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/ ए᭍स ए᭍स-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 एत᳏ारा 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 सं᭎या एनयूपीपीएल/पीएस/4(1)/002/2019, तारीख 26 मई, 2019 को उᲦ अनुसूची मᱶ वᳶणत भूिम

का ᭃेᮢ अ᭠तᳶव᳥ ᳰकया गया है, का िनरीᭃण मु᭎य 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 मु᭎य 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 सं᭎या 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 सं᭎यांक 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 सं᭎या आरईवी /01/2019, तारीख 25 अᮧैल, 2019 ]

ᮓ.सं.

ᮕाम

थाना सं.

थाना

िजला

ᭃेᮢ

ᳯट᭡पिणयां

हे᭍टेयर 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

हे᭍टेयर

(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

ᮧाँड᭍ट पाइपलाइन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग, Ფाटᭅर सं᭎या बी/2, इंिडयन ऑयल

आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉ᭍स: 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

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

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

ᮧाँड᭍ट पाइपलाइन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग, Ფाटᭅर सं᭎या बी/2,इंिडयन ऑयल

आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉ᭍स : 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 ᮧाँड᭍ट

ᮧाँड᭍ट

ᮧाँड᭍ट

ᮧाँड᭍ट 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

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

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

ᮧाँड᭍ट पाइपलाईन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाईन ᮧभाग, Ფाटᭅर सं᭎या बी/2,इंिडयन ऑयल

आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉ᭍स: 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

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

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 सं᭎या बी/2,इंिडयन ऑयल

आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉ᭍स: 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

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

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

ᮧाँड᭍ट पाइपलाइन पाᳯरयोजना, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड पाइपलाइन ᮧभाग, Ფाटᭅर सं᭎या बी/2, इंिडयन ऑयल

आवासीय कॉलोनी,मेघड᭥ᮩᱧ, पो᭭ट बॉ᭍स: 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

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

है᭍टेयर

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

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

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 पाइपलाᲊस (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 :

ब᳍ᭅमान रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल

ब᳍ᭅमान रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल

ब᳍ᭅमान रा᭔य : पि᳟म बंगाल

ब᳍ᭅमान 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

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

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

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

हे᭍टेयर

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 एत᳏ारा 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 मं ालय

म एवं रोजगार मं ालय

म एवं रोजगार मं ालय

म एवं रोजगार मं ालय

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'