qjojh 94 rd 125 fnu rFkk vDVwcj 96
ls Qjojh 97 rd 70 fnu VqdM+ksa esa nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k gSA /kkjk 25 ¼ch½ vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr mlus
lsoklekfIr ds ,d o"kZ iwoZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk lEikfnr dk;Z ds mifLFkfr ,oa Hkqxrku dk
vfHkys[k mUgksusa izLrqr dj fn;k gSA ftl vof/k esa dk;Z gh ugha fd;k ml vof/k dk vfHkys[k miyC/k uk gksus ls is'k ugha
fd;k tk ldk gSA izkFkhZ dks bl] izdkj 240 fnu dk;Z djus dk rF; Loa; dh gh lk{; ls gh izekf.kr djuk gksxkA izkFkhZ]
foi{kh ij ;g fl)hHkkj vUrfjr ugha dj ldrk gSA izn’kZ&MCY;w 1 i= lgk;d vk;qDr }kjk tkjh vukifRRk i= gS] fu;qfDr
i= ughaA ;g i= Li"V n'kkZrk gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 27-9-1996 dks foi{kh dh lsok esa ugha Fkk rHkh mls lsok esa j[kus dh
vuqefr nSfud osru ij nh xbZ FkhA vr% nkok fujLr fd;k tkosA mUgksusa vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fu.kZ; 2002 ¼3½ ,l-lh-lh-
25 jsaUt QkjsLV vkfQlj cuke ,l- Vh- gkfnekuh izLrqr fd;kA
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5737
11-
mHk;i{k ds rdksZa ,oa fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij euu ds i'pkr bl fookn esa fuEukafdr fcUnq fopkj.kh; gS % &
fcUnq la[;k & 1%& D;k izkFkhZ us fnukad 1-7-1993 ls 1-9-96 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj rFkk 2-9-96 ls ekpZ 97 rd foi{kh
dh lsok esa jgrs gq, lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ dh gS \
fcUnq la[;k & 2%& D;k foi{kh }kjk ebZ 1997 esa izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr *NVuh* gS tks izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl ;k uksfVl
ds LFkku ij uksfVl osru rFkk NaVuh izfrdj u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k voS/k gS \
fcUnq la[;k & 3 vuqrks"k %& D;k gks \
12-
lk{;] mHk;i{k ds rdZ ,oa izLrqr dh xbZ fof/k ij fopkj ds mijkUr izR;sd fcUnq ij fofu'p; bl izdkj gSA
13-
fcUnq la[;k & 1 izkFkhZ 'kadjyky us vius lk{; 'kiFk i= esa vfHkopuksa dks iq"V djus dk ;|fi iz;kl fd;k gS
fdUrq vfHkopu ,oa lk{; esa fojks/kkHkkl Li"V n`f"Vxr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku ds pj.k la[;k 3 esa vizkFkhZ
la[;k 2 }kjk 2-9-95 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 ds ;gka LFkkukUrfjr djuk fy[kk gSaA tcfd lk{; 'kiFk i= ds pj.k la[;k 3 esa
izkFkhZ us fnukad 1-7-1993 ls 1-9-96 rd dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj esa dk;Z djuk dgk gS rRi'pkr 2-9-96 ls ekpZ 97 rd
dsUnzh; fo|ky;] la[;k 2 vtesj esa dk;Z djuk dgk gSaA bl fLFkfr esa dsUnzh; fo|ky;] C;koj esa izkFkhZ ds lsokdky ds
lEcU/k esa vfHkopu vkSj lk{; esa Li"V fojks/kkHkkl izdV gksrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; vkj- ,e- ;sYykV~Vh cuke
vflLVsUV ,DthD;wVho bUthfu;j esa ;g dgk gS fd foxr ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ djus dk rF; dks izekf.kr djus
dk flf)Hkkj nkok djus okys izkFkhZ ij gh gS& mls bl rF; dks izekf.kr djus ds fy;s fo'oluh; ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh; lk{;
izLrqr djuh gksxhA Loa; ds 'kiFki= vkSj Loa; lefFkZr foojf.k;aka i;kZIr ugha gSA tc foi{kh ls bl lECkU/k esa okfUNr
eLVjjksy tks HkwriwoZ vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bfUtfu;j }kjk tkjh lsok izek.k i= ds lUnHkZ esa gksa] izLrqr djus dks dgk x;k
gks vkSj foi{kh dh vkSj ls ,sls izys[k fcuk fdlh Lohdk;Z Li"Vhdj.k ds izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gksa] rks bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds
i{k esa tkjh izek.k i= ds vuq:i 240 fnu lsok iw.kZ djuk izekf.kr ekuk tkosxk] D;ksafd foi{kh izcU/ku ,sls vfHkys[k dks
izLrqr djus ds fy;s dRrZO;k/khu FkkA bl fu.kZ; esas ikfjr fof/k ftu rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gS os rF; gLrxr fookn esa fo|eku
ugha gSa D;ksafd izkFkhZ ds 240 fnu lsok iw.kZ djus ds lk{; Lo:i foi{kh us dksbZ izek.k i= tkjh ugha fd;k gS] ftlds leFkZu
esa lEcfU/kr vof/k ds eLVjjksy izLrqr djus dk funsZ'k foi{kh dks fn;k x;k gksA ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; us blh fu.kZ; ds
iSjk 18 esa ;g Li"V dgk gS fd bl fu.kZ; dks fl)hHkkj vUrj.k rFkk izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa LFkkfir ugha
fd;k tk jgk gSA blh fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us foi{kh }kjk voyafEcr iwoZorhZ fu.kZ; jsaUt QkjsLV vkfQlj cuke
,l- Vh- gkfnekuh esa O;Dr vfHker dks iq"V djrs gq;s ;g] vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd 240 fnu dh lsok izekf.kr djus dk
fl)hHkkj izkFkhZ ij gh vkjksfir gSA
14-
vc ;g n`"VO; gS fd D;k bl fookn esa izkFkhZ }kjk dfFkr lsok vof/k ls lEcfU/kr rFkk dfFkr vfHkys[k dks foi{kh
ls izLrqr djok;s tkus ,oa foi{kh }kjk izLrqr u fd;s tkus dk rF; izekf.kr gqvk gS \ ;fn gqvk gS] rks D;k ;g fLFkfr foi{kh
ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk dk vk/kkj gS \
15-
bl lEcU/k esa tSlk fd eSusa iwoZorhZ foospu esa of.kZr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds vfHkopu ,oa lk{; esa fojks/kkHkkl gaS] blh
dze esa izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr i= izn'kZ&MCY;w 1 dk foospu visf{kr gSA izn'kZ&MCY;w 1 i= foi{kh ds lgk;d vk;qDr t;iqj }kjk
fnukad 27-9-96 dks izkpkZ;] dsUnzh; fo|ky; uEcj 2 vtesj dks lEcksf/kr i= gSA bl i= dh vUrZoLrq ds iBu ek= ls ;g
i=] fdlh izdkj fu;qfDr i= ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA D;ksafd] bl i= }kjk izkFkhZ dks xqzi *Mh* deZpkjh ds in ij nSfud
osru Hkksxh ds :i esa rc rd fu;ksftr djus ds lEcU/k esa vukifRr izek.k i= (NOC) fn;k x;k gS tc rd dksbZ mi;qZDr
xqzi *Mh* deZpkjh dk p;u uk gks tkosA bl i= ls ;g rF; HkyhHkkafr Li"V gS fd 27-9-96 dks ¼i= dh frfFk½ izkFkhZ dsUnzh;
fo|ky; laxBu esa fdlh Hkh in ij rFkk fdlh Hkh LFkku ij fu;ksftr ugha FkkA ;fn izkFkhZ Loa; ds l'kiFk dFku ds vuq:i
fnukad 2-9-96 ls dsUnzh; fo|ky; la[;k 2 vtesj esa fu;ksftr gksrk rks ,sls fu;kstu ds 25 fnu mijkUr vFkkZr 27-9-96 dks
mls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa xqzi *Mh* ds in ij fu;ksftr djus ds lEcU/k esa lgk;d vk;qDr dks vukifRr izek.k i=
tkjh djus dh dksbZ vko';drk gh mRiUu ugha gksrhA bl i= ls ;g Hkh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd fnukad 27-9-96 dks tkjh fd;s
x;s vukifRr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij gh izkFkhZ dks nSfud osru ij vDVwcj 96 ls fu;ksftr fd;k x;kA bl rF; dh iqf"V
izn'kZ&,e 1 mifLFkfr o Hkqxrku ds vfHkys[k ls Hkh gksrh gSA
16-
vc eSa izkFkhZ ds dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj ds lsokdky ds lEcU/k esa lk{; dk foospu d:xkA izkFkhZ us 1-7-93 ls 1-9-96
rd dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa yxkrkj dk;Z djuk dgrs gq,] rRlEcU/kh eLVj jksy@mifLFkfr jftLVlZ foi{kh ls vkgwr
djok;s gSA foi{kh us tqykbZ 93 ls ek= Qjojh 94 rd izkFkhZ }kjk dqy 125 fnu dk;Z dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa djuk dgk
gS] ftldk Hkqxrku Hkh izkFkhZ dks dj fn;k x;k gSA foi{kh dk ;g Li"Vhdj.k gS fd ekpZ 94 ls ekpZ 97 rd ds mifLFkfr
jftLVlZ] iSesUV jftLVlZ ,oa okmPklZ mUgksusa bl dkj.k izLrqr ugha fd;s gS fd izkFkhZ bl vof/k esa muds v/khu dk;Zjr gh
ugha jgk rFkk bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ nLrkost miyC/k ugha gSA bl ifjizs{; esa izkFkhZ 'kadjyky }kjk 21-12-2011 dks izfrijh{kk esa
fd;k x;k fuEukafdr dFku vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ gS %&
** eSusa C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa dksbZ nj[okLr ugha nhA C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa ftrus fnu dk;Z fd;k mldk Hkqxrku gks
x;k]** izkFkhZ us izn'kZ&,e 1 ls ,e 9 izys[kksa ij Loa; ds gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj djrs bu izys[kksa esa of.kZr vof/k dk Hkqxrku
izkIr dj ysuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA ¼foi{kh lk{kh xksfcUn flag esgrk ds fnukad 2-5-19 dks fd;s x;s ijh{k.k ds nkSjku iznf'kZr
izys[kksa dks izn'kZ&,e 1ls ,e 5 rd Hkwyo'k vafdr dj fn;k x;k gS blfy;s iwoZ esa iznf'kZr foi{kh ds izys[kksa izn'kZ&,e 1 ls
,e 9 ds mijkUr i'pkrorhZ izys[kksa dks izn'kZ ,e 10 ls ,e 14 rd i<+k tkos½ A
5738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17-
izkFkhZ us bl izdkj izn'kZ&,e 1 ls ,e 9 esa of.kZr izys[kksa dh vof/k esa dk;Z djuk vkSj Hkqxrku izkIr djuk Lohdkj
djus ds ckn gh ;g dgk gS fd mlus C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa dksbZ nj[okLr ugha nhA C;koj dsUnzh; fo|ky; esa ftrus
fnu dk;Z fd;k mldk Hkqxrku gks x;kA blfy;s ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk tqykbZ 93 ls Qjojh 94 rd fd;s x;s
dk;Z fnolksa ds ikfjJfed dk Hkqxrku izkIr dj fy;k x;k FkkA blhfy;s mlus ;g dFku fd;k fd ftrus fnu C;koj dsUnzh;
fo|ky; esa dk;Z fd;k mldk Hkqxrku gks pqdk gSA izkFkhZ us blds ckn Hkqxrku 'ks"k jgus ds lEcU/k esa foi{kh dks dksbZ vkosnu
vFkok ifjokn gh ugha fd;kA bl izdkj ;g Hkh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj ekpZ 94 ls flrEcj 96 rd
dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa izkFkhZ }kjk dk;Z fd;k x;k gksrk rks izkFkhZ mDr vof/k ds osru Hkqxrku gsrq foi{kh ls ekax vo'; gh
djrkA bl vof/k ds osru dh izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ ekax u djuk vkSj ;g Lohdkj djuk fd ftrus fnu dk;Z fd;k mldk
Hkqxrku gks x;k] ;g n'kkZrk gS fd mDr vof/k esa dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ dk;Z ugha djuk] izyf{kr :i ls
izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gSA lk{; dh bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh }kjk ;g dguk fd ekpZ 94 ls flrEcj 96 rd ds vfHkys[k izLrqr
u djus dk dkj.k izkFkhZ }kjk bl vof/k esa foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Zjr u gksuk gS] ,d lUrq"Vhizn Li"Vhdj.k gS] tks izkFkhZ ds
izfrijh{kk esa fd;s x;s dFku ds izdk'k esa Lohdk;Z gSA fdlh i{kdkj ds fo:) izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk fd;k tkuk izR;sd izdj.k
ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij U;k;ky; ds foosdkf/kdkj ij fuHkZj djrk gSA eSa bl izdj.k esa foi{kh ds fo:) izfrdwy
mi/kkj.kk fd;s tkus dk dksbZ leqfpr vk/kkj fo|eku ugha gksuk ikrk gw¡A lk{; ds bl foospu ls ;g fu"df"kZr gksrk gS fd
izkFkhZ us tqykbZ 93 ls Qjojh 94 rd 125 fnu dsUnzh; fo|ky; C;koj esa foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Z fd;kA rRi'pkr ekpZ 94 ls
flrEcj 96 rd izkFkhZ foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa jgkA izn'kZ&MCY;w 1 i= tks fd izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj rRdkyhu lgk;d vk;qDr Jh
vkj-ds- tSu] ¼tks izkFkhZ ds xkao ds gh gSa½] us izkFkhZ dks xqzi *Mh* ds in ij nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa fu;qDr djus gsrq
vukifRr i= tkjh djrs gq;s dsUnzh; fo|ky; laxBu 2 vtesj dks funsZ'k fn;kA bl i= ds izHkko ls dsUnzh; fo|ky; vtesj
2 us izkFkhZ ls nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa vDVwcj 96 ls Qjojh 97 rd dk;Z fy;k tks dqy 70 fnu FkkA bl izdkj lsok
lekfIr dh frfFk ¼tks fd of.kZr ,oa izekf.kr ugha gS] fdUrq ekpZ 97 fy[kh xbZ gS½ ds iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa] izkFkhZ
foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k tkuk izekf.kr djus esa lQy ugha gqvk gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:)
fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA
18-
fcUnq la[;k 2 %& bl fcUnq ds vUrxZr ;g fopkjf.k; gS fd D;k foi{kh }kjk ekpZ 97 esa dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok
lekfIr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrh gS tks voS/k gS\
19-
fcUnq la[;k 1 ls izkIr fu"d"kZ ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ch ds vUrxZr lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d
dSys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA blfy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vks-vks-½ esa ifjHkkf"kr
izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr] **NaVuh** dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gSA bl fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½
ds vUrxZr micfU/kr uksfVl fn;s tkus vFkok mlds LFkku ij uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj ds Hkqxrku dh fof/kd vis{kk
ugha dh tk ldrh gSA foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr oS/k izekf.kr gksrh gS vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr
fd;k tkrk gSA
20-
fcUnq la[;k 3 %& fcUnq la[;k 1 o 2 izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k x;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr
fu.kZ; nsosUnz flag cuke E;wufliy dkmfUly lkukSj] rki'kdqekj ikWy cuke ch-,l-,u-,y- o vU; Jh jke bUM~LVªh;y
,UVjizkbZtsl izkbZosV fyfeVsM cuke egd flag o vU; esa ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fof/k dks eSa lLkEEkku
izkFkhZ ds i{k esa lgk;d gksuk ugha ikrk gw¡A izkFkhZ bl nkos ds vfHkdFku eSa izkfFkZr dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh] mldh
lsoklekfIr oS/k izekf.kr gksus ds dkj.k] ugha gSA bl lUnHkZ dk mRrj blh izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA
vkns'k
21-
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
22-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk'kukFkZ
izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई द ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1355
1355
1355
1355.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म, केीय सरकार
मेसस डG यू. सी. एल. के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच, अनुबंध म िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म
केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-,म यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या 17/2012) को कािशत करती है
जो केीय सरकार को 15.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. एल-22012/140/2012-आईआर (सी एम-II)]
राजे Cसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5739
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur 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 15.07.2019.
[No. L-22012/140/2012-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/17/2012-13
Date: 21.06.2019
Party No.1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
Bhatadi O/o Mines of Chandrapur Area of WCL,
Post Bhatadi, Distt. Chandrapur,
Maharashtra.
Versus
Party No.2
:
The Joint General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,
Vaidhay Nagar, Near Ayyappa Mandir,
Tukum Ward No. 2,
Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.).
AWARD
(Dated: 21st June, 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 Western Coalfields Limited and their Union, Rashtriya
Colliery Mazdoor Congress for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/140/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 06.11.2012, with the
following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bhatadi Open Cast Sub Area of Chandrapur Area of Western
Coalfields Ltd., in denying employment to Shri HariOm, the dependant son of Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey,
Foreman I/C who has already put in 35 years service, which is contrary to the provisions of Para 9.4.4 of
NCWA is legal & justified? To what relief is the workman entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union “Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (“the union” in short) filed the statement of
claim and the management of WCL (here-in-after referred to as the “Party No. 1”) filed its written statement.
The case of the union as projected in the statement of claim is that, Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey has retired after
completing the service of 35 years from 16.05.1976 to 31.07.2011 and Hari Om is son of Radhe Shyam Dubey.
According to the union, NCWA-III Clause 9.4.4 provides service of one dependent. According to the union, Party No. 1
wrongfully denied the appointment of Hari Om, which is against the provisions of NCWA-III and circular issued by Coal
India Limited on 16.01.2010. According to the union, these provisions clarify that, employment of at least one of the
dependants of such employee, who retire or die after putting at least 35 years of service.
3.
According to the union, on the basis of above provisions, they demand service of Hari Om as per Instruction and
Circular of NCWA and Agreement between CIL and the union. According to them, provisions of NCWA-III is
applicable and effective even after enforcement of NCWA-IV or subsequent NCWAs i.e. in this way, son of the
employees is eligible and qualified according to the terms of WCL, but Party No. 1 rescinded this provisions arbitrarily.
In this way, they prayed that, reference is decided in favour of the workman and direction may be issued to the Party No.
1 that, son of the petitioner may be allowed to get employment as per above provisions.
4.
By filing written statement on behalf of the Party No. 1, denied all material facts by asserting that, these
provisions are not applicable in present circumstances, because 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016, NCWA-IX came into
existence, but they admitted that, Circular issued by the Coal India Limited on 22.06.1977 and NCWA-III came into
existence on 20.03.1984 between union and Party No. 1. Party No. 1 asserted that, para no. 9, 11 to 16 are the matter of
5740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
records, paras 18 & 19 of statement of claim need no comments, because they are irrelevant. But according to the Party
No. 1, above NCWA is no more in existence.
5.
According to the Party No. 1, provision mentioned in NCWA-III as Clause 9.4.4 was deleted or expunged from
new provisions of NCWA-IV to NCWA-IX, so from 01.01.1987 till today, no dependant of workers was employed by
the Party No. 1. The Party No. 1 also admitted that, Radhe Shyam Debey was a Foreman I/C, who retired from services
on 31.07.2011. According to the Party No. 1, outside appointment are made by giving notice to the public and after due
selection, as per prevalent practice and procedure. According to them, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi
Vs. State of Karnataka held that, “No unconstitutional appointment can be made now in the matter of public employment
by the state ……… It violates article 14 & 16 of the Constitution”. So, they prayed that, this reference be answered in
the negative in favour of Party No. 1 and also prayed that, action of the Party No. 1 i.e. WCL declared legal and justified.
6.
Point of determination:
i.
Whether Hari Om is entitled for employment under NCWA-III?
ii.
Whether he is entitled to any other relief?
Reasons for determination:
7.
On behalf of the union, Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey and on behalf of the Party No. 1, Shri Dhananjay B. Gondane
filed their evidence on affidavit. They were cross-examined by the opposite party. The union argued that, above
NCWA-III provides service of dependant after completing 35 years of service; they base their argument on the Circular
of Coal India Limited and other provisions of Party No. 1. They also argued that, Agreement was covered with all
categories of employees in the Coal Industry, who were covered under National Coal Wages Agreement I to VII. So,
they argued that, Hari Om is entitled to employment in WCL and Party No. 1 denied his legal rights. In support of their
argument, they examined Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey. Now I want to discuss the evidence part.
8.
Radhe Shyam Dubey in para 7 of his cross-examination admitted that, he worked in WCL for more than 35
years, when he retired from services, at that time, NCWA-IX was applicable, but he received retiremental benefits as per
NCWA-VIII. He also asserted that, he filed this case on the basis of NCWA-II & III. According to him, he received all
retiremental benefits except E.L. encashment and bonus, but he did not file any case in this regard to recover this amount.
According to him, his son, Hari Om Dubey has passed B.E, Mechanical and applied different job, but he did not get any
job.
9.
Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey in his cross-examination admitted that, he has no knowledge that, how many L.Rs of
the employees have been engaged on service as a retirement benefits, but according to him, in Dhanbad, 4 L.Rs of
employees have got job as retirement benefit after completion of 35 years of service. According to him, he is not in
position to say that, whether he filed the appointment letters of above 4 L.Rs. In this way, it appears that, he gave
statement on the basis of hearing of some facts i.e. above statement is based on hearsay evidence. Now I want to see the
evidence of the Party No. 1.
10.
Party No. 1 examined his Personnel Assistant Manager, Shri Dhananjay B. Gondane in support of their defence.
In para 16 of his cross-examination, he admitted that, father of Hari Om was working in WCL. Shri Radhe Shyam
Dubey was appointed on 16.05.1976 and superannuated on 31.07.2011. He has worked for 35 years. NCWA-I to X are
applicable to WCL. Document W-1(This document related to Coal India Ltd.), which is applicable to WCL from 1975 to
1978. N He denied that, NCWA-III & IV are applicable forever. He admitted that, Party No. 1 follows the Standing
Orders and NCWA I to X are applicable to all subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. including WCL, but according to him he has
no knowledge about, whether during the pendency of the case in CGIT, Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey was forced to
handover quarter and dues were not paid to him and regarding document no. W-2, which is concerned with Bharat
Cooking Coal Ltd. This witness remained unrebutted in his cross-examination, he gave statement in Court on the basis
of documents as well as personal knowledge and nothing shows that, he prejudice to the workman. He gave a fair
statement and it appears to be reliable. Now I want to see the legal position.
11.
Case laws:- Yogender Pal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 1015 and Employers in
relation to the management of Bhowra Area No. XI of Ms BCCL, Dhanbad Vs. the Presiding Officer, Dhanbad W.P. (L)
No. 2412 of 2002 dated 26.07.2012, in which Hon’ble Court laid down the following principles:-
i.
“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the state”.
ii. “No dependent of an employee of the State or its instrumentality is entitled to claim preference in the matter of
on public employment on the basis of the service of his father/parent is no longer res integra in view of the
specific provision contain in Part III of the Constitution of India and also laid down in the judgment delivered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in number of cases”.
[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tqykbZ 27] [email protected] 5] 1941
5741
iii. “Article 16, cl. (1), guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State: and cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on certain grounds in respect of
any such employment or appointment …………….. We do not see any reason why the full ambit of the
fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 16 in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the
State should be cut down by a reference to the provisions in Part XIV of the constitution which relate to
services or to provisions in the earlier Constitution Acts relating to the same subject”.
iv. “The new offices which were created for the new village or villages should be filled up by the Collector by
selecting the persons whom he considered best qualified ………………… Collector to dull up the said new
offices by selecting persons from among the families of the last holders of the offices was opposed to Article
16 of the constitution”.
12.
Judging the present case in hand with the touch stone of the principles as mentioned above, my humble opinion
is that, union fails to prove his case. So, union/workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The action of the management of Bhatadi Open Cast sub Area of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd.,
in denying employment to Shri HariOm, the dependant son of Shri Radhe Shyam Dubey, Foreman I/C who has already
put in 35 years service, which is contrary to the provisions of Para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal & justified The workman is
not entitled to any relief.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
नई द ली, 23 जुलाई, 2019
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ.
का.आ. 1356
1356
1356
1356.—औ ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म, केीय सरकार
D थल िनदेशक राजD थान परमाणु िबजलीघर, कोटा के बंधतं# के संब$ िनयोजक& और उनके कमकार& के बीच, अनुबंध म
िन)द* औ ोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार औ ोिगक अिधकरण-सह-,म यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं.या
56/2015) को कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को 17.07.2019 को ा4 5ए था ।
[सं. एल-42012/109/2002-आईआर (सी एम-II)]
राजे Cसह, अनुभाग अिधकारी
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2019
S.O. 1356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the management of The Station Director,
Rajasthan Atomic Power, Kota and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17.07.2019.
[No. L-42012/109/2002-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
अनुबंध
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 56 @ 2015
jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua--L-42012/109/2002–IR(CM-II) fnukad 02/06/2015
egklfpo] jktLFkku v.kq'kfDr ifj;kstuk deZpkjh la| ¼baVd½ jkorHkkVkA
cuke
LFky funs'kd jktLFkku ijek.kq fctyh?kj] jkorHkkVk jktLFkku lkbV]
U;qfDy;j ikWoj dkWiksZjs'ku vkWQ bfUM;k iksLV& v.kq'kfDr 323303
ok;k&dksVk jktLFkku
5742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2019/SRAVANA 5, 1941
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% dksbZ ugha
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls
% Jh /kesZUnz tSu &izfrfuf/k
% vf/kfu.kZ; %
fnukad % 26- 06- 2019
1-
Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 02-06-2015 dks fuEukafdr fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e
1947 ¼ftls vkxkeh pj.kksa esa vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼2A½ o ¼1½ ¼d½ 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 RAPS, NPCIL, Rawatbhata in degrading Shri Khemraj and
Sh. Rajsingh, Tractor Trailer Operator from Tradesman 'B' to Tradesman 'A' on implementation of Anand
Committee Report is correct and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and
from which date.”
2-
miZ;qDr lanfHkZr 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-
bl funsZ'k ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 16-5-2016 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd
izkFkhZ egklfpo jktLFkku v.kq 'kfDr ifj;kstuk deZpkjh la?k ¼baVd½ jkorHkkVk ok;k dksVk] jktLFkku ijek.kq fctyh?kj 1 ls
8 ds deZdkjksa dk izfrfuf/kRo djrk gSA jktLFkku v.kq 'kfDr ifj;kstuk deZpkjh la?k ¼baVd½ jftLVªkj vkWQ VªsM ;wfu;u ,oa
la;qDr Je vk;qDr] t;iqj ls iathd`r laLFkk gSA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds deZpkjh loZ Jh [ksejkt vkSj jktflag us foi{kh dks izkFkZuk
i= nsdj viuh osnuk O;Dr dhA ftlesa izcU/ku }kjk izkFkhZx.k dks ,d xzsM Mkmu dj nsuk U;k;laxr u gksuk dgrs gq,
mudks iqu% dk;Zn{k ch dh fu;qfDr iznku djus dk fuosnu fd;kA izcU/ku }kjk izkFkhZ la?k dks dksbZ jkgr iznku ugah dh xbZA
vr% izcU/kd ijek.kq fctyh?kj ls nksuksa deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;qfDr frfFk ls osru J`a[kyk :i;s 4000&6000 ¼dk;Zn{k ch½ esa izFke
fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls fu;qfDr] ,fj;j lfgr fnyk;h tkosaA
4-
fnukad 28-3-2016 dks foi{kh dh vkSj ls Jh jktsUnz xqIrk mifLFkr gq, vkSj vf/kdkj i= izLrqr djus gsrq volj
pkgkA
5-
fnukad 20-3-2017 dks Jh /kesZUnz tSu us foi{kh dh vkSj ls vf/kdkj i= izLrqr dj tokc nkos gsrq le; pkgkA
6-
fnukad 29-11-2017 dks foi{kh ds vdkj.k vuqifLFkfr jgus ij foi{kh ds tokc dk volj lekIr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dh
,d i{kh; lk{; gsrq izdj.k dks fu;r fd;k x;kA rnqijkUr fnukad 18-12-2017 ls fnukad 14-3-2019 rd izkFkhZ i{k
vuqifLFkr jgk] blfy;s fnukad 14-3-2019 dks ,di{kh; lk{; izkFkhZ dk volj Hkh lekIr dj fn;k x;kA
7-
vkt fnukad 26-6-2019 dks Hkh izkFkhZ vuqifLFkr gS vkSj dksbZ lk{; vius nkos ds leFkZu esa izLrqr ugha dh gSA bl
fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g vf/kdj.k lanfHkZr fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij
djus esa l{ke ugha gSA
8-
vr% Je eU=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr mi;qZDr vkS|ksfxd fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa
fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA blfy;s bl lUnHkZ dk mRrj blh izdkj fn;k tkrk gSA
vkns'k
9-
vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr jsQjsUl dk mRrj
mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA
10-
vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk'kukFkZ
izsf"kr dh tkosA
jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2019.08.07
15:24:11 +05'30'