4373 GI/2019

(6569)

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- 36]

ubZ fnYyh] flrEcj 1—flrEcj 7] 2019] 'kfuokj@Hkknz 10—Hkknz 16] 1941

No. 36]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 1— SEPTEMBER 7, 2019, SATURDAY/BHADRA 10— BHADRA—16, 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)

वा

वा य

य

य और प रवार क या

और प रवार क या

और प रवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

वा

वा य

य

य और प रवार क या

और प रवार क या

और प रवार क याण िवभाग

ण िवभाग

ण िवभाग)

नई दली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1596

1596

1596.—भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

ारा !द" त शि$ तय% का !योग करते )ए के+ , सरकार, भारतीय आयुवान परषद से परामश करके उ/ अिधिनयम क

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

“िश<ा ओ अनुसंधान यूिनवसटी, भुवने? वर” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<ि;करण’ [िजसे

इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

‘‘डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बाल रोग)"

एमडी (बाल रोग)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह इंF टीLूट एंड

मेिडकल साइंसेज एंड एसयूएम हॉिFपटल, भुवने? वर म3 2018 को या

बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 िश<ा ओ अनुसंधान

यूिनवसटी,भुवने? वर ारा !दO होगी।)

6570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नोट:

दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

अपेि<त मा+यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म3 िवफल रहने पर, परणामFवSप, िनरपवाद Sप से, संबंिधत

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/16/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3198235]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 14^th February, 2019

S.O. 1596.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Siksha O Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted

Siksha

Anusandhan

University,

Bhubaneswar in respect of students being trained at

Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM Hospital,

Bhubaneswar. on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/16/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3198235]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 15 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1597

1597

1597.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

“द तिमलनाडु डॉ. एमजीआर, मेिडकल यूिनवसटी, चे+ नई” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

संि<ि;करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया

जाएगा. अथात्:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6571

(2)

(3)

‘‘डा$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन (बाल रोग)”

एमडी(बाल रोग)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह Vी मुकाW बीका

इंF टीLूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइसेज, क+ याकुमारी म3 2018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 द तिमलनाडु डॉ. एमजीआर,

मेिडकल यूिनवसटी, चे+ नई ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेि<त मा+यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म3 िवफल रहने पर, परणामFवSप, िनरपवाद Sप से, संबंिधत

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/18/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3198238]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 15^th February, 2019

S.O. 1597.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India,

hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical

University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at

Sree Mookambika

Institute

of Medical

Sciences,

Kanyakumari on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/18/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3198238]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

6572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 6 माच, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1598

1598

1598.—भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

“Vी गु[ गो\वंद \संह ]ीस3टनरी यूिनवसटी, गु[^ाम” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

‘‘डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फामाकोलॉजी)"

एमडी (फामाकोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह Vी गु[

गो\वंद \संह ]ीस3टनरी मेिडकल कॉलेज, हॉिFपटल एंड रसच

इंF टीLूट, गु[^ाम म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए

छाN% के संबंध म3 Vी गु[ गो\वंद \संह ]ीस3टनरी यूिनवसटी,

गु[^ाम ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/41/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3200433]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6^th March, 2019

S.O. 1598.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University, Gurugram”, under the heading ‘Recognized

Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the

heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary

University, Gurugram in respect of students being trained

at Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary Medical

College, Hospital & Research Institute, Gurugram on or

after 2018).

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6573

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/41/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3200433]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY. Under Secy.

नई द ली, 7 माच, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1599

1599

1599.—भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]]

“सिवता यूिनवसटी (मानद), चै+ नई” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<ि;करण’ [िजसे इसके

आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

‘‘माF टर आफ सजरी (F Nी रोग एवं !सूित िवान)"

एम.एस. (ओबीजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

सिवता मेिडकल कालेज एंड होिFपटल, कांचीपुरम,

तिमलनाडु म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए

गए छाN% के संबंध म3 सिवता यूिनवसटी (मानद),

चै+ नई ारा !दO होगी।)

‘‘डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (टी.बी. और ? वसन रोग)"

एमडी (टी.बी. और ? वसन रोग)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

सिवता मेिडकल कालेज एंड होिFपटल, कांचीपुरम,

तिमलनाडु म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए

गए छाN% के संबंध म3 सिवता यूिनवसटी (मानद),

चै+ नई ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं.यू-12012/36/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3200203]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

6574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7^th March, 2019

S.O. 1599.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)”

MS (OBG)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in

respect of students being trained at Saveetha Medical

College and Hospital, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or

after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine (T.B. & Respiratory Medicine)”

MD (T.B. & Respiratory Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in

respect of students being trained at Saveetha Medical

College and Hospital, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or

after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/36/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3200203]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 7 माच, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1600

1600

1600.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

“राजीव गांधी यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3स, बंगलुS” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

जाएगा. अथात्:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6575

(2)

(3)

‘‘माF टर आफ सजरी (ओटो-राइनो-ले`रंगोलॉजी)”

एमएस (ईएनटी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

मांaा इंF टीLूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइस3स, मांaा म3

2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध

म3राजीव गांधी यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3स,

बंगलुS ारा !दO होगी।)

‘‘डॉ. आफ मेिडसीन/माF टर आफ सजरी (नेN िवान)”

एमडी/एम एस (नेN िवान)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

मांaा इंF टीLूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइस3स, मांaा म3

2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध

म3राजीव गांधी यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3स, बंगलुS

ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/40/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3200429]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 7^th March, 2019

S.O. 1600.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)”

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect

of students being trained at Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences,

Mandya on or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery

MD/MS (Ophthalmology)

(Ophthalmology)”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect

of students being trained at Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences,

Mandya on or after 2018).

6576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/40/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3200429]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 1 अ!ैल, 2019

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 1601

1601

1601.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

“वेF ट बंगाल यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3ज, कोलकाता” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

माF टर आफ सजरी (नेNिवान)”

एमएस (नेN िवान)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह िमदनापुर मेिडकल

कालेज, िमदनापुर म3 2016 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के

संबंध म3 वेF टबंगाल यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3ज, कोलकाता ारा !दO

होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/88/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3203974]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 1601.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6577

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”

MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of

students being trained at Midnapore Medical College, Midnapore.

on or after 2016).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/88/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3203974]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 3 अ!ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1602

1602

1602.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा

(2) ारा !द" त शि$ तय% का !योग करते )ए, के+ , सरकार, भारतीय आयुवान परषद से परामश करके उ/ अिधिनयम

क !थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथात:-

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] शीषक के अधीन

“राजीव गांधी वा य िवान

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान िविवालय,

िविवालय,

िविवालय, बगलु

बगलु

बगलु” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

संि<ि;करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया

जाएगा. अथात:-

(2)

(3)

डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन (डरमाटोलोजी, वेनरोलोजी और

ले!ोसी)

एम.डी. (डीवीएल)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह g वाजा

बंदा नवाज इंF hीयूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंसेज, गुलबग म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 2018 को या बाद म3

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान िविवालय,

िविवालय,

िविवालय, बगलु

बगलु

बगलु ारा

!दO होगी)।

डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन/माF टर ऑफ सजरी (नेN िवान)

एम.डी./एम.एस. (नेN िवान)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह g वाजा

बंदा नवाज इंF hीयूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंसेज, गुलबग म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 2018 को या बाद म3

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान िविवालय,

िविवालय,

िविवालय, बगलु

बगलु

बगलु ारा

!दO होगी)।

‘डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन (जनरल मेिडसीन)

एम.डी. (जनरल मेिडसीन)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह g वाजा

बंदा नवाज इंF hीयूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंसेज, गुलबग म3

6578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 2018 को या बाद म3

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान िविवालय,

िविवालय,

िविवालय, बगलु

बगलु

बगलु ारा

!दO होगी)।

माF टर आफ सजरी (अिFथ िवान)

एम.एस. (अिFथ िवान)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह g वाजा

बंदा नवाज इंF hीयूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंसेज, गुलबग म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 2018 को या बाद म3

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान

राजीव गांधी वा य िवान िविवालय,

िविवालय,

िविवालय, बगलु

बगलु

बगलु ारा

!दO होगी)।

नोट:

अधोTातक कोस को दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण

करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेि<त मा+यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म3 िवफल रहने पर, परणाम FवSप, िनरपवाद Sप से संबंिधत

अधोTातक कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/38/2018-एमई-I/(एफटीएस नं. 3200272)]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, संयु$ त सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd April, 2019

S.O. 1602.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venereology &

MD (DVL)

Leprosy”)”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore in respect of students being

trained at Khaja Banda Nawaz Institute of Medical

Sciences, Gulbarga. on or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”

MD/MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore in respect of students being

trained at Khaja Banda Nawaz Institute of Medical

Sciences, Gulbarga. on or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6579

Sciences, Bangalore in respect of students being

trained at Khaja Banda Nawaz Institute of Medical

Sciences, Gulbarga. on or after 2018).

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore in respect of students being

trained at Khaja Banda Nawaz Institute of Medical

Sciences, Gulbarga. on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/38/2018-ME-I/FTS No. 3200272]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 3 अ!ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1603

1603

1603.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

“डा. एनटीआर यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइंसेज, िवजयवाड़ा” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

डा$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन,(िनयोनेटोलोजी)”

एमडी (िनयोनेटोलोजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

उF मािनया मेिडकल कालेज, हैदराबाद म3 2017 को या

बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 डा.

एनटीआर यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइंसेज, िवजयवाड़ा

ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/97/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3204290]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

6580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3^rd April, 2019

S.O. 1603.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Neonatology)”

DM (Neonatology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad on

or after 2017).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/97/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3204290]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 3 अ!ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1604

1604

1604.—भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

“डॉ. एनटीआर यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3ज, िवजयवाड़ा” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

डा$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन/माF टर आफ सजरी (नेNिवान)”

एमडी/एम एस(नेN िवान)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

एमएनआर मेिडकल कालेज, संगारेjी म3 2018 को या बाद

म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 डॉ. एनटीआर

यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3ज, िवजयवाड़ा ारा !दO

होगी।)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6581

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/94/2019-एमई-I /एफटीएस नं. 3204233]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd April, 2019

S.O. 1604.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)” MD/MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,

Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at MNR

Medical College, Sangareddy on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/94/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3204233]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 3 अ!ैल, 2019

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 1605

1605

1605.—भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

“तीथkकर महावीर यूिनवसटी, मुरादाबाद” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<ि;करण’ [िजसे

(2)

(3)

" डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिजयोलॉजी)"

एमडी (फिजयोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

तीथkकर महावीर मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड रसच स3टर,

6582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मुरादाबाद, उ" तर !देश म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त

कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 तीथkकर महावीर यूिनवसटी,

मुरादाबाद ारा !दO होगी।)

"माF टर ऑफ सजरी (नेN िवान)"

एमएस (नेN िवान)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

तीथkकर महावीर मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड रसच स3टर,

मुरादाबाद, उ" तर !देश म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त

कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 तीथkकर महावीर यूिनवसटी,

मुरादाबाद ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/75/2019-एमई-I /एफटीएस नं. 3202240]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd April, 2019

S.O. 1605.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad

in respect of students being trained at Teerthankar

Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre,

Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh on or after 2018).

“Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)”

MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad

in respect of students being trained at Teerthankar

Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre,

Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6583

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/75/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3202240]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 4 अ!ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1606

1606

1606.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

“चौधरी चरण \संह यूिनवसटी” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<ि;करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

‘माF टर ऑफ सजरी ( F Nी रोग एवं !सूित िवान)

एम.एस. (ओबीजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकलअहता होगी जब यह

सरF वती इंF टीLूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंसेज, हापुड, उ" तरी

!देश म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN%

के संबंध म3चौधरी चरण \संह यूिनवसटी ारा !दO

होगी।)

‘डॉ$ टर आफ मेिडसीन (पैथोलोजी)

एम.डी. (पैथोलोजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह

सरF वती इंF टीLूट ऑफ मेिडकल साइंसेज, हापुड,उ" तर

!देश म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN%

के संबंध म3 चौधरी चरण \संह यूिनवसटी ारा !दO

होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/116/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3205787]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 4^th April, 2019

S.O. 1606.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

6584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

( I)

against “Ch. Charan Singh University”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’

[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Master of Surgery (obstetrics and gynecology)” MS (OBG)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Ch. Charan Singh University in respect of students being trained at

Saraswati Institute of Medical Sciences, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh on

or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Ch. Charan Singh University in respect of students being trained at

Saraswati Institute of Medical Sciences, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh on

or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/116/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3205787]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 4 अ!ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1607

1607

1607.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है ] से संवंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

" डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (मनिAक" सा)"

एमडी (मनिAक" सा)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह सिवता मेिडकल

कालेज एंड होिFपटल, कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु म3 2018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 सिवता यूिनवसटी (मानद), चै+ नई

ारा !दO होगी।)

"डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (बाल रोग)"

एमडी (बाल रोग)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह सिवता मेिडकल

कालेज एंड होिFपटल, कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु म3 2018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 सिवता यूिनवसटी (मानद), चै+ नई

ारा !दO होगी।)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6585

"डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथोलॉजी)"

एमडी (पैथोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह सिवता मेिडकल

कालेज एंड होिFपटल, कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु म3 2018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 सिवता यूिनवसटी (मानद), चै+ नई

ारा !दO होगी।)

"माF टर ऑफ सजरी (अिFथ िवान)"

एमएस (अिFथ िवान)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह सिवता मेिडकल

कालेज एंड होिFपटल, कांचीपुरम, तिमलनाडु म3 2018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 सिवता यूिनवसटी (मानद), चै+ नई

ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/36/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3200203]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 4^th April, 2019

S.O. 1607.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

(I)

against “Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”

MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in respect of students

being trained at Saveetha Medical College and Hospital,

Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in respect of students

being trained at Saveetha Medical College and Hospital,

Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or after 2018).

6586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in respect of students

being trained at Saveetha Medical College and Hospital,

Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or after 2018).

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in respect of students

being trained at Saveetha Medical College and Hospital,

Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/36/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3200203]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 22 अ!ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1608

1608

1608.—भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ]

“केरल यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3स, िNशूर” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<ि;करण’

[ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है ] से संवंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

डा. ऑफ मेिडसीन/ माF टर आफ सजरी (डरमेटोलोजी,

वेनरोलोजी और ले!ोसी)”

एम डी(डीवीएल)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकलअहता होगी जब यह

एमईएस मेिडकल कालेज, पेर3टलम+ ना, म लापुरम म3

2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध

म3केरल यूिनवसटीऑफ हे थ साइस3स, िNशूर ारा !दO

होगी।)

डॉ. आफ मेिडसीन (रेिडयो डायn नोिसस)”

एमडी ( रेिडयो डायn नोिसस)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकलअहता होगी जब यह

एमईएस मेिडकल कालेज, पेर3टलम+ ना, म लापुरम म3

2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध

म3केरल यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइस3स, िNशूर ारा !दO

होगी।)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6587

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/118/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3206172]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22^nd April, 2019

S.O. 1608.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

( I)

against “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venereology & MD (DVL)

Leprosy”)”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at M E S Medical College,

Perintalmanna, Malapuram on or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine (Radiodiagnosis)”

MD (Radiodiagnosis)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at M E S Medical College,

Perintalmanna, Malapuram on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/118/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3206172]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 22 अ!ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1609

1609

1609.—भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ]

“केरल यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ सांइसेज, िNसूर” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<ि;करण’

6588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

‘माF टर ऑफ सजरी (अिFथ िवान)”

एम एस (अिFथ िवान)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकलअहता होगी जब यह केएमसीटी

मेिडकल कालेज कोझीकोड, कालीकट म3 2018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 केरल यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ

सांइसेज, िNसूर ारा !दO होगी।)

‘डा$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन (फामाकोलोजी)”

एमडी (फामाकोलोजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकलअहता होगी जब यह केएमसीटी

मेिडकल कालेज कोझीकोड, कालीकट म3 2018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 केरल यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ

सांइसेज, िNसूर ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/119/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3206174]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 22^nd April, 2019

S.O. 1609.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

(I)

against “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in respect of

students being trained at KMCT Medical College Kozhikode,

Calicut on or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in respect of

students being trained at KMCT Medical College Kozhikode,

Calicut on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6589

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U.12012/119/2019-ME-I/FTS No.3206174]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 2 मई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1610

1610

1610.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

“महाराo ] यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइंसेज, नािसक” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<ि;करण’

[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

" डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (कWयूिनटी मेिडिसन)"

एमडी (कWयूिनटी मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह टेरना

मेिडकल कॉलेज, नवी मुंबई म3 2017 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त

कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3 महाराo ] यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ

साइंसेज, नािसक ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/124/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3206186]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 2^nd May, 2019

S.O. 1610.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

(I)

against “Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)” MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted

by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik in respect of

students being trained at Terna Medical College, Navi Mumbai on

or after 2017).

6590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/124/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3206186]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 2 मई, 2019

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 1611

1611

1611.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

(2)

(3)

डॉ$ टर आफ मेिडसीन (कp यूिनटी मेिडसीन)

एम.डी. (कW यूिनटी मेिडसीन)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकलअहता होगी जब यह सिवता

मेिडकल कालेज एंड होिFपटल, कांचीपुरम म32018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3सिवता यूिनवसटी (मानद),

चै+ नई ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/161/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3206883]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 2^nd May, 2019

S.O. 1611.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6591

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Community Medicine)”

MD (Community Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Saveetha University (Deemed), Chennai in respect of students

being trained at Saveetha Medical College and Hospital,

Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U.12012/161/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3206883]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 2 मई, 2019

का.आ

का.आ. 1612

1612

1612.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’शीषक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

“राजीव गांधी यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइंसेज, बंगलुS” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

‘डा$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन (फामाकोलोजी)

एम.डी. (फामाकोलोजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकलअहता होगी जब यह सp तिगर इंF टीLूट

ऑफ मेिडकल साइंसेज एंड रसच स3टर, बंगलुS म3 2018 को या बाद म3

!िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3राजीव गांधी यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ

साइंसेज, बंगलुS ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

1.दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2.मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/113/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3205199]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

6592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2^nd May, 2019

S.O. 1612.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect

of students being trained at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical

Sciences & Research Centre, Bangalore on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/113/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3205199]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 2 मई, 2019

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 1613

1613

1613.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

“rकंगजाज मेिडकल यूिनवसटी, लखनऊ” के सामने अंितम !िवि@ के पAात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि<ि;करण’ [िजसे

(2)

(3)

‘डा$ टर ऑफ मेिडसीन (रेिडयो डायn नोिसस)

एम.डी. (रेिडयो डायn नोिसस)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह डॉ. राममनोहर

लोिहया इंF टीLूटर ऑफ मेिडकल साइस3ज, लखनऊ म3 2017 को या

बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3rकंगजाज मेिडकल

यूिनवसटी, लखनऊ ारा !दO होगी।)

‘मेिजF टर िचSरेगे (सजकल sकोलोजी)

एम.सीएच (सजकल sकोलोजी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकलअहता होगी जब यह डॉ. राममनोहर

लोिहया इंF टीLूटर ऑफ मेिडकल साइस3ज, लखनऊ म3 2018 को या

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6593

बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3rकंगजाज मेिडकल

यूिनवसटी, लखनऊ ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेि<त मा+यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म3 िवफल रहने पर, परणामFवSप, िनरपवाद Sप से,

संबंिधतTातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/78/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3203143]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 2^nd May, 2019

S.O. 1613.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “King Georges Medical University, Lucknow”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’

[hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Radiodiagnosis)”

MD (Radiodiagnosis)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

King Georges Medical University, Lucknow in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical

Sciences, Lucknow on or after 2017).

“Magister Chirurgiae (Surgical Oncology)”

M.Ch (Surgical Oncology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

King Georges Medical University, Lucknow in respect of students

being trained at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical

Sciences, Lucknow on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/78/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3203143]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

6594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 2 मई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1614

1614

1614.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ/ !थम अनुसूची म3 ‘मा+यता !ा; आयुवान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

मेिजF टर िचSरेगी,(+ यूरो सजरी)”

एम.सीएच(+ यूरो सजरी)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह रंगरtया

मेिडकल कालेज, काकनाड़ा म3 2017 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त

कए गए छाN% के संबंध म3डा. एनटीआर यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ

साइंसेज, िवजयवाड़ा ारा !दO होगी।)

नोट:

1.दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2.मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेि<त मा+यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म3 िवफल रहने पर, परणामFवSप, िनरपवाद Sप से,

संबंिधतTातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/161/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3206883]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 2^nd May, 2019

S.O. 1614.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Magister Chirurgiae (Neuro Surgery)”

M.Ch (Neuro Surgery)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada on

or after 2017).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6595

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/161/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3206883]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 29 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1615

1615

1615.— भारतीय आयुवान परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

!थम अनुसूची म3, िन4िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत !िवि@ के संबंध म3 िन4िलिखत अंत:Fथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

" डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (जनरल मेिडिसन)"

एमडी (जनरल मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह Vीमती

काशीबाई नावले मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड जनरल हॉिFपटल,

पुणे, महाराo ] म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए

छाN% के संबंध म3 महाराo ] यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइंसेज,

नािसक ारा !दO होगी।)

" डॉ$ टर ऑफ मेिडिसन (मनिAक" सा)"

एमडी (मनिAक" सा)

(यह एक मा+यता !ा; मेिडकल अहता होगी जब यह Vीमती

काशीबाई नावले मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड जनरल हॉिFपटल,

पुणे, महाराo ] म3 2018 को या बाद म3 !िशि<त कए गए

छाN% के संबंध म3 महाराo ] यूिनवसटी ऑफ हे थ साइंसेज,

नािसक ारा !दO होगी।)

नो

नोट:

ट:

दी गई ऐसी मा+यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

मा+यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क !Qया वही होगी जो मा+यता !दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

TातकोOर कोस म3 !वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/47/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3200517]

पी. के. बंदोपाUयाय, अवर सिचव

6596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29^th July, 2019

S.O. 1615.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes

the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

against “Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik in respect of

students being trained at Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College

and General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra on or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”

MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik in respect of

students being trained at Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College

and General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra on or after 2018).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/47/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3200517]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई द ली, 23 अगF त, 2019

का

का.आ. . . . 1616

1616

1616.—के+,ीय सरकार ने पे]ोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म3 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन)

अिधिनयम,1962 (1962 का 50) (िजसे इसम3 इसके पAात उ/ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 3 क उप धारा (1) के

अधीन जारी क गई, भारत सरकार के पे]ोिलयम और !ाकृितक गैस मंNालय क अिधसूचना का.आ. 2024 तारीख

28.08.2017 एवं 1038 तारीख 03.07.2018 िजसका !काशन भारत के राजपN संgया 35 एवं 26, भाग-II, खwड 3, उप-

खwड (ii) तारीख 02.09.2017 एवं 07.07.2018 मे कया गया है । इस अिधसूचना म3 संलx अनुसूची म3 िविनyद@ ओिड़शा

राzय के तहसील : आिसका

आिसका

आिसका, शेरगढ़

शेरगढ़

शेरगढ़, बुगुड़ा

बुगुड़ा

बुगुड़ा, हंिजिलकाटु

हंिजिलकाटु

हंिजिलकाटु, , , , जगाथसाद

जगाथसाद

जगाथसाद, पा"पुर

पा"पुर

पा"पुर, पोलसरा

पोलसरा

पोलसरा, कुकुड़ाख%डी

कुकुड़ाख%डी

कुकुड़ाख%डी िजला: गंजाम

गंजाम

गंजाम क

भूिम म3, ओिड़शा राzय म3 पारादीप से तेलंगाना राzय म3 हैदराबाद तक पे]ोिलयम उ"पाद% के परवहन के िलये इंिडयन ऑयल

कॉप{रेशन िलिमटेड के ारा Qयाि+वत कए जा रहे "पारादीप -हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परयोजना” के संबंध म3 पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के !योजन के िलये उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने के िलये अपने आशय क घोषणा क थी;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6597

और उ/ राजपN अिधसूचना क !ितयाँ जनता को उपल~ध करा दी गई थ। और उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा

(1) के अनुसरण म3 स<म !ािधकारी न3 के+,ीय सरकार को अपनी रपोट दे दी है;

और के+,ीय सरकार ने उ/ रपोट पर िवचार करने के पAात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर क उ/ भूिम पाइपलाइन

िबछाने के िलये अपेि<त है, उसम3 उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन करने का िविन? चय कया है;

अत:अब, के+,ीय सरकार उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (1) ारा !दO शि/य% का !योग करते )ए एतद् ारा

घोषणा करती है क इस अिधसूचना से संलx अनुसूिच म3 िविनyद@ भूिम म3 पाइपलाइन िबछाने के उपयोग का अिधकार

अजत कया जाए; और के+,ीय सरकार उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 क उपधारा (4) ारा !दO शि/य% का !योग करते )ए,

यह िनद€श देती है क उ/ भूिम म3 उपयोग का अिधकार इस घोषणा के !काशन क तारीख से के+,ीय सरकार म3 िनिहत होने

के बजाए सभी िबलंगम% से मु/ होकर इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप{रेशन िलिमटेड म3 िनिहत होगा।

अनुसूची

िजला- गंजाम राzय - ओिड़शा

Qं. सं.

तहसील

गाँव का नाम

pलॉट नं.

<ेNफल

हे$टयर

एयर

वग मीटर

आिसका

कुWभारी

3459

3463

3469

3470

3474

3472

3473

3880

3879

3881

3882

3876

आिसका

भ3कटराइपली

130

153

154

152

150

151

149

148

147

376

शेरगढ़

पुना+द

881

6598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िजला- गंजाम राzय - ओिड़शा

Qं. सं.

तहसील

गाँव का नाम

pलॉट नं.

<ेNफल

हे$टयर

एयर

वग मीटर

882

1242

657

640

651

650

861

860

865

879

शेरगढ़

कOपुर

1245

1240

1244

1241

1242

1238

1237

1236

1231

1220

1222

1223

1224

1071

1207

1205

1155

1153

बुगुड़ा

िवरंिचपुर

422

3118

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6599

िजला- गंजाम राzय - ओिड़शा

Qं. सं.

तहसील

गाँव का नाम

pलॉट नं.

<ेNफल

हे$टयर

एयर

वग मीटर

3119

3127

3124

3121

3122

3123

3113

3112

3102

3103

11875

3104

1060

1061

बुगुड़ा

नगुडु

2407

\हंिजिलकाटु

पोिचिलमा

1694

\हंिजिलकाटु

मकरझोल

4458

4948

6384

जगाथ!साद

चढेयापली

2660

7261

पाNपुर

सरधापुर

1294

पोलसरा

के+दुबािड़

7290

7295

कुकुड़ाखwडी

म)घरािहल

कुकुड़ाखwडी

भगबानपुर

590

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)236/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13717]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सिचव

6600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 23^rd August, 2019

S. O. 1616.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India Nos. 35 and 26 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 02.09.2017 and

07.07.2018 vide S.O.Number - 2024 dated 28.08.2017 and 1038 dated 03.07.2018 issued under Sub-section (1) of

Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of

1962),(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intension to acquire the right of user in

the land situated in Tehsils- Aska, Sheragada, Buguda, Hinjilikatu, Jagannathprasad, Patrapur, Polasara,

Kukudakhandi, District-Ganjam in Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the

purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Hyderabad

in the State of Telengana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the “Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline

Project”.

And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent Authority has

under Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is

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

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

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

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

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

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

encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District- GANJAM State- ODISHA

Sl.

No.

Tehsil

Village

Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mtr

ASKA

KUMBHARI

3459

3463

3469

3470

3474

3472

3473

3880

3879

3881

3882

3876

ASKA

VENKATARAIPALLI

130

153

154

152

150

151

149

148

147

376

SHERAGADA

PUNANDA

881

882

1242

657

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6601

District- GANJAM State- ODISHA

Sl.

No.

Tehsil

Village

Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mtr

640

651

650

861

860

865

879

SHERAGADA

KIRTIPUR

1245

1240

1244

1241

1242

1238

1237

1236

1231

1220

1222

1223

1224

1071

1207

1205

1155

1153

BUGUDA

BIRANCHIPUR

422

3118

3119

3127

3124

3121

3122

3123

3113

3112

3102

3103

11875

3104

1060

1061

BUGUDA

NAGUDU

2407

HINJILIKATU

POCHILIMA

1694

HINJILIKATU

MAKARAJHOL

4458

4948

6384

JAGANNATHPRASAD

CHAEDHEIAPALLI

2660

7261

PATRAPUR

SARADHAPUR

1294

POLASARA

KENDUBADI

7290

6602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

District- GANJAM State- ODISHA

Sl.

No.

Tehsil

Village

Plot No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mtr

7295

KUKUDAKHANDI

MAHUGHARA HILL

KUKUDAKHANDI

BHAGABANPUR

590

[F. No. R-11025(11)236/2017-OR-I/E-13717]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk- vk- 1617-&dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 6fd mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh fd xbZ] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj

izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; fd uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mYysf[kr rkjh[kksa dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- }kjk mu vf/klwpukvksa

ls layX+u vuqlwph esa fcfufnZ’V Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k Fkk A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznÙk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr fd

Hkwfe esa tks lfHk fcYyaxeksa ls eqDr gSa]mi;ksx dk vf/klwpukvksa ls layX+u dk vf/kdkj] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa]

fufgr fd;k FkkA

vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g fjiksVZ nh gS fd ikjknhi &jk;iqj& jk¡fp ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk dk

isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, vksMh'kk jkT; fLFkr ftyk lEcyiqj ds rglhy lEcyiqj] ekus'oj] jasxkyh] tqtkseqjk]

js<+k[kksy vkSj ckejk] ftyk cjxM+ ds rglhy vrkfcjk] cjxM+ vkSj lksgsyk] ftYkk >kjlqxqM+k ds rglhy dksykfcjk] >kjlqxqMk

vkSj fdjfejk] ftyk lqanjx<+ ds rglhy lqanjx<+] cMxk¡] jktxkaxiqj] ikuiks'k ¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½ vkSj fcjfe=iqj esa bafM;u vkW;y

dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tk pqdh gS A vr% ml Hkwfe esa izpkyu dh lekfIr dh tk, ftldk laf{kIr

fooj.k bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu esa fofufnZ’V fd;k tkrk gSA

vr% vc] dsUnh; ljdkj isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1963

ds fu;e 4 ds Li’Vhdj.k & 1 ds v/khu vis{kkuqlkj mDr vuqlwph ds LraHk 7 esa mYysf[kr rkjh[k dh izpkyu dh lekfIr dh

rkjh[kksa ds :Ik esa ?kksf’kr djrh gSA

vuqlwph

Ø-

Lka-

dk-vk-la- ,o afnuakd

Xkk¡o dk uke

rglhy

ftYkk

jkT;

izpkyu

dh lekfIr

dh rkjh[k

323 (v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak- 01lEcyiqj Vkmu]

;wfuV& 1] Hkrjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

323 (v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak- 02 lEcyiqj

Vkmu] ;wfuV& 2]

/kuqikfy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

323 (v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak- 03 egkunh ‘[k’

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

323 (v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak- 04 >kjkikfy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

323 (v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak- 05 pkSajiqj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

323 (v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak- 06 cM+flagkfj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

323 (v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak- 07 clUriqj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

323 (v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak- 08 dykekfV

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 01 gkfyikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 02 d.Vkbikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 03 xqyqf.Mikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 04 ekus'oj

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6603

Ø-

Lka-

dk-vk-la- ,o afnuakd

Xkk¡o dk uke

rglhy

ftYkk

jkT;

izpkyu

dh lekfIr

dh rkjh[k

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 05 xqyq.Mk

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 06 uDlkikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 07 [kbjkikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 08 flUnqjiad

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 09 n.Mkbikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 10 dqnksikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 11 BsEksjk

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 12 XkqMsfLkagk

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 13 [kqfy;k

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 14 rcyk

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 15 IkjEkk.kIkqj

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 16 [k.Mqvky

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

700(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 17 eBikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

3 701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 01 ckjMqaxqfj

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 02 dqlqefMfg

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 03 xqeyks,

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 04 >kadjikfy

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 05 Bq:ikfy

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 06 ykmeky

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 07 cklqikfy

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 08 :f.kegqy

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 09 fdjkca/k

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 10 yksgk[kafM

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 11 fduyks,

jsaxkyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

701(v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak- 12 ykaxckgky

jsxakyh

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332(v) fnuakd 08.06.2011

Uak- 01 cMeky

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd 08.06.2011

Uak- 02 ?kksMkfMg

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd 08.06.2011

Uak- 03 vU/kkfj

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd 08.06.2011

Uak- 04 ykaxckgky

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 05 fyfi.Mk

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 06 ukjafxikfy

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 07 tqtkseqjk

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 08 dalj

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 09 xM+xM+ckgky

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 10 fHke[kkst

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 11 uwvkegqyikfy

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 12 gkrhckfj

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 13 eq.Msj

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd08.06.2011

Uak- 14 Hkckfuikfy

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd 08.06.2011

Uak-15 >kadjikfy

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1332 (v) fnuakd 08.06.2011

Uak-16 xECkkjiad

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-01 f>afdnknj

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-02 [ktqfj>j.k

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-03 dqygefy;k

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-04 cMdqMk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

6604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ø-

Lka-

dk-vk-la- ,o afnuakd

Xkk¡o dk uke

rglhy

ftYkk

jkT;

izpkyu

dh lekfIr

dh rkjh[k

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-05 ukjk;.kiqj

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-06 [k.Mgrk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-07 frysbeky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-08 cMckgky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-09 >jkeq.Mk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-10 dsykdVk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-11 dsUnqdVk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-12 iq#.kkxM

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-13 dqfg

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-14 iksMkcy.Mk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-15 cMeky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-16 ckjckad

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-17 gsykb

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-18 ew"kkdVk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-19 ckm¡'ktky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-20 ,jf.Mckgky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-21 dsmkVckgky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-22 eqxiky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-23 dqfYgvk ckgky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-24 vkEcnj

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-25 eqfpckgky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1263(v) fnuakd 01.06.2011

Uak-26 lR;kuUnikfy

vksjQ x,ypjk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

959 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-01 xskfoUniqj

Vkmu] ;wfuV&1]

xskfoUniqj

ckejk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

959 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-02 xqykZ

ckejk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

959 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-03 cEQsbZ

ckejk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

959 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-04 ?kqeqMqeky

ckejk

lEcyiqj

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-01 dqesyflagk

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-02 eg[k.M

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

21-09-2017

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-03 nqyeiqj

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

27-02-2018

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-04 dqtkikfy

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

21-09-2017

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-05 xksMHkxk

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

21-09-2017

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-06 pdqfy

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

21-09-2017

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-07 ljUMk

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

21-09-2017

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-08 vrkfcjk

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

27-02-2018

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-09 Hkqb¡iqjk

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

21-09-2017

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-10 yknjikfy

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

21-09-2017

253 (v) fnuakd 07.02.2011

Uak-11 tàkiMk

vrkfcjk

cjx<+

mMhLkk

27-02-2018

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-01 dykikf.k

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-02 cjkgxksMk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-03 vkEolMk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-04 rksjk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-05 :Uxf.kvk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6605

Ø-

Lka-

dk-vk-la- ,o afnuakd

Xkk¡o dk uke

rglhy

ftYkk

jkT;

izpkyu

dh lekfIr

dh rkjh[k

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-06 ljljk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-07 xqMsfljk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-08 fuyslj

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-09 iFkykZ

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-10 pdjdsUn

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-11 KkUdjikfy

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

321(v) fnuakd 11.02.2011

Uak-12 dsUnikfy

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-01 fcflikfy

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-02 uvxk¡

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-03 MqEcsjikfy

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-04 duxk¡

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-05 xHkZ.kk

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-06 ckfnikfy

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-07 fiifyikfy

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-08 cqMkeky

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-09 dsUneqfUM

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-10 lksgsyk

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-11 Mqesjikfy

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-12 fcfjikfy

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-13 vjtq.Mk

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

385(v)fnuakd 16.02.2011

Uak-14 iUMfdikfy

lksgsyk

cjxM+

mM+hLkk

28-02-2017

655(v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-01 lksMkeky

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-02 Lkekfla/kk

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-03 rjsdsyk

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-04 Lkky~gsikfy

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-05 M.MkcqMk

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-06 irjkikfy

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-07 ijekuiqj

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-08 [kqukikfy

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-09 tkeeky

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-10 jsUxkfyikfy

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

31-08-2017

655 (v) fnuakd 30.03.2011

Uak-11 dsys.Mkeky

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2017

704 (v) fnuakd 07.04.2011

Uak-07 >kjlqxqMk Vkmu

;wfuV ua 8 ekfyeq.Mk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

21-09-2017

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-01 flvkyjek

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-02 lkjlikfy

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-03 /kqrqjk

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-04 vMkZ

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-05 dknksckgky

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-06 cjfVdjk

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-07 HkksbfMfg

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-08 lkjleky

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-09 rsfyfMfg

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-10 >kjeq.Mk

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

834 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-11 g.Mkrqik

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

6606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ø-

Lka-

dk-vk-la- ,o afnuakd

Xkk¡o dk uke

rglhy

ftYkk

jkT;

izpkyu

dh lekfIr

dh rkjh[k

836 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-01 ysfMeUx

lqanjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

836 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-02 lqvk¡eky

lqanjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

836 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-03 cqnsydkuh

lqanjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

836 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-04 [ksfjvkdkuh

lqanjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

836 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-05 /k:vkfMfg

lqanjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

836 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-06 fQfjUxckgky

lqanjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

836 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-07 dqyVk

lqanjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

836 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-08 dkiqfVfdjk

lqanjx<+

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-01 dqjsbcxk

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-02 Nkeq.Mk

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-03 lkysikfy

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-04 Qqyckfj

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-05 fcjlq

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-06 nqjhiks"k

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-07 cqnuk

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-08 ckm¡lsu

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-09 pkfcfj

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1021 (v) fnuakd 10.05.2011

Uak-10 egqijk

cMxk¡

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

2103 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-01 jktclk

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-02 cqMkdVk

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-03 udfVlku

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-04 rsfy?k.kk

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-05 dq=k

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-06 fyfVcsMk

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-07 dVax

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-08 #ekckgky

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-09 MqMqdkckgky

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-10 frysbeky

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-11 dsljkeky

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-12 >kxjiqj

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-13 jkbcs.kkZ

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

1579 (v) fnuakd 08.07.2011

Uak-14 ykbax

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-01 eUnkfj;k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-02 [ksjkiks"k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-03 m"kqjk

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-04 Mqesjtksj

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-05 txfn'kiqj

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-06 pkU?ksiks"k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-07 ykaftcs.kkZ

ikuiks"k

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6607

Ø-

Lka-

dk-vk-la- ,o afnuakd

Xkk¡o dk uke

rglhy

ftYkk

jkT;

izpkyu

dh lekfIr

dh rkjh[k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-08 dqvk¡jeq.Mk

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-09 lj.Mkiks"k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-10 lj.Mkeky

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-11 rsfyiks"k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-12 nqefdflfgfj;k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-13 dkyksflfgfj;k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-14 iqVqjh[ke.k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-15 lq[kkcU/k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-16 ykyfcjxka

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

958 (v) fnuakd 02.05.2011

Uak-17 dqnkcsMk

ikuiks"k

¼dqvk¡jeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

837(v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-01 tyaxchjk

fcjfe=iqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

837 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-02 djMsxk

fcjfe=iqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

837 (v) fnuakd 27.04.2011

Uak-03 cudqck

fcjfe=iqj

lqanjxM

mM+hLkk

27-02-2018

199 fnuakd 3 0.01.2018

Uak-01 cqM+kdVk

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

199 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03 udfVlku

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

199 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-04 rsfy?k.kk

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

199 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-05 dq=k

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

199 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-06 daVx

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

199 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-07 dsljeky

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

199 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-08 jkbcs.kZk

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

199 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-09 ykbax

jktxkaxiqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

200fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 xqyq.Mk

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

200 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-02 uDlkikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

200 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03BsEksjk

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

200 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-04dqnksikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

200 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-05XkqMsfLkagk

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

200 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-06 gkfyikfy

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

200 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-07IkjEkk.kIkqj

ekus'oj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

201fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 dqjsbcxk

cMxkW

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

201 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-02 Nkeq.Mk

cMxkW

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

201 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03 cqnquk

cMxkW

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

201 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-04 pkfcfj

cMxkW

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

6608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ø-

Lka-

dk-vk-la- ,o afnuakd

Xkk¡o dk uke

rglhy

ftYkk

jkT;

izpkyu

dh lekfIr

dh rkjh[k

202fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 dsys.Mkeky

dskykfcjk

>kjlqxqMk

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 m"kqjk

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-02 Mqesjtksj

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03 ykaftcs.kZk

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-04 lj.Mkiks"k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-05 lj.Mkeky

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-06 dqvkWjeq.Mk

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-07 rsfyiks"k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-08 iqVqjh[ke.k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-09 lq[kkcU/k

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-10 ykyfcjxka

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

203 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-11 dqnkcsMk

ikuiks"k

¼dqvkWjeq.Mk½

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

204fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 /kqrqjk

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

204 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-02 vMZk

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

204 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03 dknksckgky

fdjfejk

>kjlqxqMk

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

205fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 dqyVk

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

206fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 tyaxchjk

fcjfe=iqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

206 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-02 djMsxk

fcjfe=iqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

206 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03 cudqck

fcjfe=iqj

lqanjxM

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

207 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 cEQsbZ

ckejk

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

208 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 ukjafxikfy

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

208 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-02 fHke[kkst

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

208 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03 uqvkegqyikfy

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

208 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-04 eq.<sj

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

208 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-05 >kadjikfy

tqtkseqjk

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 dqygefy;k

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-02 ukjk;.kiqj

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03 dsykdVk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-04 dqfg

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-05 iksMkcy.Mk

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-06 cMeky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-07 ckjckad

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6609

Ø-

Lka-

dk-vk-la- ,o afnuakd

Xkk¡o dk uke

rglhy

ftYkk

jkT;

izpkyu

dh lekfIr

dh rkjh[k

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-08 gsykb

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

209 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-09 ckm¡'ktky

js<+k[kksy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

210 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-01 >jkikfy

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

210 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-02 pk¡jiqj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

210 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-03 cM+flagkfj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

210 fnuakd 30.01.2018

Uak-04 clUriqj

lEcyiqj

ओिडशा

27-02-2018

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)4/2018-ओआर-I/ई-22376]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1617.—And whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas S.O. Number and dated as mentioned in the schedule below issued under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government

acquired the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to those notification.

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

Government here by vested the right of user in said land, free from all encumbrances, in the Indian Oil Corporation

Limited;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the laying of pipeline

for the purpose of transportation, of petroleum products under Paradip-Raipur-Ranchi Pipeline Project completed in the

State of Odisha, Tehsils Sambalpur, Maneswar, Rengali, Jujomura, Rairakhol and Bamra of Sambalpur district, Tehsil

Attabira, Baragrh and Sohela of Baragrh district, Tehsil Kolabira, Jharsuguda and Kirmira of Jharsuguda district, Tehsil

Sundargarh, Bargaon , Rajgangpur, Panposh (Kuarmunda) and Birmitrapur of Sundaragrh district,therefore operation in

ROW (Right of Way) land has been closed and description of which in brief is specified in the Schedule annexed to

notification;

Now therefore, as required under explanation – 1 of rule 4 the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquired of

Right of User in Land) rules 1963, the Central Government hereby declares the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the said

Schedule as the dates of termination of operation.

SCHEDULE

Sr.

No.

S.O. No. and Date

Name of Village

Tehsil

District

State

Closing

date

323(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 01 Sambalpur

Town, Unit- 1, Bhatra

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

323(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 02 Sambalpur

Town, Unit-2,

Dhanupali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

323(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 03 Mahanadhi

‘KHA’

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

323(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 04 Jharapali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

323(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 05 Chaunrpur

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

323(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 06Badsinghari

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

323(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 07Basantpur

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

323(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 08Kalamati

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 01 Halipali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No.02 Kantaipali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 03 Gulundipali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 04 Maneswar

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

6610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sr.

No.

S.O. No. and Date

Name of Village

Tehsil

District

State

Closing

date

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 05 Gulunda

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 06 Naxapali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 07Khairapali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 08Sindurpank

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 09Dandaipali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 10Kudopali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 11Themara

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 12 Gudesingha

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 13 Khulia

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 14 Tabla

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 15 Parmanpur

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 16 Khandual

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

700(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 17Mathpali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E)Date 07.04.2011

No. 01 Baradunguri

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 02 Kusumdihi

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 03 Gumloi

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 04 Jhankarpali

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 05 Thurupali

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 06Laumal

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 07Basupali

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 08Runimahul

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 09Kirabandh

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 10Lohakhandi

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 11Kinaloi

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

701(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 12Langbahal

Rengali

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 01Badamal

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 02Ghodadiha

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 03Andhari

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 04 Langbahal

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 05Lipinda

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 06Narangipali

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 07Jujomura

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 08Kansor

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 09 Gargarbahal

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 10Bhimkhoj

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 11 Nuamahulpali

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 12Hatibari

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 13Mundher

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 14Bhabanipali

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 15 Jhankarpali

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1332(E) Date 08.06.2011

No. 16Gambarpank

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E)Date 01.06.2011

No. 01Jhinkidadar

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 02Khajurijharan

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 03Kulhamalia

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 04Barakura

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 05Narayanpur

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 06Khandahata

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 07Tileimal

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 08 Badabahal

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 09Jharamunda

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 10Kelakata

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 11Kendukata

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 12Purunagara

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 13Kuhi

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 14Podabalanda

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 15Badamal

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6611

Sr.

No.

S.O. No. and Date

Name of Village

Tehsil

District

State

Closing

date

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 16Barabank

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 17Helai

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 18Musakata

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 19Baunshajala

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 20Erandibahal

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 21Keutibahal

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 22Mugapala

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 23Kulhiabahal

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 24Ambadar

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 25Muchibahala

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

1263(E) Date 01.06.2011

No. 26Satyanandapali

Alias Gaelchara

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

959(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 01Govindapur

Town, Unit No.1,

Govindapur

Bamra

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

959(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 02Gurla

Bamra

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

959(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 03Bamphei

Bamra

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

959(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 04Ghumudumal

Bamra

Sambalpur

Orissa

27-02-2018

253(E)Date 07.02.2011

No. 01 Kumelsingha

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 02 Mahakhand

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 03 Dulampur

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 04 Kujapali

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 05 Godabhaga

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 06 Chakuli

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 07 Saranda

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 08 Attabira

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 09 Bhuinpura

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 10 Ladarpali

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

253(E) Date 07.02.2011

No. 11 Jahnapada

Attabira

Bargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 1Kalapani

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 2Barahagoda

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 3 Ambasada

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 4Tora

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 5Rungnia

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 6Sarsara

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 7Gudesira

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 8Nileshar

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 9Patharla

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 10 Chakarkend

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 11Jhankarpali

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

321(E) Date 11.02.2011

No. 12Kendpali

Bargarh

Orissa

21-09-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 01Bisipali

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 02 Nagan

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 03Dumberpali

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 04Kangan

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 05Garbhana

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 06Badipali

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 07Piplipali

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 08Budamal

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 09Kendmundi

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 10Sohela

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 11 Dumerpali

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 12Birhipali

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 13Arjunda

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

385(E) Date 16.02.2011

No. 14Pandakipali

Sohela

Bargarh

Orissa

28-02-2017

6612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sr.

No.

S.O. No. and Date

Name of Village

Tehsil

District

State

Closing

date

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 01 Sodamal

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 02 Samasingha

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 03 Tarekela

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 04Salhepali

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 05Dandabuda

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 06Patrapali

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 07Paramanpur

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 08Khunapali

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 09 Jammal

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 10Rengalipali

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

31-08-2017

655(E) Date 30.03.2011

No. 11 Kelendamal

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

704(E) Date 07.04.2011

No. 01Jharsuguda

Town, Unit No. 8

Malimunda

Jharsuguda

Orissa

21-09-2017

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 01Sialrama

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 02 Saraspali

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 03Dhutura

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 04 Arda

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 05Kadobahal

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 06Bartikra

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 07Bhoidihi

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 08 Sarasamal

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 09Telidihi

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 10Jharmunda

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

834 (E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 11Handatupa

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Orissa

27-02-2018

836(E)Date 27.04.2011

No. 01Ledimanga

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

836(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 02Suanmal

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

836(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 03Budelkani

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

836(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 04Kheriakani

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

836(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 05Dharuadihi

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

836(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 06 Phiringabahal

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

836(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 07Kulata

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

836(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 08Kaputikira

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 01Kureibaga

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 02Chhamunda

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 03Salepali

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 04Fulbari

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 05Birsu

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 06Turiposh

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 07Buduna

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 08Baunsen

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 09Chabiri

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1021(E) Date 10.05.2011

No. 10Mahupara

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

2103(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 01Rajabasa

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 02Budhakta

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 03Naktisan

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 04 Telighana

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 05 Kutra

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 06 Litibeda

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 07 Katanga

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 08 Rumabahal

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 09 Dudukabahal

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 10 Tileimal

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 11 Keshramal

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 12 Jhagarpur

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 13 Raiberna

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6613

Sr.

No.

S.O. No. and Date

Name of Village

Tehsil

District

State

Closing

date

1579(E) Date 08.07.2011

No. 14Laing

Rajgangapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 01 Mandaria

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 02 Kheraposh

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 03 Usura

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 04 Dumerjore

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 05 Jagadishpur

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 06 Chandiposh

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 07 Langiberna

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 08 Kuaramunda

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 09 Sarandaposh

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 10 Sarandamal

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 11 Teliposh

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 12 Dumkisihiria

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 13 Kalosihiria

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 14 Puturikhamana

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 15 Sukhabanda

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 16 Lalabiranga

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

958(E) Date 02.05.2011

No. 17 Kudabera

Panposh

(Kuaramunda)

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

837(E)Date 27.04.2011

No. 01 Jalangabira

Biramitrapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

837(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 02 Karadega

Biramitrapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

837(E) Date 27.04.2011

No. 03 Banakuba

Biramitrapur

Sundargarh

Orissa

27-02-2018

199 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Budhakta

Rajgangpur

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

199 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Naktisan

Rajgangpur

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

199 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Telighana

Rajgangpur

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

199 Date 30.01.2018

No. 04 Kutra

Rajgangpur

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

199 Date 30.01.2018

No. 05 Katang

Rajgangpur

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

199 Date 30.01.2018

No. 06 Keshramal

Rajgangpur

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

199 Date 30.01.2018

No. 07 Raiberna

Rajgangpur

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

199 Date 30.01.2018

No. 08Lainga

Rajgangpur

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

200 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01Gulunda

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

200 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Naxapali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

200 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Themera

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

200 Date 30.01.2018

No. 04 Kudopali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

200 Date 30.01.2018

No. 05 Gudesingha

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

200 Date 30.01.2018

No. 06 Halipali

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

200 Date 30.01.2018

No. 07 Parmanpur

Maneswar

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

201 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Kureibaga

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

201 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Chhamunda

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

201 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Budana

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

6614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sr.

No.

S.O. No. and Date

Name of Village

Tehsil

District

State

Closing

date

201 Date 30.01.2018

No. 04 Chabiri

Bargaon

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

202 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Kelendamal

Kolabira

Jharsuguda

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Ushra

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Dumerjore

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Lajiberna

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 04 Sarandaposh

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 05 Sarandamal

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 06 Kuarmunda

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 07 Teliposh

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 08 Puturikhaman

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 09 Sukaband

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 10 Lalbiranga

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

203 Date 30.01.2018

No. 11 Kudabeda

Panposh

(Kuarmunda )

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

204 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Dhutura

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Odisha

27-02-2018

204 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Arda

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Odisha

27-02-2018

204 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Kadobahal

Kirmira

Jharsuguda

Odisha

27-02-2018

205 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Kulata

Sundargarh

Odisha

27-02-2018

206 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Jalangabira

Biramitrapur

Sundargarh

Oidhsa

27-02-2018

206 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Karadega

Biramitrapur

Sundargarh

Oidhsa

27-02-2018

206 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Bankuba

Biramitrapur

Sundargarh

Oidhsa

27-02-2018

207 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Bamphei

Bamra

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

208 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Narangipali

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

208 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Bhimkhoj

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

208 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Nuamuhulpali

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

208 Date 30.01.2018

No. 04 Mundher

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

208 Date 30.01.2018

No. 05 Jhankarpali

Jujomura

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Kulhamalia

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Narayanpur

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Kelakata

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 04 Khuhi

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 05 Podabalanda

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 06 Badamal

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 07 Barabanka

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 08 Helai

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

209 Date 30.01.2018

No. 09 Baunsajala

Rairakhol

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

210 Date 30.01.2018

No. 01 Jharapali

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

210 Date 30.01.2018

No. 02 Chaunrpur

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

210 Date 30.01.2018

No. 03 Badsinghari

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

210 Date 30.01.2018

No. 04 Basantpur

Sambalpur

Odisha

27-02-2018

[F. No. R-11025(11)4/2018-OR-I/E-22376]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6615

कोयला मं"ालय

नई दली, 28 अगF त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1618

1618

1618.—के+,ीय सरकार को यह !तीत होता है क, इससे उपाबƒ अनुसूची म3 वणत पर<ेN क भूिम म3 से

कोयला अिभ!ा; कये जाने क संभावना है ;

और, उ/ अनुसूची म3 वणत भूिम के <ेN म3 अंतव@ करने वाला रेखांक संgया एमपीसीबी/रेवे+यु p लान/2019-

20/01, तारीख 18 जुलाई, 2019 का िनरी<ण भारत कोrकंग कोल िलिमटेड(सWपदा िवभाग),कोयला भवन, कोयला

नगर,धनबाद – 826005, झारखंड अथवा महा!बंधक, िवQमिशला <ेN/ िनदेशक (तकनीक) योजना और परयोजना के

तकनीक सिचव, भारत कोrकंग कोल िलिमटेड, कोयला भवन, कोयला नगर, धनबाद - 826005 झारखwड अथवा िजला

कल$टर, िजला भागलपुर (िबहार) अथवा महा !बंधक (खोज !भाग), स3]ल माइन pला\नंग एwड िडजाइन इ+Fटी…यूट

िलिमटेड, ग%दवाना पैलेस, कांके रोड ,रांची – 834008 (झारखंड) अथवा स3]ल माइन pला\नंग एwड िडजाइन इ+Fटी…यूट,

रीजनल इ+Fटी…यूट (II), कोयला भवन काWपले$स, कोयला नगर, धनबाद-826 005, झारखंड अथवा कोयला िनयंNक, 1,

कांउिसल हाउस F]ीट, कोलकाता- 700001 के कायालय म3 कया जा सकता है ;

अतः अब,के+,ीय सरकार,कोयला धारक <ेN (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम 1957 (1957 का 20 ) ( िजसे इसम3

इसके पAात उ/ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उपधारा (1) ारा !दO शि/य% का !योग करते )ए, उ/ भूिम म3

कोयले का पूव€<ण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ।

उपयु/ अनुसूची म3 उिलिखत भूिम म3 िहतबƒ कोई † यि$ त -

(i)

संपूण भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या उ/ भूिम म3 या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अजन पर आ<ेप कर सकेगा ;

या

(ii) उसक धारा 4 क उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क गयी कसी कायवाही से )ई या होने वाली संभािवत कसी <ित के

िलए अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन !ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा ; या

(iii) उ$ त अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन पूव€<ण अनुिp तय% के !भावहीन होने के संबंध म3 या

उ$ त अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (4) के अधीन खनन पhे के !भावहीन होने के िलए !ितकर का दावा

कर सकेगा और उसे उ$ त अिधनयम क धारा 13 क उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म3 िविनyदo ट मद% क

बाबत उपगत † यय को उपदशत करने के िलए पूव{$ त भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचN%, चाटˆ और अ+ य

दF तावेज% को परद" त कर सकेगा,

इस अिधसूचना के राजपN म3 !काशन क तारीख से न~ बे दन के भीतर, महा!बंधक, िवQमिशला <ेN/ िनदेशक (तकनीक)

योजना और परयोजना के तकनीक सिचव, भारत कोrकंग कोल िलिमटेड, कोयला भवन, कोयला नगर, धनबाद-826 005

(झारखंड) अथवा महा !बंधक (सWपदा), भारत कोrकंग कोल िलिमटेड, कोयला भवन, कोयला नगर, धनबाद-826 005

(झारखंड) को भेज सकेगा ।

6616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूची

मंदार पवत कोल खनन ~लाक

िजला - भागलपुर (िबहार)

(रेखांक संgया एमपीसीबी/रेवे+यु p लान/2019-20/01, तारीख 18 जुलाई, 2019)

Qम सं.

^ाम का नाम

थाना

^ाम संgया

िजला

<ेNफल

(हे$टेयर म3)

<ेNफल

(एकड़ म3)

टpपिणयां

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

जगरनाथपूर

कोलगंग

304

भागलपुर

0.0100

00.02471

भाग

‰Šचारी

कोलगंग

305

भागलपुर

41.1769

101.7481

भाग

जेठयाना

कोलगंग

306

भागलपुर

14.8907

36.79492

भाग

लगमा

कोलगंग

307

भागलपुर

245.5445

606.7405

भाग

िसयान

कोलगंग

311

भागलपुर

308.6867

762.7648

भाग

कैरया

कोलगंग

312

भागलपुर

191.9272

474.2521

भाग

सेमारया

कोलगंग

333

भागलपुर

7.4285

18.35582

भाग

जंगल गोपाली

िमिलक

कोलगंग

335

भागलपुर

14.6386

36.17198

भाग

जंगल गोपाली

कोलगंग

336

भागलपुर

61.9847

153.1642

भाग

10.

जेठयाना िमिलक

कोलगंग

337

भागलपुर

2.2587

5.581248

भाग

11.

रतनपुर दोयेम

कोलगंग

338

भागलपुर

0.0100

00.02471

भाग

कुल:

888.5565

2195.623

कुल <ेNफल: 888.5565 हे$ टेयर (लगभग) अथवा 2195.623 एकड (लगभग)

सीमा - वणन :

(1) 1-2 रेखा ‰Šचारी मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 1 से आरंभ होती है और पूव दशा क ओर लगमा मौजा होते )ए िसयान

मौजा क पूवŒ सीमांत म3 िब+दु संgया 2 तक जाती है।

(2) 2-3 रेखा िसयान मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 2 से आरंभ होकर दि<ण- पिAम दशा क ओर िसयान मौजा क पूवŒ सीमांत

बराबर िसयान मौजा क िब+दु संgया 3 तक जाती है।

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6617

(3) 3-4 रेखा िसयान मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 3 से आरंभ होकर दि<ण – पूव दशा म3 मौजा िसयान म3 िब+दु संgया 4 तक

जाती है।

(4) 4-5 रेखा मौजा िसयान म3 िब+दु संgया 4 से आरंभ होकर दि<ण- पिAम दशा क ओर मौजा िसयान जो मौजा

कैरया के बीच धुिलया नाला पर िब+दु संgया 5 तक जाती है ।

(5) 5-6 रेखा मौजा िसयान म3 िब+दु संgया 5 से आरंभ होती है और धुिलया नाला के साथ साथ दि<ण दशा क ओर मौजा

कैरया के पूवŒ सीमांत के िनकट िब+दु संgया 6 तक जाती है।

(6) 6-7 रेखा मौजा कैरया म3 िब+दु संgया 6 से आरंभ होती है और दि<ण दशा क ओर कैरया मौजा क पूवŒ सीमांत

बराबर िब+दु संgया 7 तक जाती है ।

(7) 7-8 रेखा कैरया मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 7 से आरंभ होती है और दि<ण-पिAम दशा क ओर कैरया मौजा म3 िब+दु

संgया 8 तक जाती है ।

(8) 8-9 रेखा कैरया मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 8 से आरंभ होती है और उOर- पिAम दशा क ओर कैरया मौजा म3 िब+दु

संgया 9 तक जाती है ।

(9) 9-10 रेखा कैरया मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 9 से आरंभ होती है और दि<ण-पिAम दशा क ओर सेमरया मौजा म3 िब+दु

संgया 10 तक जाती है ।

(10) 10-11 रेखा सेमरया मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 10 से आरंभ होती है और उOर-पिAम दशा क ओर मौजा जंगल

गोपाली होते )ए जंगल गोपाली मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया11

तक जाती है ।

(11) 11-12 रेखा जंगल गोपाली मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 11 से आरंभ होती है और उ" तर दशा क ओर मौजा जेठअना

िमिलक होते )ए जेठअना मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 12 तक जाती है ।

(12)

12-1 रेखा जेठअना मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 12 से आरंभ होती है तथा जगरनाथपुर मौजा होते )ए उOर – पिAम

दशा क ओर सीमा के !ारंिभक िब+दु से ‰Šचारी मौजा म3 िब+दु संgया 1 से जाकर अंतत: िमलती है।

[फा. सं. 43015/14/2019-एलए एwड आईआर]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 28^th August,2019

S.O. 1618.—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 MPCB/Revenue Plan/2019-20/01, dated the 18^th July, 2019, containing

details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Bharat Coking Coal

Limited (Estate Department), Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad- 826005, Jharkhand or at the office of the General

Manager, Vikramshila Area/TS to D(T) P and P, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-

826005, Jharkhand or District Collector, District Bhagalpur (Bihar) or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration

Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi – 834 008

(Jharkhand) and Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Regional Institute(II), Koyla Bhawan Complex, Koyla

Nagar, Dhanbad- 826005, Jharkhand or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule may -

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

(ii)

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

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

6618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(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, Vikramshila Area/TS to D(T) P and P, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-

826005 (Jharkhand) or General Manager (Estate), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad-

826005 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Mandar Parvat Coal Mining Block

District Bhagalpur (Bihar)

[ Plan bearing number MPCB/Revenue Plan/2019-20/01, dated the 18^th July, 2019 ]

Sl.

No.

Name of the village

Thana

Village

number

District

Area

(in hectares

approximately)

Area

(in acres

approximately)

Remarks

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Jagarnathpur

Kolgang

304

Bhagalpur

0.0100

00.02471

Part

Brahmchari

Kolgang

305

Bhagalpur

41.1769

101.7481

Part

Jethiana

Kolgang

306

Bhagalpur

14.8907

36.79492

Part

Lagma

Kolgang

307

Bhagalpur

245.5445

606.7405

Part

Sian

Kolgang

311

Bhagalpur

308.6867

762.7648

Part

Kairia

Kolgang

312

Bhagalpur

191.9272

474.2521

Part

Semaria

Kolgang

333

Bhagalpur

7.4285

18.35582

Part

Jangal Gopali Milik

Kolgang

335

Bhagalpur

14.6386

36.17198

Part

Jangal Gopali

Kolgang

336

Bhagalpur

61.9847

153.1642

Part

10.

Jethiana Milik

Kolgang

337

Bhagalpur

2.2587

5.581248

Part

11.

Ratanpur Doyem

Kolgang

338

Bhagalpur

0.0100

00.02471

Part

Total :

888.5565

2195.623

Total Area : 888.5565 hectares (approximately) or 2195.623 acres (approximately)

Boundary Description:

(1) 1-2

Line starts from Point No. 1 in Mouza Brahmachari towards East direction traversing Mouza Lagma and

Sian and meeting Point No. 2 at the easternmost border of Mouza Sian.

(2) 2-3

Line starts from Point No. 2 of Mouza Sian towards South-West direction along the eastern border of Sian

up to Point No. 3 in Mouza Sian.

(3) 3-4

Line starts from Point No. 3 in Mouza Sian towards South-East direction up to Point No. 4 in Mouza Sian.

(4) 4-5

Line starts from Point No. 4 towards South-West direction tracing along the eastern border of Mouza Sian

up to Point No. 5 meeting Dhulia Nala which lies between Mouza Sian and Mouza Kairia.

(5) 5-6

Line starts from Point No. 5 tracing along Dhulia Nala and meeting Point No. 6 at the easternmost margin

of Mouza Kairia.

(6) 6-7

Line starts from Point No. 6 at the easternmost border of Mouza Kairia towards South direction along

eastern border of Mouza Kairia up to Point No. 7.

(7) 7-8

Line Starts from Point No. 7 in Mouza Kairia towards South-West direction up to Point No. 8 in Mouza

Kairia.

(8) 8-9

Line starts from Point No. 8 in Mouza Kairia and traversing towards North-West direction meeting Point

No. 9 of Mouza Kairia.

(9) 9-10 Line starts from Point No. 9 in Mouza Kairia towards South-West direction up to Point No. 10 at the

Mouza Semaria.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6619

(10) 10-11 Line starts from Point No. 10 in Mouza Semaria towards North-West direction and traversing through

Mouza Jangal Gopali Milik, up to Point No. 11 in Mouza Jangal Gopali.

(11) 11-12 Line starts from point No. 11 in Mouza Jangal Gopali towards North direction traversing through Mouza

Jethiana Milik up to Point No. 12 at Mouza Jethiana.

(12) 12-1 Line starts from Point No. 12 in Mouza Jethiana along North-West direction and finally meeting the

starting Point No. 1 in Mouza Brahmachari.

[F. No. 43015/14/2019-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

नई दली, 29 अगF त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1619

1619

1619.—के+,ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक <ेN (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) क

धारा 4 क उप-धारा (1) ारा शि/य% का !योग करते )ए, भारत सरकार के कोयला मंNालय क अिधसूचना संgयांक

का.आ. 1796, 13 दसWबर, 2018, जो भारत के राजपN, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 22 दसWबर, 2018 म3

!कािशत क गई थी, म3 िन4िलिखत संशोधन करती है, अथात् :-

2. उ/ अिधसूचना क अनुसूची म3, --

(क) ‘’ रेखांक संgया यूपीआरवीयूएनएल/4(1)/योजना/राजFव/01, तारीख 24 िसतWबर, 2018’’, के Fथान पर

िन4िलिखत रखा जाएगा:-

‘‘ रेखांक संgया यूपीआरवीयूएनएल/4(1)/योजना/राजFव/1, तारीख 24 िसतWबर, 2018’’ ;

(ख) ‘‘^ाम का नाम’’ शीषक के अधीन, --

(i) Qम संgया 1 के सामने, श~द ‘कौरगढ़’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘कोरीगड’ रखा जाएगा ;

(ii) Qम संgया 3 के सामने, श~द ‘पहारमचुआन’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘पहाड़ आमचुआ’ रखा जाएगा;

(iii) Qम संgया 11 के सामने, श~द ‘पहाड़पुर’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘पहाड़पुर (हरपुर)’ रखा जाएगा;

(iv) Qम संgया 17 के सामने, श~द ‘लताकंदर’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘लताका+दर’ रखा जाएगा;

(ग) शीषक ‘पटवारी सyकल संgया/थाना संgया’ के Fथान पर ‘पटवारी सyक ल का नाम और संgया’ शीषक रखा

जाएगा ;

(घ) ‘पटवारी सyक ल का नाम और संgया’ शीषक के अधीन, इस !कार से रखे जाएंगे, --

(i)

Qम संgया 1 के सामने आंकड़े ‘32’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘जगतपुर,32’ रखे जाएंगे;

(ii)

Qम संgया 2 के सामने आंकड़े ‘1’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘बेनागिडया,1’ रखे जाएंगे;

(iii)

Qम संgया 3 के सामने आंकड़े ‘2’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘बेनागिडया, 2’ रखे जाएंगे;

(iv)

Qम संgया 4 के सामने आंकड़े ‘4’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 4’ रखे जाएंगे ;

(v)

Qम संgया 5 के सामने आंकड़े ‘5’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 5’ रखे जाएंगे;

(vi)

Qम संgया 6 के सामने आंकड़े ‘7’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 7’ रखे जाएंगे;

(vii)

Qम संgया 7 के सामने आंकड़े ‘6’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 6’ रखे जाएंगे;

(viii)

Qम संgया 8 के सामने आंकड़े ‘4’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘बेनागिडया, 4’ रखे जाएंगे;

6620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ix)

Qम संgया 9 के सामने आंकड़े ‘6’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘बेनागिडया, 6’ रखे जाएंगे;

(x)

Qम संgया 10 के सामने आंकड़े ‘5’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘बेनागिडया, 5’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xi)

Qम संgया 11 के सामने आंकड़े ‘13’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘बेनागिडया, 13’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xii)

Qम संgया 12 के सामने आंकड़े ‘14’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘बेनागिडया, 14’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xiii)

Qम संgया 13 के सामने आंकड़े ‘12’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 12’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xiv)

Qम संgया 14 के सामने आंकड़े ‘11’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 11’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xv)

Qम संgया 15 के सामने आंकड़े ‘14’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 14’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xvi)

Qम संgया 16 के सामने आंकड़े ‘15’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 15’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xvii)

Qम संgया 17 के सामने आंकड़े ‘10’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 10’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xviii) Qम संgया 18 के सामने आंकड़े ‘8’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 8’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xix)

Qम संgया 19 के सामने आंकड़े ‘2’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 2’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xx)

Qम संgया 20 के सामने आंकड़े ‘25’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘जगतपुर, 25’ रखे जाएंगे;

(xxi)

Qम संgया 21 के सामने आंकड़े ‘3’ के Fथान पर श~द और आंकड़े ‘हरपुर, 3’ रखे जाएंगे;

(घ) ‘सीमा वणन’ शीषक के अधीन, --

(i)

Qम संgया 1, 24 और 25 के सामने, श~द ‘कौरगढ़ ^ाम ’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘कोरीगड ^ाम’ रखा जाएगा;

(ii)

Qम संgया 7, 8 और 9 के सामने, श~द ‘जाŽपानी ^ाम ’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘जमSपानी ^ाम’ रखा जाएगा;

(iii)

Qम संgया 8, 9 और 10 के सामने, श~द ‘लताकंदर ^ाम ’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘लताका+दर ^ाम’ रखा

जाएगा;

(iv)

Qम संgया 10 और 12 के सामने, श~द ‘बड़ा चपिडया’ और श~द ‘छोटा चपि़डया’ के Fथान पर श~द

‘वडाचापडीया’ और श~द ‘छोटाचापुडीया’ रखा जाएगा;

(v)

Qम संgया 11, 12, 13,14, 15 और 16 के सामने, श~द ‘सारसदंगल ^ाम’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘सरसडांगा

^ाम’ रखा जाएगा;

(vi)

Qम संgया 16 के सामने, श~द ‘पहाड़पुर’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘पहाड़पुर (हरपुर) ^ाम’ रखा जाएगा;

(vii)

Qम संgया 23 और 24 के सामने, श~द ‘पहारमचुआन ^ाम ’ के Fथान पर श~द ‘पहाड़ आमचुआ ^ाम’ रखा

जाएगा;

[फा. सं. 43015/16/2018-एलए एwड आईआर]

मुकेश, अवर सिचव

)ट*पण :

)ट*पण : मूल अिधसूचना, अिधसूचना संgयांक का.आ. 1796, तारीख 22 दसWबर, 2018, ारा भारत के राजपN, भाग II,

खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii) म3 !कािशत क गई थी ।

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6621

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1619.—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), the Central Government hereby makes the following

amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number S.O. 1796, dated the 13^th

December, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 22^nd December, 2018,

namely:-

2. In the Schedule to the said notification,-

(a) for “Plan bearing number UPRVUNL/4(1)/Plan/Revenue/01, dated the 24^th September, 2018”, the following shall

be substituted, namely:-

“Plan bearing number UPRVUNL/4(1)/Plan/Revenue/1, dated the 24^thSeptember, 2018”;

(b) under the heading “Name of village”,—

(i) against serial number 1, for the word “Kourigarh”, the word “Kaurigarh” shall be substituted;

(ii) against serial number 3, for the word “Paharamchuan”, the word “Pahar Amchua” shall be substituted;

(iii) against serial number 11, for the word, “Paharpur”, the words and brackets “Paharpur (Haripur)” shall be

substituted.

(iv) against serial number 17, for the word “LataKander”, the words “Lata Kandar” shall be substituted;

substituted;

(d) under the heading “Patwari Circle name and number” as so substituted,-

(i)

against serial number 1, for the figures “32”, the word and figures “Jagatpur, 32” shall be substituted;

(ii)

against serial number 2, for the figure “1”, the word and figure “Benagadia, 1 ” shall be substituted;

(iii)

against serial number 3, for the figure “2”, the word and figure “Benagadia, 2” shall be substituted;

(iv)

against serial number 4, for the figure “4”, the word and figure “Haripur, 4” shall be substituted;

(v)

against serial number 5, for the figure “5”, the word and figure “Haripur, 5” shall be substituted;

(vi)

against serial number 6, for the figure “7”, the word and figure “Haripur, 7” shall be substituted;

(vii)

against serial number 7, for the figure “6”, the word and figure “Haripur, 6” shall be substituted;

(viii)

against serial number 8, for the figure “4”, the word and figure “Benagadia, 4” shall be substituted;

(ix)

against serial number 9, for the figure “6”, the word and figure “Benagadia, 6” shall be substituted;

(x)

against serial number 10, for the figure “5”, the word and figure “Benagadia, 5” shall be substituted;

(xi)

against serial number 11, for the figure “13”, the word and figure “Benagadia, 13” shall be substituted;

(xii)

against serial number 12, for the figure “14”, the word and figure “Benagadia, 14” shall be

substituted;

(xiii)

against serial number 13, for the figure “12”, the word and figure “Haripur, 12” shall be substituted;

(xiv)

against serial number 14, for the figure “11”, the word and figure “Haripur, 11” shall be substituted;

(xv)

against serial number 15, for the figure “14”, the word and figure “Benagadia, 14” shall be

substituted;

(xvi)

against serial number 16, for the figure “15”, the word and figure “Haripur, 15” shall be substituted;

(xvii)

against serial number 17, for the figure “10”, the word and figure “Haripur, 10” shall be substituted;

(xviii)

against serial number 18, for the figure “8” the word and figure “Haripur, 8” shall be substituted;

(xix)

against serial number 19, for the figure “2” the word and figure “Haripur, 2” shall be substituted;

(xx)

against serial number 20, for the figure “25”, the word and figures “Jagatpur, 25” shall be substituted;

(xxi)

against serial number 21 , for the figure “3” the word and figure “Haripur,3” shall be substituted;

6622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(e) under the heading “Boundary description”, -

(i)

against serial number 1, 24 and 25, for the words “Kourigarh village”, the words “Kaurigarh village”

shall be substituted;

(ii)

against serial number 7, 8 and 9, for the words “Jamorpani village”, the words ‘Jamropani village’

shall be substituted;

(iii)

against serial number 8, 9 and 10, for the words “Latakander village”, the words “Lata Kandar

village” shall be substituted;

(iv)

against serial number 10, and 12, for the words “Bara Chaparia’ and Chota Chaparia”, the words “Bara

Chapiria and Chhota Chapiria” shall be substituted;

(v)

against serial number 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, for the words “Sarasdangal village”, the words

“Sarasdanga village” shall be substituted;

(vi)

against serial number 16, for the words village “Paharpur”, the words “Paharpur (Haripur) village”

shall be substituted;

(vii)

against serial number 23, and 24, for the words “Paharamchuan village” the words ‘Pahar Amchua

village’ shall be substituted.

[F. No. 43015/16/2018-LA&IR]

MUKESH, Under Secy.

Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide

notification number S.O. 1796, dated the 22^nd December, 2018.

नई द ली, 29 अगF त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1620

1620

1620.—के+ ,ीय सरकार को यह !तीत होता है क, इससे उपाबƒ अनुसूची म3 वणत पर<ेN क भूिम म3

से कोयला अिभ!ाp त कए जाने क संभावना है ;

और, उ$ त अिधसूचना म3 वणkत <ेN के रेखांक धारक संg या ओसीपीएल/सीओ/10-सीबीए, तारीख 24 जून, 2019

का िनरी<ण, मुgय कायकारी अिधकारी, ओिडशा कोल एwड पावर िलिमटेड, जोन-ए, ^ाउंड लोर, फोर…यून टावस,

च+,शेखरपुर, भूबने‘र, िजला – खुदा- 751023 (ओिडशा) के कायालय म3 या मुgय महा!बंधक (खोज !भाग), के+ ,ीय खान

योजना एवं िडजाइन संF थान िलिमटेड, ग%डवाना पॅलेस, कांके रोड, रांची, झारखंड के कायालय म3 या कोयला \नंयNक, 1,

काउंिसल हाउस F ]ीट, कोलकाता - 700 001 के कायालय म3 या कले$ टर, िजला सुंदरगढ़, ओिडशा के कायालय म3 कया जा

सकता है ;

अब, के+ ,ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक <ेN (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम3 इसके

प? चात् उ$ त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उपधारा (1) ारा !द" त शि$ तय% का !योग करते )ए उ/ अनुसूची म3

वणत भूिम से कोयले का पूव<ण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है ।

उपयु/ अनुसूची म3 उि लिखत भूिम म3 िहतबƒ कोई † यि$ त –

(i)

भूिम के संपूण या कसी भाग या उ/ भूिम म3 या उसके ऊपर कसी अिधकार के अजन पर आ<ेप कर सकेगा ;

या

(ii) उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 4 क उप-धारा (3) के अधीन क गयी कसी कायवाही से )ई <ित या होने वाली

संभािवत कसी <ित के िलए उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन !ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6623

(iii) उ$ त अिधिनयम क धारा (13) क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन पूव€<ण अनुिp तय% के !भावहीन होने या उ$ त

अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप-धारा (4) के अधीन खनन पhे !भावहीन होने के संबंध म3 !ितकर का दावा

कर सकेगा और उसे उ$ त अिधनयम क धारा 13 क उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म3 िविनyदo ट मद%

क बाबत् उपगत † यय को उपदशत करने के िलए पूव{$ त भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचN%, चाटˆ और अ+ य

दF तावेज% को परद" त कर सकेगा ।

इस अिधसूचना के राजपN म3 !काशन क तारीख से न~ बे दन क अविध के भीतर, मुgय कायकारी अिधकारी,

ओिडशा कोल एwड पावर िलिमटेड, जोन-ए, ^ाउंड लोर, फोर…यून टावस, च+,शेखरपुर, भूबने‘र, िजला – खुदा-

751023 (ओिडशा) के कायालय म3 या खान के !मुख, हेमिगर, िजला सु+दरगढ़, ओिडशा- 770013 को भेज सकेगा ।

अनु

अनुसूची

सूची

डीप साइड मनोहरपुर कोयला ~लॉक

आई.बी. वैली कोलफ“स

िजला सु+दरगढ़, राzय ओिडशा

[ रेखांक धारक संg या ओसीपीएल/सीओ/10-सीबीए, तारीख 24 जून, 2019 ]

Q.सं.

^ाम का नाम

पटवारी/राजFव

सyक ल का नाम

तहसील

िजला

<ेN हे$टेयर म3

टpपिणयां

दुSबागा

हेमिगर

सु+दरगढ़

41.521

भाग

कटाराबागा

हेमिगर

सु+दरगढ़

86.543

भाग

काथाफली

घुमुदासन

हेमिगर

सु+दरगढ़

226.789

भाग

परमानंदपुर

घुमुदासन

हेमिगर

सु+दरगढ़

153.562

भाग

कान)पहाड़

आरि<त वन

हेमिगर

सु+दरगढ़

10.517

भाग

)+दरखोला

आरि<त वन

हेमिगर

सु+दरगढ़

166.068

भाग

कुल : 685.000 हे$टेयर (लगभग)

या 1692.635 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा वण-न

सीमा वण-न: : : :

ारंिभक टेशन :

ारंिभक टेशन : !ारंिभक Fटेशन ‘1’,

’, ’,

’, डीप साइड मनोहरपुर ~लॉक के उOर-पिAमी कोने पर िFथत है ।

रेखा 1-2 :

रेखा ‘1’ से ‘2’ ( उOरी सीमा) Fटेशन ‘1’ शुS होकर Fटेशन ‘2’ तक जाती है । उOर क ओर से

सीमा ‘मीना<ी’ कोयला ~लॉक तक सीिमत है ।

रेखा 2-3 :

रेखा ‘2’ से ‘3’ ( पूवŒ सीमा) Fटेशन ‘2’ शुS होकर Fटेशन ‘3’ तक जाती है । पूवŒ क ओर से सीमा

‘मनोहरपुर’ कोयला ~लॉक तक सीिमत है ।

रेखा 3-4 :

रेखा ‘3’ से ‘4’ ( दि<णी सीमा) Fटेशन ‘3’ शुS होकर Fटेशन ‘4’ तक जाती है ।

रेखा 4-1 :

रेखा ‘4’ से ‘1’ (पिAमी सीमा) Fटेशन ‘4’ शुS होकर Fटेशन ‘1’ तक जाती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/13/2019-एलए एwड आईआर]

मुकेश, अवर सिचव

6624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1620.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in

the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And whereas, the plan bearing number OCPL/CO/10-CBA, dated the 24^th June, 2019 containing the details of

the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Coal

and Power Limited, Zone-A, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurdha-751023

(Odisha) or the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited,

Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street,

Kolkata-700001 or at the Office of the Collector, District Sundargarh, Odisha.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from the land described in the said Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule may --

(i)

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

(ii)

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

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

(iii)

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

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

ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land

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

section 13 of the said Act,

to the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Coal Power Limited, Zone-A, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers,

Bhubaneswar, District- Khurdha-751023 (Odisha) or at the Office of the Head of Mines, Hemgir, District Sundargarh,

Odisha – 770013 within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Dip Side Manoharpur Coal Block

IB Valley Coalfields

District –Sundargarh, State – Odisha

[Plan bearing number OCPL/CO/10-CBA, dated the 24^th June, 2019]

Sl. No.

Name of the Village

Patwari/Revenue

Circle Name

Tehsil

District

Area in

hectares

Remarks

Durubaga

Hemgir

Sundargarh

41.521

Part

Katarabaga

Hemgir

Sundargarh

86.543

Part

Kathafali

Ghumudasan

Hemgir

Sundargarh

226.789

Part

Paramanandapur

Ghumudasan

Hemgir

Sundargarh

153.562

Part

Kanhupahad Reserved Forest

Hemgir

Sundargarh

10.517

Part

Hundarkhola Reserved Forest

Hemgir

Sundargarh

166.068

Part

Total : 685.000 hectares (approximately )

or 1692.635 acres (approximately)

Boundary description:

STARTING STATION : The starting station ‘1’ is situated on the north-western corner of Dipside Manoharpur Coal

Block.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6625

Line 1-2 : The line ‘1’ to ‘2’ (northern boundary) starts from station ‘1’ to station ‘2’. The northen side boundary is

limited by ‘Meenakshi’ coal block.

Line 2-3 : The line ‘2’ to ‘3’ (eastern boundary) starts from station ‘2’ to station ‘3’. The Eastern side boundary is

limited to ‘Manoharpur’ coal block.

Line 3-4 : The line ‘3’ to ‘4’ (southern boundary) starts from station ‘3’ to station ‘4’.

Line 4-1 : The line ‘4’ to ‘1’ (western boundary) starts from station ‘4’ to station ‘1’.

[F. No. 43015/13/2019 –LA&IR]

MUKESH, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 29 अगF त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1621

1621

1621.—के+,ीय सरकार को यह !तीत होता है क, इससे उपाबƒ अनुसूची म3 उिलिखत पर<ेN क भूिम

म3 कोयला अिभ!ा; कए जाने क संभावना है;

और, रेखांक संgया एनसीएल/मुgयालय/भूिम और राजFव/2019/01, तारीख 25 जून, 2019 और

एनसीएल/मुgयालय/भूिम और राजFव/2019/02, तारीख 25 जून, 2019 को उ/ अनुसूची म3 वणत भूिम का <ेN अ+तव@

कया गया है, का िनरी<ण महा !बंधक( भूिम और राजFव), नादन कोलफ“स िलिमटेड, \संगरौली- 486889, मUय !देश

के कायालय म3 या महा !बंधक(खोज !भाग), स3]ल माईन pला\नंग और िडजाइन इंFटी…यूट िलिमटेड, ग%डवाना pलेस, कांके

रोड, रांची- 834031,झारखwड के कायालय म3 या कोयला िनयंNक, 1, काउंिसल हाऊस F]ीट, कोलकाता 700001 के

कायालय म3 या िजला कले$टर, िजला \संगरौली – 486886, मUय !देश के कायालय म3 कया जा सकता है;

अत:, अब, के+,ीय सरकार, कोयला धारक <ेN (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम3

इसके पAात् उ/ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 4 क उपधारा (1) ारा !दO शि/य% का !योग करते )ए, उ/

अनुसूची म3 वणत भूिम म3 कोयले का पूव€<ण करने के अपने आशय क सूचना देती है;

उ/ अनुसूची म3 वणत भूिम म3 िहतबƒ कोई ”ि/–

i( )

संपूण भूिम या उसके कसी भाग या ऐसी भूिम म3 या उसके उपर कसी अिधकार के अजन पर आपे<ा कर

सकेगा ; या

(

)

उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 6 के अधीन धारत कसी नुकसानी या उसक धारा 4 क उप धारा (3) के अधीन

धारत होने वाले नुकसान क संभावना के िलए !ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा ;या

iii

(

) उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उप –धारा (1) के अधीन समा; हो गई पूव€<ण अनुि;य% के संबंध म3 या

धारा 13 क उप –धारा (4) के अधीन समा; हो गए खनन पhे के िलए !ितकर का दावा कर सकेगा और उ/

अिधिनयम क धारा 13 क उपधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) म3 िविनyद@ मद% के संबंध म3 उपगत ”य को

उपदशत करने के िलए भूिम से संबंिधत सभी मानिचN%, चाट{ और अ+य दFतावेज% को सुपुद करेगा ।

इस अिधसूचना के राजपN म3 !काशन क तारीख से न~बे दन के भीतर, महा !बंधक (भूिम और राजFव), नादन

कोलफ“स िलिमटेड, िजला \संगरौली– 486889, मUय !देश को भेजेग3।

6626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुसूची

~लाक ‘बी’, ~लाक ‘बी’ िवFतार भू-वैािनक ~लाक

म3 ~लाक ‘बी’ िवFतार ओ.सी.पी. (8.00 िमिलयन टन !ित वष) हेतु

नादन कोलफ“स िलिमटेड, \संगरौली

िजला –\संगरौली (मUय !देश)

उप-~लाक –I, भाग – 1

301.68 हे$टेयर

उप-~लाक –I, भाग - 2

9.67 हे$टेयर

उप-~लाक – II

85.52 हे$टेयर

कुल <ेN:

396.87 हे$टेयर(लगभग) या 980.67 एकड़ (लगभग)

[ रेखांक संgया एनसीएल/मुgयालय/भूिम और राजFव/2019/01, तारीख 25 जून, 2019 ]

उप -~लाक –I, भाग -1:

(क)

राजFव और शासकय भूिम:

Q.सं.

^ाम का नाम

पटवारी सyक ल

संgया

तहसील

िजला

<ेNफल(हे$टेयर म3)

टpपिणयां

पडरी

\संगरौली

18.35

भाग

कुल: 18.35 हे$टेयर (लगभग)

या 45.343 एकड़ (लगभग)

(ख) वन भूिम:

Q.सं.

उपखंड संgया

वन पर<ेN का नाम

िजला

<ेNफल (हे$टेयर म3)

टpपिणयां

1. पी.एफ. 278 (भाग)

वैढन और गोरबी

\संगरौली

47.90

भाग

2. पी.एफ. 279 (भाग)

वैढन और गोरबी

\संगरौली

135.84

भाग

3. आर.एफ.281 (भाग)

वैढन और गोरबी

\संगरौली

99.59

भाग

कुल: 283.33 हे$टेयर (लगभग)

या 700.108 एकड़ (लगभग)

कुल (क + ख) =18.35 + 283.33 =301.68 हे$टेयर (लगभग)

या 45.343 + 700.108=745.451 एकड़ (लगभग)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6627

सीमा वणन – उप- ~लाक–I, भाग –1:

क – ख :

रेखा \बंदु ‘क’ से आरंभ होती है और \संगरौली वन मwडल के वैढन तथा गोरबी वन पर<ेN के वन क<

संgया आर.एफ. 281 से होकर गुजरती है तथा \बंदु ‘ख’ पर िमलती है।

ख – ग :

रेखा \बंदु ‘ख’ से आरंभ होती है और \संगरौली वन मwडल के वैढन तथा गोरबी वन पर<ेN के वन क<

संgया, आर.एफ. 281 तथा पी.एफ. 279 से और ^ाम पडरी से होकर गुजरती है तथा \बंदु ‘ग’ पर िमलती

है ।

ग – घ :

रेखा \बंदु ‘ग’ से आरंभ होती है और ^ाम पडरी से होकर गुजरती है तथा यही रेखा गोरबी ~लॉक ‘बी’

िवFतार क पूव अजत भूिम क सीमा पर से गुजरते )ए गोरबी ~लॉक ‘बी’ िवFतार क पूव अजत भूिम क

सीमा और पी.एफ. 278 क सीमा पर िFथत \बंदु ‘घ’ पर िमलती है।

घ – ड. :

रेखा \बंदु ‘घ’ से आरंभ होती है और \संगरौली वन मwडल के वैढन तथा गोरबी वन पर<ेN के वन क<

संgया पी.एफ. 278 से गुजरती है और यही रेखा गोरबी ~लाक ‘बी’ िवFतार क पूव अजत भूिम क सीमा

पर से होकर गुजरती है तथा गोरबी ~लाक ‘बी’ िवFतार और गोरबी ~लॉक ‘बी’ के उभय िब+दु ‘ड.’ पर

िमलती है।

ड. – क :

रेखा \बंदु ‘ड.’ से आरंभ होती है तथा \संगरौली वन मwडल के वैढन तथा गोरबी वन पर<ेN के वन क<

संgया पी.एफ. 278, पी.एफ. 279 और आर.एफ. 281 से होकर गुजरती है और यही रेखा गोरबी ~लॉक

‘बी’ क पूव अजत भूिम क सीमा पर से भी होकर गुजरती है तथा !ारिWभक \बंदु ‘क’ पर िमलती है।

उप- ~लाक –I भाग -2:

(क) वन भूिम :

Q.सं.

उपखंड संgया

वन पर<ेN का नाम

िजला

<ेNफल (हे$टेयर म3)

टpपिणयां

आर.एफ.281(भाग)

वैढन व गोरबी

\संगरौली

9.67

भाग

कुल: 9.67 हे$टेयर(लगभग)

या 23.894 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा वणन – उप ~लाक –I, भाग-2:

च–छ :

रेखा \बंदु ‘च’ से आरंभ होती है और \संगरौली वन मwडल के वैढन तथा गोरबी वन पर<ेN के वन क<

संgया आर.एफ. 281 से गुजरती है और यही रेखा गोरबी ~लाक ‘बी’ क पूव अजत भूिम क सीमा पर से

होकर गुजरती है तथा िब+दु ‘छ’ पर िमलती है।

छ-ज :

रेखा \बंदु ‘छ’ से आरंभ होती है और \संगरौली वन मwडल के वैढन तथा गोरबी वन पर<ेN के वन क<

संgया आर.एफ. 281 से गुजरती है और यही रेखा गोरबी ~लाक ‘बी’ िवFतार क पूव अजत भूिम क सीमा

पर से होकर गुजरती है तथा \बंदु ‘ज’ पर िमलती है ।

ज– च :

रेखा \बंदु ‘ज’ ’ ’ ’ से आरंभ होती है और \संगरौली वन मwडल के बैढ़न तथा गोरबी वन पर<ेN के वनक<

संgया आर.एफ. 281 से गुजरती है और !ारिWभक \बंदु ‘च’ ’ ’ ’ पर िमलती है ।

6628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[ एनसीएल/मुgयालय/भूिम और राजFव/2019/02, तारीख 25 जून, 2019 ]

उप ~लाक – II:

(क) राजFव और शासकय भूिम:

Q.सं.

^ाम का नाम

पटवारी

सyकल सं.

तहसील

िजला

<ेNफल(हे$टेयर म3)

टpपिणयां

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

मुहेर

\संगरौली

85.52

भाग

कुल: 85.52 हे$टेयर (लगभग)

या 211.320 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा वणन - उप ~लाक – II :

झ– ञ :

रेखा \बंदु ‘झ’ से आरंभ होती है और ^ाम मुहेर से होकर जाती है और यही रेखा गोरबी ~लाक ‘बी’ क पूव

अजत भूिम क सीमा पर से होकर गुजरती है तथा \बंदु ‘ञ’ पर िमलती है ।

ञ-ट-ठ :

रेखा \बंदु ‘ञ’ से आरंभ होती है और ^ाम मुहेर से होकर गुजरती है और यही रेखा गोरबी ~लाक ‘बी’

िवFतार- II क पूव अजत भूिम क सीमा पर से होकर गुजरती है और िब+दु ‘ठ’ पर िमलती है ।

ठ -ड- ण-झ :

रेखा \बंदु ‘ठ’ से आरंभ होती है और िब+दु ‘ड’ और ‘ण’ और ^ाम मुहेर से होकर जाती है और \बंदु ‘झ’ पर

िमलती है।

[फा. सं. 43015/15/2019-एलए एwड आईआर]

मुकेश, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1621.—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 numbers NCL/HQ/ land and revenue/2019/01, dated the 25^th June, 2019 and

NCL/HQ/ land and revenue /2019/02, dated the 25^th June, 2019 containing the details of the area of land described in the

said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the General Manager (Land and Revenue), Northern Coalfields Limited,

Singrauli-486889, Madhya Pradesh or at the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine

Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834031, Jharkhand or at the Office of the

Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the District Collector, District Singrauli-

486886, Madhya Pradesh;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule may --

(i)

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

(ii)

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

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6629

(iii)

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

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 (Land and Revenue), Northern Coalfields Limited, District Singrauli -486889,

Madhya Pradesh, within a period of ninety days from the date of the publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Block-B, Block-B Extension Geological Blocks

For Block-B Expansion OCP (8.00 Mtpa)

Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli

District – Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh)

SUB-BLOCK-I, PART-1

301.68 hectares

SUB-BLOCK-I, PART-2

9.67 hectares

SUB-BLOCK- II

85.52 hectares

TOTAL AREA :

396.87 hectares (approximately)

or 980.67 acres (approximately)

[Plan bearing number NCL/HQ/Land and Revenue/2019/01, dated the 25^th June, 2019]

SUB BLOCK –I, PART-1 :

(A)

Revenue and Government land :

Sr.

No.

Name of village

Patwari circle

number

Tehsil

District

Area (in

hectares)

Remarks

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Padari

Singrauli

18.35

Part

Total : 18.35 hectares(approximately)

or 45.343 acres (approximately)

(B) Forest Land :

Sr.

No.

Compartment

number

Name of Forest Range

District

Area (in hectares)

Remarks

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

PF 278 (P)

Waidhan and Gorbi

Singrauli

47.90

Part

PF 279 (P)

Waidhan and Gorbi

Singrauli

135.84

Part

RF 281 (P)

Waidhan and Gorbi

Singrauli

99.59

Part

Total: 283.33 hectares (approximately)

or 700.108 acres (approximately)

Total (A + B) = 18.35 + 283.33 =301.68 hectares (approximately)

or 45.343+ 700.108 = 745.451 acres(approximately)

6630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boundary description – Sub Block –I, Part-1:

A-B: The line starts from point ‘A’and passes through forest compartment number RF 281 of Waidhan and

Gorbi Range of forest divisions Singrauli and meets at point ‘B’.

B-C : Line starts from point ‘B’ and passes through forest compartment number RF 281 and PF 279 of Waidhan

and Gorbi Range of forest divisions Singrauli and passes through village Padari and meets at points ‘C’.

C-D : Line starts from point ‘C’ and passes through village Padari, and same Line passes over the boundary of

previously acquired land of Gorbi Block ‘B’ Extension and meets at point ‘D’ situated on previously acquired

boundary of Gorbi Block ‘B’ Extension and in PF 278.

D-E : Line starts from point ‘D’ and passes through PF 278 Waidhan and Gorbi Range of forest divisions

Singrauli and same line passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Gorbi Block ‘B’ Extension and

meets at point ‘E’ situated on common point of previously acquired boundary of Gorbi Blokc ‘B’ Extension and

Gorbi Block ‘B’.

E-A : Line starts from point ‘E’ and passes through PF 278, PF 279 and RF 281 same line passes over the

boundary of previously acquired land of Gorbi Block ‘B’ and meets at starting point ‘A’.

SUB BLOCK –I, PART-2 :

Forest Land :

Sr.

No.

Compartment number

Name of Forest Range

District

Area (in hectares)

Remarks

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

RF 281 (P)

Waidhan and Gorbi

Singrauli

9.67

Part

Total: 9.67 hectares(approximately)

or 23.894 acres (approximately)

Boundary description – Sub Block –I, Part-2:

F-G : Line starts from point ‘F’ and passes through RF 281 of Waidhan and Gorbi range of forest divisions

Singrauli and same line passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Gorbi Block ‘B’ and meets at

point ‘G’.

G-H : Line starts from point ‘G’ and passes through RF 281 of Waidhan and Gorbi range of forest divisions

Singrauli and same line passes over the boundary of previously acquired land of Gorbi Block ‘B’ Extension and

meets at point ‘H’.

H-F : Line starts from point ‘H’ and passes through RF 281 of Waidhan and Gorbi range of forest divisions

Singrauli and meets at starting point ‘F’.

[Plan bearing number NCL/HQ/Land and Revenue/2019/02, dated the 25^th June, 2019]

SUB BLOCK –II:

(A)

Revenue and Government land:

Sr.

No.

Name of village

Patwari circle

number

Tehsil

District

Area

(in hectares)

Remarks

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Muher

Singrauli

85.52

Part

Total: 85.52 hectares(approximately)

or 211.320 acres (approximately)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6631

Boundary description --Sub Block –II :

I-J: The line starts from point ‘H’ and passes through village Muher and same line passes over the boundary of

previously acquired land of Gorbi Block ‘B’ and meets at point ‘J’.

J-K-L : Line starts from point ‘J’ and passes through village Muher and same line passes over the boundary of previously

acquired land of Gorbi Block ‘B’ Extension – II and meets at point ‘L’

L-M-N-I : Line starts from point ‘L’ and passes through point ‘M’ and ‘N’ and village Muher and meets at starting point

‘I’.

[F. No. 43015/15/2019-LA&IR]

MUKESH, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 2 िसतW बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1622

1622

1622.—कोयला धारक <ेN (अजन और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम3 इसके

प? चात् उ$ त अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपN, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-

खंड (ii), तारीख 02 नवWबर, 2016 म3 !कािशत, भारत सरकार के कोयला मंNालय क अिधसूचना संg यांक का. आ.

3358(अ), तारीख 01 नवWबर, 2016 के !काशन पर उ$ त अिधसूचना से संलn न अनुसूची म3 वणkत भूिम और ऐसी भूिम,

(िजसे इसम3 इसके प? चात् उ$ त भूिम कहा गया है), म3 या उस पर के सभी अिधकार, उ$ त अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उप-

धारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िव लंगम% से मु$ त होकर, आ" यंितक Sप म3 के+ ,ीय सरकार म3 िनिहत हो गए है;

और, के+,ीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है क स3]ल कोलफ“स िलिमटेड, दरभंगा हाउस, रांची-834 001,

झारखंड (िजसे इसम3 इसके पAात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन% और शतˆ का िज+ह3 के+,ीय सरकार इस

िनिमO अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन करने के िलए रजामंद है ;

अतः, अब, के+,ीय सरकार, उ/ अिधिनयम क धारा

क उप-धारा (1) ारा !दO शि/य% का !योग करते )ए,

यह िनदेश देती है क इस !कार िनिहत उ/ भूिम 189.99 एकड़ (लगभग) या 76.91 हे$टेयर (लगभग) उ/ भूिम म3 या

उस पर के सभी अिधकार के+,ीय सरकार म3 इस !कार िनिहत बने रहने के बजाए, तारीख 02 नवWबर, 2016 से

िन4िलिखत िनबंधन% और शतˆ के अधीन रहते )ए सरकारी कंपनी म3 िनिहत हो जाएंगे, अथात्:-

(1)

सरकारी कंपनी उ/ अिधिनयम के उपबंध% और अ+य सुसंगत िविधय% के अधीन यथा अवधारत !ितकर, ~याज,

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

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

धारा

के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन कया जाएगा और कसी ऐसे अिधकरण और अिधकरण क सहायता करने के

िलए िनयु/ ”ि/य% के संबंध म3 उपगत सभी ”य, सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन कए जाएंगे और इसी !कार, िनिहत उ/

भूिमय% म3 या उस पर के अिधकार% के िलए या उनके संबंध म3 अपील आद सभी िविधक कायवािहय% क बाबत उपगत सभी

”य भी सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन कए जाएंगे ;

(3) सरकारी कंपनी, के+,ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय% क ऐसे कसी अ+य ”य के संबंध म3 <ितपूत करेगी जो इस

!कार िनिहत उ/ भूिम म3 या उस पर के अिधकार% के बारे म3 के+,ीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय% ारा या उनके िव[ƒ

क+ह कायवािहय% के संबंध म3 आव?यक हो ;

(4)

सरकारी कंपनी के पास के+,ीय सरकार के पूव अनुमोदन के िबना, इस भूिम को कसी अ+य ”ि/ को अंतरत

करने क शि/ नह होगी; और

6632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

)

(

सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश% और शतˆ का पालन करेगी, जो के+,ीय सरकार ारा, जब कभी आव?यक हो, उ/

भूिम के िविश@ <ेN% के िलए दए जाएं या अिधरोिपत कए जाएं।

[ फा. सं. 43015/07/2013-एलए एwड आईआर (खंड-I)]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 2^nd September, 2019

S.O. 1622.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,

number S.O. 3358(E), dated the 1^st November, 2016, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section

(ii), dated the 2^nd November, 2016 issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government hereby directs that the said land measuring 189.99 acres (approximately) or 76.91 hectares (approximately)

and all rights in or over the said land so vested, shall with effect from the 2^nd November, 2016, instead of continuing to so

vest in the Central Government, vest in the Government company, subject to the following terms and conditions,

namely:-

(1)

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

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

(2)

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

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

connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the Government

Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection

with the rights in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government company;

(3)

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

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

the rights in or over the said land so vested;

(4)

the Government company shall have no power to transfer the lands to any other person without the prior

approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

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

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

[F. No. 43015/ 07/ 2013–LA & IR(Vol-I)]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy.

6634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workmen side appeared and submitted their

written claim statement. The management side, however, remained absent without any steps. As a result, the matter

proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.18 passed by this Tribunal.

According to the claim statement of the workers they were working as casual workers in Food Corporation of

India, Silchar on daily wage basis being engaged by the District Manager, FCI, Silchar from time to time. The concerned

4 workers in this reference claimed to have been engaged in different years namely 1992, 1996 and 1999. It was further

stated that in addition to their job as water carrier they were also used to be engaged by the management for cleaning

works. In this way the workers have been continuously working and were being paid remuneration from the contingency

Fund of the Depot of FCI in cash in different rate and time on daily wage basis.

4. However in the year 2010 the management decided to engage the concerned workers under contractor and

accordingly a letter was written to the Area Manager, FCI, Silchar by the Depot Manager stating that since the Account

Section was objecting to such engagement of workers on daily wage they proposed to get those work done through

contractor. Accordingly the Manager, FCI, District Office, Silchar vide letter dated 26.05.2010 requested M/S Lokenath

Traders, Silchar for supply of 10 numbers of unskilled labourer from 1^st June, 2010 for FCI, Silchar with a negotiated

rate.

5. It was also stated that after having changed the status of the workers from daily wage workers to contract

labours in 2010, they were ultimately disengaged from work in the year 2012. The workers, then, approached the

Manager of FCI and requested him to ask the contractor to engage them and the O.P. No.2, the Area Manager, FCI,

Silchar instructed the contractor to engage them and accordingly they were engaged again in the month of

Septermber,2012. It was also stated that on 08.03.2013 a complaint was filed by the petitioners before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Silchar for regularization of their services in Grade-IV category in FCI. Alternatively

they prayed for allowing them to continue in the job of water carrier/cleaner either on casual or daily wage basis. It was

also stated that after sudden termination of their job even the regular employees working in the FCI Shed were also

suffering a lot of problem and accordingly the Shed In-Charge, FCI requested the Area Manager, FCI, District Office,

Silchar for continuation of their engagement. After submission of the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(central), conciliation proceeding was held and during the proceeding on 07.01.2016 the Department showed their

willingness to redress the grievances of the petitioners and accordingly next date for further conciliation was fixed on

17.02.2016. But during pendency of conciliation proceeding before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the petitioners

were disengaged from 01.02.2016 in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. Thereafter the workers informed ALC

(Central), Silchar about their disengagement. But concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) held that the

concerned workers, at the relevant point of time, were contract labours under contractor and FCI was only the principal

employer. However, an attempt was made for some kind of amicable settlement but when the attempt did not bear any

result, a conciliation failure report was sent to the appropriate government. The appropriate government then, referred

this dispute to this Tribunal.

The matter was proceeding ex-parte and the management side remained absent on all dates. The evidence on

Affidavit submitted by the concerned workers remained un-rebutted. After submission of evidence-in-chief on affidavit

along with documents by the workers, it was found that there were repetitions in exhibit numbers. Accordingly, the

workers side was informed and they appeared and corrected the exhibit numbers of the documents.

All the four workers listed in the reference submitted their evidence-in-chief on Affidavit along with certain

documents. Apart from the dates of initial entry in “service” of the respective workers, which are different from each

other, there is not much variation in the evidence of the witnesses.

During argument the learned lawyers appearing for the workmen side submitted that the workers were originally

engaged as casual employees directly under the F.C.I but subsequently in the year 2010 they were shown as a contract

labouers which was completely illegal and unjustified. It was further argued that in view of the admitted facts that the

workers were originally in casual employment of F.C.I. they should be deemed to be such casual employees under the

F.C.I. till their “illegal and arbitrary” discontinuation.

From the examination in-chief on Affidavit submitted by the 4 witnesses it appeared that all of them were

originally working in the F.C.I, Silchar, Assam as water carrier etc on casual/daily wage basis. W.W.1 was engaged in

the year 1992 as water carrier, W.W.2 was engaged in the year 1996 as water carrier, W.W.3 was also engaged in the

year 1996 as water carrier and W.W.4 was engaged in the year 1999 as water carrier. But admittedly, from the year 2010

they were engaged as contract labour through contractor, meaning thereby that all of them were, from the year 2010,

were no longer direct daily wage workers under FCI. From the year 2010 they were contract labours engaged through

contractors. It also appeared from the materials on record that from the time they were engaged as contract labours their

wages were paid by the concerned contractor. Two years thereafter, that is, from the year 2012 the contractor refused to

engage them. However, in the month of September 2012 they were engaged by the contractor. On 8.3.2013 the workers

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6635

submitted a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Silchar for regularization of their services. Their

alternative prayer was to continue their jobs as daily wage workers. The concerned Shed In-charges of FCI wrote to the

concerned FCI authority to continue their engagement. The FCI authority however, did not accept the requests. The

concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner held conciliation proceeding but the proceeding failed to yield any positive

result for the workers and the failure report was sent to the appropriate government and thereafter the matter was referred

to this tribunal.

10. It appeared from Exhibit-7 that in the year 2012 the services of the concerned workers were actually under a

contractual system and they were engaged in the F.C.I through a contractor. It also appeared that in the month of

June/July,2012 all the 4 workmen were denied engagement by the contractor. They filed complaint to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Cachar, Silchar for regularization of their services in Grade-IV category. The photo

copy of the complaint was exhibited as Exhibit-9. From Exhibit-9 it appeared that the workers used to work as water

carrier continuously up to May, 2010 as Casual workers directly under FCI but from June,2010 they were engaged under

Contractor named Sri Loknath Traders. It was also stated that in the meeting held on 27.09.2013 the concerned workers

appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Silchar and the management side also appeared and the

copy of the proceeding was exhibited as Exhibit-10. It was also mentioned that on 08.01.2016 the management

appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and on principle agreed to the demands of the workers and

requested for one more date to enable the management to obtain the necessary approvals. The minutes of the concerned

proceeding was exhibited as Exhibit-13. It was also stated that during that time they were engaged as contract labours but

suddenly their engagements were terminated. It also appeared from the evidence that it was shown to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Silchar that the wages of the concerned workers were being directly paid to their bank

accounts by the contractor. It was also found that the concerned contract labouers were paid as per Minimum Rate of

Wages. From the evidence of the workers it also appeared that in the year 2010 the concerned workers were moved to the

contractual system and were under contractor and hence, they were not directly employed under F.C.I and F.C.I was

only the principal employer.

11.

In the reference, the appropriate Government raised basically 2 issues. Firstly, whether the representation of the

concerned workers for regularization of their services in Grade-IV in F.C.I, FSD, Ramnagar, Silchar or anywhere under

Area Manager, F.C.I, Silchar, Cachar with admissible pay and other allowances was justified. Secondly, in the event of

non regularization whether they should be allowed to continue in the job of water carrier/cleaner as casual employee.

12. In regard to automatic regularization, the law is clear that there cannot be any automatic regularization of service

bypassing the regular recruitment process in any public enterprise or public office. Admittedly, FCI is a government

establishment and it has to follow it’s laid down rules and norms like open advertisement and eligibility test etc for filling

up any regular vacancy. In regard to continuation of their service as casual worker, there appeared no scope to grant the

relief sought by the workers. Admittedly, the workers were contract labours when they were disengaged. They were not

casual employees directly under the FCI at that point of time. Engagement of contract labours through contractor

would arise only p if the principal employer had necessity of service of such contract workers. Clearly, the workers

were not working against any regular vacancy and were admittedly working in FCI under contractor as contract labour.

In the above factual background there appears no scope to grant the alternative relief, namely continuation of their

engagement as casual employees. It has to be kept in mind that at the relevant time they were contract labour and were

directly paid by the contractor. Hence, the reliefs sought by the workers did not appear to be legally justified.

13. However, considering the fact that the workers served in FCI for a reasonably long period, firstly as daily wage

workers and then as contract labours, I deem it appropriate to give the following directions to the concerned management

of the FCI. If in future the management has the necessity of such service as was provided by the concerned workers, the

management shall consider engagement of the concerned workers subject to their suitability. That apart, if the concerned

management proceeds, in future, for regular recruitment in the category in which the workers were working, the

concerned workers shall be allowed to participate in the recruitment process subject to eligibility criteria as per rules

except that of “age”. If the workers are found to be over aged, their age shall be condoned by the concerned authority to

enable them to participate in the recruitment process if they fulfill other eligibility criteria.

14. The reference stands disposed of with the Award as indicated above.

Given under the hand and seal of this Tribunal, this 7^th August, 2019.

MRINMOY KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer

6636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2019

dk-vk- 1624-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

LVs'ku bathfu;j] nwjn'kZu vuqj{k.k dsanz ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksVk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

14/2003½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@199@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27^th August, 2019

S.O. 1624.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (ID. No. 14/2003) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kota, as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Station Engineer, Doordartion

Maintenance Kendra and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 26.08.2019.

[No. L-42012/199/2002-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

vuqca/k

U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k

U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½

¼dsUnzh;½

¼dsUnzh;½ dkdkdkdksVk]sVk]sVk]sVk] ¼jkt

¼jkt

¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh foØkUr xqIrk] vkj-,p-ts-,l-

funsZ'k izdj.k Øekad% vkS- U;k- ¼dsUnzh;½&14@2003

fnukad LFkkfir% 31@03@2003

izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k

Ø- ,y&42012@199@2002&¼vkbZvkj¼lh,e&kk½½ @fnukad 11@03@2003 ,oa lifBr 'kqf)i=

fnukad 08@07@2008

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

e/;

jkeLo:i cSjok iq= ek/kksyky cSjok }kjk tksbZUV lsdsVªh] fgUn etnwj lHkk] Nkouh] dksVk ¼jkt-½A

&&izkFkhZ Jfed

,oa,oa,oa,oa

LVs'ku bathfu;j] nwjn'kZu esUVhusUl dsUnz]dksVk ¼jkt-½A

&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd

mifLFkr

mifLFkr %

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k % Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k % Jh vkj-lh-xks;y

%%%%%%%% vf/kfu.kZ;

vf/kfu.kZ;

vf/kfu.kZ; %

% fnukad%

fnukad%

fnukad% 24@04@

24@04@

24@04@2019

2019

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 11@03@2003

vkns'k fnukad 11@03@2003

vkns'k fnukad 11@03@2003 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ

izkIr gqvkA rnqijkUr ,d 'kqf)i= fnukad 08@07@2008

'kqf)i= fnukad 08@07@2008

'kqf)i= fnukad 08@07@2008 dk Hkh izkIr gqvk ftlds vuqlkj mDr vkns'k@jsÝsUl dh vuqlwph dh r`rh; ykbZu esa

vafdr 'kCn "act of terminating the services of the claimant" ds ckn 'kCn "w.e.f. 01/01/2000" vkSj tksM+s tkus dk mYys[k gqvk gSA

vr% mDr la'kks/kuksijkUr vc vkns'k@jsÝsUl vuqlwph fuEukuqlkj gks tkrh gS%&

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6637

"Whether the contention of workman Shri Ramswaroop Bariwa that he has worked continuously for more than

240 days in consecutive 12 months during the period from 1.1.98 to 1.1.2000 is correct and justified? If yes,

whether the act of terminating the services of the claimant w.e.f.01/01/2000 by the Station Engineer,

Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Kota is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to and from which date?"

funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl fof/kor tkjh dj voxr djok;k x;kA

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd LVs'ku bathfu;j] nwjn'kZu esUVhusUl lsUVj] dksVk }kjk fnukad 01@01@98 ls nSfud osru ij lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk] rc

ls mlus fnukad 31@12@99 rd fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnu ls Hkh dkQh vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k Fkk] rFkkfi mls fnukad

01@01@2000 ls vpkud fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s o fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k tks voS/k gSA ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k

x;k gS fd mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kkukUrxZr ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru o NaVuh dk

eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;kA blds vfrfjDr mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ds ckn dbZ u;s Jfed Hkh fu;ksftr dj fy;s x;s rFkk mls iqu% fu;kstu

dk volj ugha fn;k x;k tksfd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,p ds izko/kku dh vogsyuk gSA vUr esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mls mDrkuqlkj lsok ls i`Fkd

fd;k tkuk vuqfpr o voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, fiNys lEiw.kZ osru] ykHkksa lfgr lsok ij cgky fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh

x;h gSA

vizkFkhZ vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj izfrokn Lo:i ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ us nSfud osru ij dHkh

lsok esa fu;ksftr ugha fd;k] uk mls fu;qfDr&i= fn;k x;kA vizkFkhZ ds ;gk¡ tc dk;Z dh vko';drk gksrh Fkh rFkk Lo;a izkFkhZ dk;Z djus gsrq

mifLFkr gksrk Fkk rks og dk;Z lEikfnr djds etnwjh@osru izkIr dj ysrk FkkA izkFkhZ us fn-01@01@98 ls 31@12@99 rd fdlh Hkh dyS.Mj

o"kZ esa fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dsl NaVuh dk ugha gksus ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds

mYya?ku dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugha mBrkA izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVkus o u;s Jfed fu;ksftr fd;s tkus dk dFku vLohdk;Z gS] vr% vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

25&,p dh vogsyuk dk Hkh dksbZ iz'u mRiUu ugha gksrkA vUr esa izkFkhZ dk Dyse fujk/kkj rF;ksa dk gksus ls fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h

gSA

lk{; esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls Lo;a izkFkhZ jkeLo:i rFkk vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls gfjxksiky 'kekZ] lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr

gq, ftuls mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk ijLij ftjg dh x;hA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls izys[kh; lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkle; mYys[k

fd;k tkosxkA

mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h tks cgl eq[;r% muds }kjk izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ij gh vk/kkfjr jgh gSA

mHk;i{k dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh x;h gSA

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izeq[k :i ls rdZ ;gh jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr nSfud osru ij fnukad 01@01@1998 ls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd LVs'ku

bathfu;j] nwjn'kZu esUVhusUl lsUVj] dksVk ds ;gk¡ gqbZ Fkh rFkk mlus fnukad 31@12@99 rd fujUrj 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z iw.kZ dj fy;k FkkA

izkFkhZ dk rdZ gS fd mls fnukad 01@01@2000 ls vpkud fcuk dkj.k crk;s lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k] lsok ls gVkus ls iwoZ mls uk rks /kkjk

25&,Q vf/kfu;e ds rgr ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k o uk gh uksfVl ds cnys osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k o uk gh NaVuh dk eqvkotk fn;kA izkFkhZ

dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd lsok lekfIr ds le; mlls dfu"B vusd O;fDr vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW dk;Zjr Fks rFkk ckn esa vU; dbZ u;s Jfed Hkh fu;ksftr

dj fy;s x;sA izkFkhZ dk rdZ gS fd mldh lsok;sa /kkjk 25&,Q rFkk 25&,p ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku djds lekIr dh x;h gS tks mfpr ,oa oS/k

ugha gS] mls lsok esa leLr ikfj.kkfed ykHkksa lfgr cgky fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls vius rdksZ o fyf[kr cgl ds leFkZu esa fuEu

U;k;n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s gSa%&

1&2006¼108½,Q,yvkj 213¼,l

1&2006¼108½,Q,yvkj 213¼,l-lhlhlhlh-½&vkj

½&vkj

½&vkj-,e

,e,e

,e- ;sYyV~h

;sYyV~h

;sYyV~h cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bathfu;j]

cuke vflLVsUV ,DthD;wfVo bathfu;j]

2&vkj,yMcY;w

2&vkj,yMcY;w-2005¼3½

2005¼3½

2005¼3½ i`"B 1926&eSustj eS

i`"B 1926&eSustj eS

i`"B 1926&eSustj eS- feRry eSU;wQsDpfjax daiuh cuke NksVkjke ,oa vU;]

feRry eSU;wQsDpfjax daiuh cuke NksVkjke ,oa vU;]

3&vkj,yvkj 1998¼1½

3&vkj,yvkj 1998¼1½ i`"B 209&LVsV vkQ jkt

i`"B 209&LVsV vkQ jkt

i`"B 209&LVsV vkQ jkt- tfj;s ls

tfj;s ls

tfj;s lsØsVªh]

ØsVªh]

ØsVªh] ihMcy;wMh ,oa vU; cuke tujy

ihMcy;wMh ,oa vU; cuke tujy

ihMcy;wMh ,oa vU; cuke tujy lslslslsØsVªh]

ØsVªh]

ØsVªh] lokbZek/kksiqj ftyk ihMcY;wMh

lokbZek/kksiqj ftyk ihMcY;wMh

,Ei

,Ei- ;wfu;u] xaxkiqj flVh ,oa vU;]

;wfu;u] xaxkiqj flVh ,oa vU;]

4&2004 McY;w,ylh 38

4&2004 McY;w,ylh 380¼jkt

0¼jkt

0¼jkt-½&;wlh&LVsV vkQ

½&;wlh&LVsV vkQ

½&;wlh&LVsV vkQ jkt

jkt

jkt- ,oa vU; cuke Jo.k ,oa vU;]

,oa vU; cuke Jo.k ,oa vU;]

5&vkj,yvkj 2003¼2½

5&vkj,yvkj 2003¼2½ i`"B 215&LVsV vkQ jkt

i`"B 215&LVsV vkQ jkt

i`"B 215&LVsV vkQ jkt- cuke 'ksjflag ,oa vU;]

cuke 'ksjflag ,oa vU;]

6&vkj,yvkj 2005¼3½i`"B 662&LVsV vkQ jkt

6&vkj,yvkj 2005¼3½i`"B 662&LVsV vkQ jkt- cuke

cuke

cuke Qst eksgEen ,oa vU;]

Qst eksgEen ,oa vU;]

7&,vkbZvkj 1968 ,llh 1413&xksikyd`".k th dsrdj

7&,vkbZvkj 1968 ,llh 1413&xksikyd`".k th dsrdj cuke eksg

cuke eksg

cuke eksg-gkth yrhQ

gkth yrhQ

gkth yrhQ ,oa vU;]

,oa vU;]

8&2005¼9½vkjMhMh 3604¼jkt

8&2005¼9½vkjMhMh 3604¼jkt-½&vkRekjke cuke tt]

½&vkRekjke cuke tt]

½&vkRekjke cuke tt] yscj dksVZ ,oa vU;]

yscj dksVZ ,oa vU;]

9&1977 McY;w

9&1977 McY;w-,y

,y-,u

,u,u

,u- ¼;wlh½569&ik:ey ,oa vU; cuke LVsV vkQ jkt

¼;wlh½569&ik:ey ,oa vU; cuke LVsV vkQ jkt

¼;wlh½569&ik:ey ,oa vU; cuke LVsV vkQ jkt- ,oa vU;]

,oa vU;]

6638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10&1996¼kk½,y,yts316¼jkt

10&1996¼kk½,y,yts316¼jkt-½&phQ bathfu;j]

½&phQ bathfu;j]

½&phQ bathfu;j] bjhxs'ku

bjhxs'ku

bjhxs'ku cuke deys'k ,oa vU;]

cuke deys'k ,oa vU;]

11&2010 ,llh,yts 354&d`".kflag cuke

11&2010 ,llh,yts 354&d`".kflag cuke ,Dth

,Dth

,Dth- bathfu;j] gfj;k.kk LV

bathfu;j] gfj;k.kk LV

bathfu;j] gfj;k.kk LVsV ,xzhdpjy ekdsZ

sV ,xzhdpjy ekdsZ

sV ,xzhdpjy ekdsZ- cksMZ

cksMZ

cksMZ jksgrd]

jksgrd]

12&2010 ,ll

12&2010 ,llh,yts 335&vuwi 'kekZ cuke ,Dth

h,yts 335&vuwi 'kekZ cuke ,Dth

h,yts 335&vuwi 'kekZ cuke ,Dth- bathfu;j if

bathfu;j if

bathfu;j ifCyd gsYFk fMfotu ua

Cyd gsYFk fMfotu ua

Cyd gsYFk fMfotu ua-1 ikuhir

1 ikuhir

1 ikuhir ¼gfj;k.kk½]

¼gfj;k.kk½]

13&2015¼144½,Q,yvkj 837&tlesj flag cuke LVsV

13&2015¼144½,Q,yvkj 837&tlesj flag cuke LVsV vkQ gfj;k.kk]

vkQ gfj;k.kk]

14&2007¼3½lhMhvkj 1923¼jkt

14&2007¼3½lhMhvkj 1923¼jkt-½&vfl

½&vfl

½&vfl- bat

bat

bathfu;j] fML

hfu;j] fML

hfu;j] fMLVªVªVªVªC;wVjh lc fMfotu jkbZV esu dsuky] pEcy

C;wVjh lc fMfotu jkbZV esu dsuky] pEcy

C;wVjh lc fMfotu jkbZV esu dsuky] pEcy izkstsDV vUrk]

izkstsDV vUrk]

izkstsDV vUrk] dksVk]

dksVk]

15&2010¼124½,Q,yvkj 5¼jkt

15&2010¼124½,Q,yvkj 5¼jkt-½&jkt

½&jkt

½&jkt-,xzhDpjy

,xzhDpjy

,xzhDpjy ;wfuoflZVh ,oa vU; cuke b.M

;wfuoflZVh ,oa vU; cuke b.M

;wfuoflZVh ,oa vU; cuke b.M- fVfVfVfVªC;wuy ,.M yscj dksVZ ,oa vU;]

C;wuy ,.M yscj dksVZ ,oa vU;]

16&2005¼8½vkjvkjMh 3280¼jkt

16&2005¼8½vkjvkjMh 3280¼jkt-½&i`Fohjkt cuke

½&i`Fohjkt cuke

½&i`Fohjkt cuke yscj dksVZ tks/kiqj ,oa vU;]

yscj dksVZ tks/kiqj ,oa vU;]

17&1

17&1976 ,llh,yts 85&LVsV cSad vkQ bf.M;k cuke

976 ,llh,yts 85&LVsV cSad vkQ bf.M;k cuke

976 ,llh,yts 85&LVsV cSad vkQ bf.M;k cuke ,u

,u,u

,u-lqUnj euh]

lqUnj euh]

18&1976 ,llh,yts 247&fgUnqLFkku LVhy fy

18&1976 ,llh,yts 247&fgUnqLFkku LVhy fy- cuke

cuke

cuke LVsV vkQ mfM+lk ,oa vU;]

LVsV vkQ mfM+lk ,oa vU;]

19&2015¼1½lhMhvkj 132¼jkt

19&2015¼1½lhMhvkj 132¼jkt-½&LVsV vkQ jkt

½&LVsV vkQ jkt

½&LVsV vkQ jkt- cuke

cuke

cuke lqjsUnz dqekj ,oa vU;]

lqjsUnz dqekj ,oa vU;]

20&2008¼118½,Q,yvkj 684¼jkt

20&2008¼118½,Q,yvkj 684¼jkt-½&E;wfufliy cksMZ] yk[ksjh

½&E;wfufliy cksMZ] yk[ksjh

½&E;wfufliy cksMZ] yk[ksjh] cwWnh cuke Jherh eaxyh ckbZ ,oa vU;]

] cwWnh cuke Jherh eaxyh ckbZ ,oa vU;]

21&vkj,yMcY;w

21&vkj,yMcY;w-2005¼1½ i`"B 584&dSyk'kpUnz cuke

2005¼1½ i`"B 584&dSyk'kpUnz cuke

LVsV vkQ jkt

LVsV vkQ jkt- ,oa vU;]

,oa vU;]

22&vkj,yvkj 1991¼2½ i`"B 158¼jkt

22&vkj,yvkj 1991¼2½ i`"B 158¼jkt-½&vksfj;UVy

½&vksfj;UVy

cSad

cSad vkQ dkWe'kZ cuke ih

vkQ dkWe'kZ cuke ih

vkQ dkWe'kZ cuke ih-vksvksvksvks- lsUVª

lsUVª

lsUVªy xoZ

y xoZ

y xoZ-b.M

b.M

b.M- fV~zC;wuy ,oa vU;]

fV~zC;wuy ,oa vU;]

23&vkj,yvkj 2005¼3½ i`"B

23&vkj,yvkj 2005¼3½ i`"B 592¼jk

592¼jk

592¼jkt-½&CykWd

½&CykWd

½&CykWd MoyiesUV vksfQlj ,oa vU; cuke Nxuyky ,oa

MoyiesUV vksfQlj ,oa vU; cuke Nxuyky ,oa

MoyiesUV vksfQlj ,oa vU; cuke Nxuyky ,oa vU;]

vU;]

24&2008¼1½lhMhvkj 271¼jkt

24&2008¼1½lhMhvkj 271¼jkt-½&,eMh,l

½&,eMh,l

;wfuoflZVh]

;wfuoflZVh] vtesj cuke dSyk'kpUn ,oa vU;]

vtesj cuke dSyk'kpUn ,oa vU;]

25&1978¼37½

25&1978¼37½ ,Q,yvkj 240

,Q,yvkj 240

,Q,yvkj 240 ¼,llh½&fgUnqLFkku fVu oDlZ izk

¼,llh½&fgUnqLFkku fVu oDlZ izk

¼,llh½&fgUnqLFkku fVu oDlZ izk-fyfyfyfy- cuke ,EiyksbZt vkWQ eS

cuke ,EiyksbZt vkWQ eS

cuke ,EiyksbZt vkWQ eS- fgUnqLFkku

fgUnqLFkku

fgUnqLFkku fVu oDlZ izk

fVu oDlZ izk

fVu oDlZ izk- fyfyfyfy-]

26&

26&2013¼139½,Q,yvkj 541

2013¼139½,Q,yvkj 541

2013¼139½,Q,yvkj 541 ¼,llh½&nhikyh xq.Mq

¼,llh½&nhikyh xq.Mq

¼,llh½&nhikyh xq.Mq losZl cuke dzkfUr twfu;j v/;kid ,oa vU;]

losZl cuke dzkfUr twfu;j v/;kid ,oa vU;]

27&2015¼145½,Q,yvkj 184¼,llh½&esdsuu

27&2015¼145½,Q,yvkj 184¼,llh½&esdsuu esdsfut ,.M daiuh fy

esdsfut ,.M daiuh fy

esdsfut ,.M daiuh fy- cuke esdsuu ,EiyksbZt

cuke esdsuu ,EiyksbZt

cuke esdsuu ,EiyksbZt ;wfu;u]

;wfu;u]

28&2015¼kkk½

28&2015¼kkk½,l,yVh 444¼,llh½&LVsV vkQ ;wih

,l,yVh 444¼,llh½&LVsV vkQ ;wih

,l,yVh 444¼,llh½&LVsV vkQ ;wih cuke pj.k flag]

cuke pj.k flag]

29&2010¼124½,Q,yvkj 70

29&2010¼124½,Q,yvkj 700 ¼,llh½&gjftUnj flag cuke iatkc LVsV os;jgkmflax dksj

¼,llh½&gjftUnj flag cuke iatkc LVsV os;jgkmflax dksj

¼,llh½&gjftUnj flag cuke iatkc LVsV os;jgkmflax dksj-]

30&2003¼97½,Q,yvkj 608

30&2003¼97½,Q,yvkj 608 ¼,llh½&,l

¼,llh½&,l

¼,llh½&,l-,e-fuyktdj

fuyktdj

fuyktdj cuke VsyhdkWe fMfLVª

cuke VsyhdkWe fMfLVª

cuke VsyhdkWe fMfLVªDV eSustj] dukZVd]

DV eSustj] dukZVd]

31&flfoy vihy la

31&flfoy vihy la- 7463@2009&MkW;jsDVj] fQ'kfjt

7463@2009&MkW;jsDVj] fQ'kfjt

7463@2009&MkW;jsDVj] fQ'kfjt VehZuy fMfotu cuke

VehZuy fMfotu cuke

VehZuy fMfotu cuke Hkh[kwHkkbZ es?kkthHkkbZ pkoMk

Hkh[kwHkkbZ es?kkthHkkbZ pkoMk

Hkh[kwHkkbZ es?kkthHkkbZ pkoMk&¼,llh½

&¼,llh½

fu.kZ;

fu.kZ; fnukad

fnukad

09@11@2009

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr mDr lHkh U;k;n`"Vkarksa dk eSaus lEekuiwoZd v/;;u dj muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;kA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky;

,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk izLrqr mDr U;k;n`"Vkarksa esa lkj :i esa fof/k dk fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 25&,Q vkS-fo-

vf/kfu;e]1947 ds izko/kku vkKkid izd`fr ds gSaA fdlh Hkh deZdkj us ;fn lsok lekfIr ls iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k vf/kd dk

dk;Z dj fy;k gs rks /kkjk 25&,Q vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA mDr izko/kkuqlkj lsok lekfIr ds le; deZdkj dks /kkjk 25&,Q ds

vuqlkj ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl vfxze osru ,oa NaVuh eqvkotk jkf'k lsok lekfIr ds lkFk gh nh tkuh pkfg,A mDr U;k;n`"Vkarksa esa

fof/k dk ;g Hkh fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ;|fi deZdkj@izkFkhZ ds dk;Zfnol fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij gS] ijUrq ;fn izkFkhZ 'kiFk&i=

esa ;g dFku djrk gS fd mlus vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd dk dk;Z dj fy;k gS ,oa vizkFkhZ }kjk mifLFkfr jftLVj ;k

eLVªksy is'k ugha dh tkrh gSa rks mi;qDr izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ ds fo:) ;g vo/kkj.kk /kkfjr dh tk ldrh gS fd ;fn vizkFkhZ leLr fjdkMZ ;kfu

eLVªksYl] mifLFkfr jftLVj U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha djrk gS rks bldk vk'k; ;g gS fd izkFkhZ@deZdkj us 'kiFk&i= esa dFkukuqlkj vfUre dyS.Mj

o"kZ esa 240 fnol ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z dj fy;k gSA

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6639

mDr U;k;n`"Vrksa ds vuqlkj deZdkj }kjk fookn nsjh ls mBk;s tkus dks ?kkrd ugha ekuk x;k gS] lkFk gh deZdkj dks mldh lsok

lekfIr voS/k rFkk vuqfpr Bgjk;s tkus ij iw.kZ osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk gdnkj Hkh ekuk x;k gSA

10-

vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls izeq[k :i ls ;gh rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ us dHkh Hkh nSfud osru ij lsok esa fu;ksftr ugha fd;k]

mls fu;qfDr&i= ugha fn;k] mldh lsok;sa lekIr ugha dh x;h] izkFkhZ Lo;a dk;Z gsrq bPNqd gksrk rks og dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksdj dk;Z lEikfnr dj

etnwjh@osru izkIr dj ysrk FkkA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed us fn-01@01@98 ls 31@12@99 rd uk rks fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gS o uk

gh bl vof/k esa 240 fnol ;k vf/kd dk dk;Z fd;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dk ekeyk NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA

mUgksaus izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVkus ds ckn uk rks dksbZ u;k Jfed fu;ksftr fd;k o uk gh /kkjk 25&,Q rFkk ,p dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA mudk ;g

Hkh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa izn'kZ McY;w-1 izek.k&i= fnukad 16@05@2001 dk voyEc fy;k gS ftlls Hkh ;g lkfcr ugha

gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW yxkrkj fn-01@01@98 ls 31@12@99 rd dk;Z fd;k gSA mudk rdZ gS fd izn'kZ McY;w-2 vkns'k fnukad

22@03@2000 gS ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ jkeLo:i cSjok }kjk o"kZ 1998 esa 256 fnu rFkk o"kZ 1999 esa 78 fnu gh dk;Z djuk nf'kZr gksrk gSA mUgksaus

vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa vizkFkhZ lk{kh gfjxksiky 'kekZ ds 'kiFk&i= dk Hkh voyEc fy;k gSA mUgksaus bl lk{kh ds 'kiFk&i= ds vk/kkj ij ;g rdZ

fn;k gS fd vizkFkhZ ds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ us o"kZ 1999 ds nkSjku ekg Qjojh] vizSy rFkk twu] rhu ekg esa nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed ds :i esa

Hkqxrku ckmpj ds ek/;e ls Hkqxrku izkIr fd;k gS tksfd izn'kZ ,e-1] ,e-2 o ,e-3 gSa ftuds vuqlkj izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr fn-01@01@2000 ls

Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA mUgksaus vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2018¼157½ ,Q,yvkj 1001¼,llh½&

^^2018¼157½ ,Q,yvkj 1001¼,llh½&

eksgEen vyh cuke LVsV vkQ fgekpy izns'k ,oa vU;^^

eksgEen vyh cuke LVsV vkQ fgekpy izns'k ,oa vU;^^ dk voyEc fy;k gSA mDr U;k;n`"Vkar esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fof/k dk fl)kar

izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk vyx&vyx Ldhe esa o"kZ 80] 81] 82] 86 ls 89 esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk o"kZ 1990 esa 195 fnu vkSj

lsok lekfIr ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 19-5 fnol dk;Z fd;k x;k] ,slh fLFkfr esa vihykFkhZ /kkjk 25&,Q vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e dk ykHk izkIr

djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

11-

eSaus mHk;i{k ds mDr rdksZ ij /;kuiwoZd euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd

izkFkhZ us viuh lsok vof/k fn-01@01@98 ls 31@12@99 dks lkfcr djus ds fy, izn'kZ McY;w-1 dk voyEc fy;k gSA mDr izn'kZ McY;w-1

izek.k&i= fnukad 16@05@2001 gS ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ jkeLo:i us nwjn'kZu fjys dsUnz] dksVk esa vkdfLed Jfed ds :i esa Part time

basis at regular intervals during 1998-1999(1st Jan. 98 to 31 Dec. 1999) dk;Z fd;k gSA mDr izn'kZ McY;w-1 ds

vuqlkj ;g ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us regular intervals esa dke fd;k gS rFkk yxkrkj fn-01@01@98 ls 31@12@99 rd dk;Z ugha

fd;k gSA mDr izek.k&i= ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ vkdfLed Jfed rFkk ikVZ VkbZe Jfed ds csfll ij dke fd;k gSA mDr nLrkost izn'kZ McY;w-1 ls

;g lkfcr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW fnukad 01@01@98 ls 31@12@99 rd fujUrj 240 fnu ;k vf/kd le; rd

dk;Z fd;k gSA

12-

vc tgkW rd izkFkhZ Jfed dk ;g rdZ fd izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr fn-01@01@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj esa 240 fnu ;k mlls

vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS] bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ us izn'kZ McY;w-2 dk voyEc fy;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w-2 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ us o"kZ 1998 esa 256 fnu rFkk o"kZ

1999 esa ek= 78 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k gSA vr% bl nLrkost ls Hkh ek= ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ

esa ek= 78 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k gSA mDr rF; dh iqf"V vizkFkhZ ds lkFkh gfjxksiky 'kekZ] lgk;d vfHk;Urk dh lk{; ls gksrh gS ftlus vius

'kiFk&i= esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS fd dk;kZy; fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks o"kZ 1999 ds nkSjku ekg Qjojh] vizSy o twu dqy 3 ekg esa

nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa Hkqxrku ckmpj ds ek/;e ls Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS tks ckmpj izn'kZ ,e-1] ,-2 rFkk ,e-3 gSaA mDr Hkqxrku ckmpj

izn'kZ ,e-1] ,e-2 rFkk ,e-3 dk Hkh /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k rks muls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks ckmpj fn-01@03@99 izn'kZ ,e-1 }kjk ekg

Qjojh]99 dk osru fn;k x;k gS] ckmpj fn-03@05@99 izn'kZ ,e-2 }kjk ekg vizsy]99 dk osru fn;k x;k gS rFkk ckmpj fnukad 30@06@99

izn'kZ ,e-3 }kjk izkFkhZ dks ekg twu]99 dk osru fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls dsoy ;g ifjyf{kr

,oa lkfcr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr fnukad 01@01@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa dqy 3 ekg dh vof/k Qjojh] vizSy o

twu]1999 esa gh dke fd;k gS tks ek= 78 fnu gS rFkk 240 fnu ls de dk;Z fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2018¼157½ ,Q,yvkj

^^2018¼157½ ,Q,yvkj

1001¼,llh½& eksgEen vyh cuke LVsV vkQ fgekpy izns'k ,oa vU;^^

1001¼,llh½& eksgEen vyh cuke LVsV vkQ fgekpy izns'k ,oa vU;^^ gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij iw.kZr;k gksrk gSA mDr U;k;n`"Vkar esa izkFkhZ

deZdkj eksgEen vyh us o"kZ 80] 81] 82 o 86 ls 89 rd izR;sd dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k Fkk ijUrq lsok lekfIr ls Bhd iwoZ

vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa ek= 19-5 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k Fkk] ,slh fLFkfr esa mls /kkjk 25&,Q vf/kfu;e dk ykHk ugha fn;k x;kA mDr U;k;n`"Vkar

gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij iw.kZr;k ykxw gksrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ us tks mDr mn`r U;k;n`"Vkar bl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;s gSa os gLrxr

izdj.k ls fHkUurk fy, gq, gksus ls ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA izkFkhZ leLr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlus

lsok lekfIr ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk&i= ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk

tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA

13-

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2005 ,y,yvkj 737

^^2005 ,y,yvkj 737

^^2005 ,y,yvkj 737&eSustj vkjchvkbZ] cSaxyksj cuke ,l

&eSustj vkjchvkbZ] cSaxyksj cuke ,l

&eSustj vkjchvkbZ] cSaxyksj cuke ,l-euh ,oa vU;^^

euh ,oa vU;^^

euh ,oa vU;^^ esa ;g U;k;fl)kar

izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd 240 fnol iw.kZ dk;Z fd;s tkus dk fl)hHkkj izkFkhZ ij gSA blh izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us U;k;n`"Vkar ^^,vkbZvkj

^^,vkbZvkj

2006 ,llh 355&vkj

2006 ,llh 355&vkj-,e

,e,e

,e-;sYyV~h cuke vfl

;sYyV~h cuke vfl

;sYyV~h cuke vfl- ,DthD;wfVo ba

,DthD;wfVo ba

,DthD;wfVo bathfu;j^^

thfu;j^^

thfu;j^^ esa fof/k dk fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd deZdkj ij 240 fnu yxkrkj dke

djus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus dk tks Hkkj gS] mlesa deZdkj }kjk dsoy ek= vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g fy[k nsuk fd mlus 240 fnu rd yxkrkj

dke fd;k] i;kZIr ugha gksxk] vfirq mls fdlh Bksl ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh; nLrkosth lk{; ls bl rF; dks lkfcr djuk gksxk ftlls fd ;g rF;

6640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lEiq"V gks ldsA gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed mDrkuqlkj lsok lekfIr ds Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z iw.kZ fd;s

tkus ds rF; dks fdlh Bksl ekSf[kd o izys[kh; lk{; ls lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk ,slh dksbZ nLrkosth

lk{; Hkh izdj.k esa izLrqr ugha dh x;h gS fd mlds lsok lekfIr ds ckn fdlh u;s Jfed dks lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k x;k gks] Qyr% izkFkhZ Jfed

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,p ds izko/kku ds mYya?ku fd;s tkus dks Hkh lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA bl izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds

mDr U;k;n`"Vkarksa ds izdk'k esa gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed vius }kjk izLrqr dh x;h mDr ekSf[kd lk{; ds leFkZu esa fdlh Bksl izys[kh;

lk{; ls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gkW lsok lekfIr frfFk 01@01@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z iw.kZ fd;s tkus ds

rF; dks izekf.kr ugha dj ik;k gSA

14-

vc tgk¡ rd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk vius LVsVesUV vkQ Dyse esa fd;k x;k ;g dFku fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk

25&,Q dh ikyuk fd;s cxSj lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k] vr% mldk fd;k x;k lsok ls fu"dklu vuqfpr o voS/k gS] dk iz'u gS] Li"Vr% pw¡fd

mijksDr foospukuqlkj tc Lo;a izkFkhZ Jfed viuh ekSf[kd lk{; ds leFkZu esa fdlh Bksl izys[kh; lk{; ls lsok i`Fkd frfFk 01@01@2000 ls

Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa] vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa jgrs gq, fujUrj 240 fnu iw.kZ dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS

rks ,slh fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q dh ikyuk fd;k tkuk fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa visf{kr ugha jgk gSA

15-

vr% mDr lEiw.kZ foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡prk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa jgrs gq,

rFkkdfFkr fu;kstukof/k esa lsok i`Fkd frfFk 01@01@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa fujUrj 240 fnu iw.kZ dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks

lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS rFkk og bl rF; dks Hkh lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mls dk;Z ls gVk;s ds ckn u;s Jfed fu;ksftr fd;s

x;s gksa] vr% ,sls esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ,oa vU; izko/kkukUrxZr dksbZ laj{k.k izkIr ugha gksus ls og vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj

dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha ik;k tkrk gS ,oa funsZ'k@jsÝsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izkl

ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 11@03@2003 ,oa lifBr 'kqf)i= fnukad

kafxd vkns'k fnukad 11@03@2003 ,oa lifBr 'kqf)i= fnukad

08@07@2008 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@js

08@07@2008 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsÝsÝsÝsÝsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd

Ul fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd

Ul fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed jkeLo:i cSjok] vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu

esa jgrs gq, rFkkdfFkr fu;kstukof/k esa lsok i`Fkd frfFk 01@01@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ esa fujUrj 240 fnu iw.kZ dk;Z fd;s tkus ds

rF; dks lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gS rFkk izkFkhZ bl rF; dks Hkh lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mls dk;Z ls gVkus ds ckn u;s

Jfed fu;ksftr fd;s x;s gksa] vr% ,sls esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ ds fo:) vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ,oa vU; izko/kkukUrxZr dksbZ laj{k.k izkIr

ugha gksus ls og vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

foØkUr xqIrk] U;k;k/kh'k

vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 24@04@2019 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj

dks izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2019

dk-vk- 1625-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

QwM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ+ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 148/2002½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@393@1998&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27^th August, 2019

S.O. 1625.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 148/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Lucknow,

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. Food Corporation of India and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.08.2019.

[No. L-22012/393/1998-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6641

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 148/2002

Ref. No. L-22012/393/98 - IR (C-II) dated: 02.08.2002

BETWEEN :

The State Secretary,

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh

5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

(Espousing case of Sri S.S. Malviya)

AND

The Sr. Regional Manger

Food Corporation of India

5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj, Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-22012/393/98 - IR (C-II) dated: 02.08.2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya

Nigam Karmchari Sangh, 5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj, Lucknow and the Sr. Regional Manger, Food Corporation

of India, 5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj, Lucknow for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, LUCKNOW IN

WITHHOLDING PROMOTION OF SH. S.S. MALVIYA W.E.F. THE YEAR 1996 FOR FIVE YEARS IS LEGAL

AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF IS THE CONCERNED WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

The case of the workmen’s union, in brief, is that the workman, S.S Malviya, had been issued a charge sheet

under Regulation 60 of FCI (Staff) Regulation 1971 vide memo dated 27.07.1996. It has been submitted that the

workman had not been furnished documents required by him to give effective reply to the charge sheet and he informed

so to the opposite party vide his letter dated 06.11.1996; but the management of FCI, without taking into account his

reply vide letter dated 06.11.1996, issued illegal penalty order dated 20.12.1996; accordingly the workman’s union has

prayed that the penalty order dated 20.12.1996 be set aside and the amount recovered/deducted from the workman on

account of said penalty be paid to the workman with interest. Details of the allegations have been pleaded in the Claim

Statement.

The management of the Food Corporation of India has disputed the claim of the workmen’s union with

submission that the workman concerned had been issued charge sheet as per Rules, for storage loss; and after providing

reasonable opportunity to defend himself; was awarded punishment of recoveries of the alleged sum in accordance with

the provisions contained in FCI (Staff) Regulation 1971. The management has also alleged that the workman should

have availed alternate remedy of appeal against impugned orders, provided under regulation 70 of the FCI (Staff)

Regulation – 1971; but he failed to do so; accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workmen’s

union is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected.

The workmen’s union filed rejoinder, reiterating his contentions, already made in the statement of claim.

The parties filed documents in support of their respective case and adduced oral evidence. The workman

examined himself and in rebuttal, the management examined Sri K.N. Gupta, District Manager, Shri Ashraf Ali, Joint

Manager and Sri Athar Sabri. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. The

workman or his authorized representative did not turn up to submit their oral submissions, in spite of ample opportunities

being afforded to it; however, the opposite party forwarded its oral arguments in support of their pleadings.

Heard intellect submissions of the learned counsel of the management and gone through entire evidence on

record.

6642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workmen’s union has come up with a case that the workman had been issued various illegal charge sheets

for alleged storage loss and had been penalized with penalty order dated 20.12.1996, without affording him proper

opportunity to defend himself.

Per contra, the case of the management is that the workman concerned had been issued various charges sheet for

storage loss at different span of time; and after providing reasonable opportunity to defend himself, was awarded

punishment of recovery of the alleged sum in accordance with the Rules and resultantly, the recovery was made;

moreover, the workman did not avail alternate remedy of appeal against impugned orders, provided under regulation 70

of the FCI (Staff) Regulation – 1971.

From perusal of the terms of reference it is evident that the Appropriate Government, referred the present

industrial dispute with terms of reference to check the validity of action of management of FCI, Lucknow in withholding

promotion of S.S. Malviya w.e.f. the year 1996 for five years is legal and justified; whereas from pleadings and evidence

led by the respective parties, it is apperant that the workmen’s union has come up with a case of issuance of illegal

charge sheet dated 27.07.1996 to the workman, S.S. Malviya and the management of FCI has rebutted the same.

However, from records available on file, it comes out that the workmen’s union vide its representation dated 07.01.2003,

paper No. 14/2 14/3 requested the Government to amend the reference order under adjudication; but no corrigendum as

such is available on record.

10.

Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of the Management, M/s. Rambagh Palace Hotel Ltd. V. Sate of

Rajasthan 2000 (86) FLR 134 observed as under:

“It is settled law that the Industrial Tribunal can only adjudicate the reference made to it by the Government

and cannot substitute its own reference or terms of reference or even cannot go beyond the terms of the

reference. It is the function of the Tribunal to answer the reference as is referred to and once the reference

has been made on the demand made by the workers/union, it is incumbent on the Labour Court or Industrial

Tribunal to decide the same………”

In Tarsem Singh vs. Judge, Labour Court & others 2008 (116) FLR 346, it was held as under:

“8.

The Labour Court cannot enlarge the scope of reference nor can it deviate therefrom. It may be

observed that the Labour that the Labour Court derives its jurisdiction from the reference made by the

appropriate government and, therefore, it is bound to act within the four corners of the reference.

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Om Prakash Sharma 2006

(109)FLR 1203 laid bare the well settled proposition of law and, in the context, categorically held as follows:

“In the instant case, the award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality, which appears on the face of

the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It could not have

passed an order going beyond the terms of reference. While passing the award, if the Labour Court exceeds

its jurisdiction, the award must be held to the suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being

corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. He High Court, therefore, clearly fell

in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore,

cannot be sustained …………….. “

Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhogpur cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Harmesh Kumar (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 128

observed as under:

“The Labour Court derived its jurisdiction from the terms in reference. It ought to have exercised its

jurisdiction within the four corners thereof.”

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Osshiar Prasad & others vs Employers in Relation to Management of

Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad 2015 (144) FLR 830 observed as under:

“25.

It is thus clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to make a reference under section 10

of the Act only when “Industrial dispute exists” or “is apprehended between the parties”. Similarly, it is also

clear that the Tribunal while answering the reference has to confine its inquiry to the question(s) referred

and has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or/and the terms of the reference while answering the

reference. A fortiori, no inquiry can be made on those questions, which are not specifically referred to the

Tribunal while answering the reference.

11.

Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case, terms of reference and law cited hereinabove, I am of

considered opinion that the workman neither pleaded nor proved his case in accordance with the terms of reference; he

has miserably failed to substantiate the allegation leveled in the claim statement; and this Tribunal cannot travel beyond

the terms of reference; accordingly, the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6643

12.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

13.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

23^rd July, 2019

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 vxLr] 2019

dk-vk- 1626-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

QwM dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ+ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhvkj 24/2003½ dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@79@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]

jktsUnz flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27^th August, 2019

S.O. 1626.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CR 24/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. Food Corporation of

India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13.08.2019.

[No. L-22012/79/2002-IR(CM-II)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 01^ST AUGUST 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 24/2003

I Party

II Party

The Secretary,

FCI Loading and Unloading

Workers Union,

No. 28, Raja Snow Building,

S.C. Road, Seshadripuram,

Bangalore (Karnataka) - 560020

The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

10, P. Kalinga Rao Road,

Mission Road,

Bangalore (Karnataka) - 560027.

Appearance :

Advocate for I Party : Mr. K.T. Govinde Gowda

Advocate for II Party : Mr. B.L. Sanjeev

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-22012/79/2002(IR(CM-II) dated 23.04.2003 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity

‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the FCI Loading and Unloading Workers Union is justified in claiming the wages of Sardars and

Mandals in the FCI Godowns at K.R.P.G., White-Field, Unkal-Hubli, K.R. Nagar & Nanjungoodu for 16

DPS labourers? If yes, to what relief they are entitled and from which date?”

6644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the 1^st Party is,

The 2^nd Party maintains Godowns, Depots, Railheads and other storage facilities for Storage, Transport, Distribution and

Sale of food Grains. For the said purpose they engage Handling and Ancillary workers; for a group of 10-13 handling

workers, there is one Maisthree and one Assistant Maisthree in all the Godowns. There are four categories of Labourers

i.e., Regular Employees, Direct Paid Labourers / DPS and Contract Labourers. The Maisthree and Assistant Maisthree

are called as Sardar and Mandal respectively. From 1965-1991, 2^nd Party used to carry on activities through

intermediaries or private Contractor by calling tenders and Awarding Contracts; the Godown Workers will not change

with the change of Contractors. The 2^nd Party and the Contractors did not extend the Statuary benefits to the workman.

In February 1986, the 2^nd Party and its Contractor attempted to retrench more than 450 Loading and Unloading Ancillary

workers who were employed in various Godowns, Railheads and Depot of the Bangalore District. The 1^st Party Union

challenged the action before the Hon'ble High Court. W.P 3460/1986 was deposed off with a direction to the 2^nd Party

to treat the Workers who were employed through Contractor as on 28.08.1986 as its own workmen with same Terms and

Conditions of service; in the event of retrenchment to comply with the statutory requirement of Sec 25(F) and (N) of the

I.D Act etc. The 2^nd Party preferred Writ Appeal against the order, the Writ Appeal was disposed directing the 2^nd Party

to regularise the service of the said workers in view of Prohibition of Contract Labour System by the Government w.e.f

1.11.1990. But the 2^nd Party avoided implementing the Order, but used to extract work through its Worker’s Co-

operative Societies.

In another round of litigation, the Apex Court directed the workmen to approach Authority for absorption and

regularisation; in another Writ Petition there was direction to the 2^nd Party to implement the system of direct payment to

the Godown workers and the same was enforced for the Godown workers from 1996 onwards. While implementing

direct payment System / DPS Maisthree and Assistant Maisthree came to be treated as Sardar and Mandal respectively.

They were paid higher rate of wages than the Handling workers at FCI K.R. Puram and FCI White-Field, same rate was

not paid in respect of Unkal-Hubli (8 workers), K.R Nagar (4 workers) and Nanjangud (4 workers) same amounts to

discrimination and disparity in wages. The 2^nd Party is liable to pay the Sardars and Mandals named in the claim petition,

differentiate amount which exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/-(1 crore).

The 2^nd Party while countering the claim allegations contends that, list of Sardars and Mandals who are working

prior to introduction of DPS System were not provided by the Labour Union. The DPS was introduced as per the Terms

and Conditions laid down by the head Quarters, after thorough identification / verification of Labourers by the comity

constituted for the purpose. The demand of the Union for appointing Maistries and Assistant Maistries as Sardars and

Mandals was accepted.

As per the Head Quarters letter No. IR(L/9(3)/95) dated 05.11.1996, wherever the post of Sardar and Mandal were

functioning, same had to continued and no fresh Sardars or Mandals would be posted if same were not existing.

The incentives are paid to such of the Sardars and Mandals who were working along with Gang Labourers carrying Bags.

Thus, the Sardars and Mandals in FCI K.R. Puram and White-Field are paid incentives. The 16 Labourers named in the

claim petition were not working as Maistries and Assistant Maistries and were not inducted by the committee as

Sardars / Mandals during the implementation of DPS. They are not eligible for wages of Sardars and Mandals.

On behalf of the 1^st Party, two witnesses are examined. The 1^st witness is the Secretary of the Union; the 2^nd

witness is an employee of the Godown at Unkal-Hubli who is working since, 1983.

During the cross-examination of WW1, he admits the suggestion that as per the order dated 05.11.1996 the Sardars and

Mandals were allowed to continue. No fresh Sardars and Mandals were appointed subsequently. The Sardars and

Mandals working along with the Gang Workers were only eligible for incentives.

WW2 / the concerned workman of this dispute during his cross-examination admits that, as per the guidelines

of the Labour Committee of the Management, Sardars and Mandals are designated.

Rebuttal evidence is adduced by the Management through their Assistant General Manager (AGM) of 2^nd Party,

reiterating the Counter Statement averments. During his cross-examination he admits the suggestion, that Sardar and

Mandals were expected to report to the Depot Manager regarding the daily statements of receipts and issues, supervise

the handling work and clear the Wagons and Lorries within stipulated time, count the number of bags in the stock and

report the same to the shed incharge; they had to guide the handling workers as to how stock were to be stacked.

Both Parties have submitted their argument in writing.

When the 2^nd Party in its counter statement made it clear that, only those of the Sardars and Mandals who were working

with the gang Labourers and were carrying bags, only they were paid incentives; there is no counter to the same by the 1^st

Party. It is also not disputed that, the Union had not furnished the list of the Sardars and Mandals who were working

prior to introduction of DPS System. The case of the 2^nd Party stands to reason that the demand of the Union to appoint

the Maistries and Assistant Maistries as Sardars and Mandals is considered and they are posted as Sardars and Mandals.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6645

Though, the 1^st party during the cross-examination of MW1, is successful in bringing out various responsibilities

enjoined to the post of the Sardars and Mandals, they failed to establish that the 1^st Party workman were eligible for the

incentives which the Sardars and Mandals working with the Gang Labour are drawing. They are relaying on the

Judgement of the Apex Court in FCI Workers Union vs FCI AIR 1990 SC 2178, wherein, the Principle of equal pay for

equal work was highlighted; but the said Judgement do not come to their aid. The eligibility criteria for incentives are

bestowed only to the certain category of workmen who were inducted by the Committee as per the guidelines of the FCI

Head Quarters. There is nothing to presume that the 1^st Party are discriminated from those Sardar and Mandals who are

drawing incentives. There is no merit in their claim and they are not entitled for any relief in this dispute.

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s LDC, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 01^st August, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 28 अगF त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1627

1627

1627.—के+,ीय सरकार, , , , कमचारी राzय बीमा अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) क धारा 91-क के साथ

पठत धारा 88 ारा !दO शि/य% का !योग करते )ए पवन हंस िलिमटेड के कारखान%/Fथापनाs के िनयिमत कमचारय%

को इस अिधिनयम के !वतन से छूट !दान करती है। यह छूट, , , , अिधसूचना जारी होने क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए

लागू रहेगी।

उ/ छूट िन4िलिखत शतˆ के अधीन है; अथात्:-

(1)

पूव{/ Fथापना िजसम3 कमचारी िनयोिजत ह•, एक रिजFटर रखेगी, िजसम3 छूट !ा; कमचारय% के नाम और

पदनाम दखाये जाय3गे;

(2)

इस छूट के होते )ए भी, कमचारी उ/ अिधिनयम के अधीन ऐसी !सुिवधाएं !ा; करते रह3गे िजनको पाने के

िलए वे इस अिधसूचना ारा दी गई छूट के !वृO होने क तारीख से पूव संदO अंशदान% के आधार पर हकदार

हो जाते ह•;

(3)

छूट !ा; अविध के िलए, यद कोई अिभदाय पहले ही कए जा चुके ह%, तो वे वापस नह कए जाएंगे;

(4)

उ/ कारखाने/Fथापना का िनयोजक उस अविध क बाबत िजसके दौरान उस कारखाने/Fथापना पर उ/

अिधिनयम (िजसे इसम3 इसके पAात उ/ अविध कहा गया है) !वतमान था ऐसी िववरिणयां, ऐसे !ाSप म3

और ऐसी िविशि@य% सिहत देगा जो कमचारी राzय बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उ/

अविध क बाबत देनी अपेि<त होती थ;

(5)

िनगम ारा उ/ कमचारी राzय बीमा अिधिनयम क धारा 45 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन िनयु/ कया गया

कोई िनरी<क या िनगम का इस िनिमO !ािधकृत कोई अ+य पदधारी;

(i) धारा 44 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उ/ अविध क बाबत दी गई कसी िववरण क िविश@य% को

स"यािपत करने के !योजनाथ; अथवा

(ii) यह अिभिनिAत करने के !योजनाथ क कमचारी राzय बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 ारा

यथाअपेि<त रिजFटर और अिभलेख उ/ अविध के िलए रखे गये थे या नह; या

6646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii) यह अिभिनिAत करने के !योजनाथ क कमचारी, िनयोजक ारा दये गए उन फायद% को, िजसके

फलFवSप इस अिधसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद म3 और वFतु Sप म3 पाने का हकदार बना

)आ है या नह; या

(iv) यह अिभिनिAत करने के !योजनाथ क उस अविध के दौरान, जब उ/ कारखाने के संबंध म3 अिधिनयम के

उपबंध !वृO थे, ऐसे क+ह उपबंध% का अनुपालन कया गया था या नह, िन4िलिखत काय करने के िलए

सश/ होगा:-

(क) !धान या आस+ न िनयोजक से अपे<ा करना क वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे िजसे उपरो/ िनरी<क या

अ+य पदधारी आव?यक समझता है ; अथवा

(ख) ऐसे !धान या आस+ न िनयोजक के अिधभोगाधीन, कसी कारखाने, Fथापना, कायालय या अ+य

परसर म3 कसी भी उिचत समय पर !वेश करना और उसके !भारी से यह अपे<ा करना क वह

”ि/य% के िनयोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंिधत ऐसे लेखा, बिहयां और अ+य दFतावेज, ऐसे

िनरी<क या अ+य पदधारी के सम< !Fतुत कर3 और उनक परी<ा करने द3 या ऐसी जानकारी द3 िजसे

वे आव?यक समझते ह•; या

(ग) !धान या आस िनयोजक क, उसके अिभकता या सेवक क, या ऐसे कसी ”ि/ को, जो ऐसे

कारखाने, Fथापना, कायालय या अ+य परसर म3 पाया जाए, यह िव‘ास करने का युि/यु/ कारण

है क वह कमचारी है, परी<ा करना; या

(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, Fथापना, कायालय या अ+य परसर म3 रखे गए कसी रिजFटर, लेखा, बही या अ+य

दFतावेज क नकल तैयार करना या उƒरण लेना;

(ङ) यथािनधारत अ+य शि/य% का !योग करना ।

िविनवेश/िनगमीकरण के मामले म3, !दO छूट Fवत: र– हो जाएगी और तब नए !ित—ान को छूट हेतु समुिचत सरकार

क अनुमित लेनी होगी।

[सं. एस-38014/13/2011-एसएस-I]

संतोष कुमार \संह, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 28^th August, 2019

S.O. 1627.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of

factories/establishments of M/s. Pawan Hans Limited from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be

effective for a period of one year from the date of issue of notification.

The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely:-

(1) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the

name and designations of the exempted employees’;

(2) Notwithstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act

to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from

which exemption granted by this notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that

factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6647

such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the

Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the said

ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44 for

the said period; or

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’ State

Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in

cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this

notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period

when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied

by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person

found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to

examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and

payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in

such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector

or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document

maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then

the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/13/2011-SS-I]

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk-vk- 1628&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 flrEcj] 2019 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flokl tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tkpqdh gS½ ds mica/k fcgkj jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr 22 ftyksa

ds ftyk eq[;ky; ds uxj fudk; {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%&

^^vkSjaxkckn] vjfj;k] vjoy] ckadk] iwohZ pEikj.k] xksikyxat] teqbZ] tgkukckn] dSewj] [kxfM+;k]

fd'kuxat] y[khljk;] e/ksiqjk] e/kqcuh] uoknk] iwf.Zk;k] lgjlk] 'ks[kiqjk] f'kogj] floku] lqikSy] if'peh

pEikj.k**

[la- ,l&38013@01@2018&,l-,l-&I½

larks’k dqekj flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1628.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^stSeptember, 2019 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the

said Act shall come into force in the Municipal Limits of District Headquarters areas of following 22 districts in the State

of Bihar namely:-

6648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“AURANGABAD, ARARIA, ARWAL, BANKA, EAST CHAMPARAN, GOPALGANJ, JAMUI,

JEHANABAD, KAIMUR, KHAGARIA, KISHANGANJ, LAKHISARAI, MADHEPURA, MADHUBANI,

NAWADA, PURNIA, SAHARSA, SHEKHPURA, SHEOHAR, SIWAN, SUPAUL, WEST CHAMPARAN.”

[No. S-38013/01/2018-SS-I]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk-vk- 1629-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 flrEcj] 2019 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr

vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½

vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k if'pe caxky jkT; ds igys ds

vf/klwfpr {ks=ksa ds vykok fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%&

^^nkftZfyax ftyk if'pe caxky ds lHkh {[email protected] {ks=**

[la- ,l&38013@05@2018&,l,l&I]

larks’k dqekj flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1629.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^stSeptember, 2019 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the

said Act shall come into force in the following areas of State of West Bengal except the already notified areas namely:-

“All the areas of the districts DARJEELING, West Bengal.”

[No. S-38013/05/2018-SS-I]

S.K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk-vk- 1630-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 flrEcj] 2019 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks

mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi

/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k ukxkySaM jkT; ds ¼igys ds

vf/klwfpr {ks=ksa ds vykok½ fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%&

jkT;

ftyk

jktLo dsUnz

ukxkySaM

dksfgek

dksfgek E;wfufliy dkSafly

[la- ,l&38013@08@2018&,l,l&I½

larks’k dqekj flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1630.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^st September, 2019 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas of State of Nagaland (except the already notified

areas) namely:-

STATE

DISTRICT

ALL THE AREAS FALLING UNDER

NAGALAND

KOHIMA

KOHIMA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

[No. S-38013/08/2018-SS-I]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

6650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1632.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^st September, 2019 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following District in the State of Tamil Nadu, in whole, in addition to

the already implemented areas in the district namely:-

S.l No.

NAME OF THE DISTRICT

TIRUPPUR

[No. S-38013/05/2019-SS-I]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk-vk- 1633-&deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 flrEcj] 2019 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks

mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi

/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k iatkc jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr

{ks=ksa ¼igys ls O;kIr {ks=ksa ds vykok½ esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

Øe la-

jkT;

{ks=

iatkc

Þftyk ve`rlj] cjukyk] cfB.Mk] QjhndksV] Qrsgx<+ lkfgc] QkftYdk] xqjnkliqj]

gksf”k;kjiqj] tkya/kj] diwjFkyk] yqf/k;kuk] ekulk] eksxk] eqDrlj] uoka”kgj ¼”kfgn Hkxr

flag uxj½] QBkudksV] ifV;kyk] :iuxj] lkfgctknk vthr flaguxj ¼eksgkyh½]

lax:j] vkSj rjurkju ds lEiw.kZ {ks= ¼igys ls O;kIr {ks=ksa dks NksMdj½ ß

iatkc

ßftyk eq[;ky; {ks= fQjkstiqjÞ

[la- ,l&38013@06@2019&,l,l&I]

larks’k dqekj flag] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1633.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1^st September, 2019 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following Districts (including already notified areas) in the State of Punjab,

namely:-

Sl. No.

State

Area

Punjab

“Whole District of Amritsar, Barnala, Bathinda, Faridkot, Fatehgarh Sahib, Fazilka,

Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar, Kapurthala, Ludhiana, Mansa, Moga, Muktsar, Nawanshahr

(ShahidBhagar Singh Nagar), Pathankot, Patiala, Rupnagar, SahibzadaAjit Singh Nagar

(Mohali), Sangrur and Tarntaran (excluding the area which are already notified).”

Punjab

District Headquarters area of Ferozepur.

[No. S-38013/06/2019-SS-I]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

6652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought

into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following District in the State of Tamil Nadu, in whole, in

addition to the already implemented areas in the district namely:-

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE DISTRICT

TIRUNELVELI

[No. S-38013/09/2019-SS-I]

S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk-vk- 1636&-vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; cSad vkQ bafM;k

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] iVuk

¼fcgkj½ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 28 ¼lh½@2015½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&39025@01@2019&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1636.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28(C) of 2015) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA (BIHAR) as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 29.08.2019.

[No. L-39025/01/2019-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

I.D. Case No.:- 28 (C) of 2015

Between the management of (1) Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Maurya Lok Complex, Block-‘B’, 2^nd

Floor, Patna-800001 (2) The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Allalpatti, Darbhanga-846001 And Their

workman Sri Babu Saheb Choudhary, S/o- Auant Lal Choudhary, Vill.- Amaha Tola Tetarahi, Ward No.-10 P.S- Pipara,

Dist.- Supaul-852218.

For the management :

Sri Prabhas Kumar Verma, Senior Manager

Sri Vimal Kishore Prasad, Law officer

For the workman :

himself

Present :Vishweshwar Nath Mishra Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna

AWARD

Patna, dt. 16^th August, 2019

The present case has been filed an u/s 2A ( 1 & 2 ) of the Industrial Dispute (Amendment) Act, 2010 by the

aforesaid workman who seeks relief of setting aside the order dated-16.10.2014 passed by the Ld Disciplinary Authority

& confirmed by the Ld. Appellate Authority vide order dated-27.11.2014, reinstatement in the services of the Bank with

all consequential benefits and payment of cost of Rs. 10000/- for contesting the dispute.

Matter was raised by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Pakur ( for short A.L.C

( C ), who issued notices on 28^th May, 2015 to the concerned parties vide file no. 5/41/15-ALC-PKR.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6653

The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) Patna held discussions / Conciliation Proceedings. The attitude of the

management, during conciliation proceeding was far from conciliatory and there was no scope of redressal of grievances

either before the management or before the conciliation officer.

As a period of more than 45 days elapsed with no sign of any any settlement, the workman preferred an

application before this tribunal as per the provisions of section 2A (1 & 2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendement) Act,

2010.

Both parties appeared before this tribunal and written statement was filed by the management.

In the instant case a petition has been filed on behalf of the management on 06.09.2018 stating therein that in

view of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No.- 2053 of 2016 on 22.11.2017 and

confirmed in L.P.A No.- 1822 of 2017 on 17.05.2018 the present I.D. Case is not maintainable and hence the same

should be rejected.

A petition has also been filed on behalf of the workman on 01.08.2019 praying theirin to withdraw the instant

I.D.Case in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the workman himself want to withdraw the

I.D.Case.

Heard both the parties.

Accordingly, In view of the petition dt-01.08.2019 filed by the workman, the instant I.D. Case is hereby

dispossed of as withdrawan and also being not maintainable in view of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Patna

High Court. This award is effected after gazette notification / publication of award.

Accordingly, this is my award.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

16.08.2019

VISHWESHWAR NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk- vk- 1637-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 115@2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@89@2017&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1637.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No

1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.08.2019.

[No. L-12012/89/2017-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No. 1, DELHI

ID No. 115/2018

Shri Roshan Kumar Jha,

R/o WZ-568 B,

Naraina Village,

New Delhi – 110 028

…Workman

6654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The Deputy General Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Sarojini House,

6, Bhagwan Dass Road,

New Delhi – 110 001

M/s. Pro-Interactive Services India Private Limited,

Plot No. 31, 32, Begumpur Park,

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi – 110 017

…Managements

AWARD

Reference under Clause (d) of Sub Section(1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-12012/89/2017-IR(B-II) dated 06.02.2018 for

adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which is as under:

“Whether the services of the workman Shri Roshan Kumar Jha have been terminated illegally and/or

unjustifiably by the management of Pro-Interactive Services Pvt. Ltd. from the establishment of the

management of Syndicate Bank? If yes, to what relief is the workman entitled and what directions are necessary

in this respect?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement

of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of

the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Shri Roshan Kumar Jha opted not to file his statement of claim with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained

affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice

was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, workman opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. However, it is

made clear that there is no adjudication of the case on merits, as such, Shri Roshan Kumar Jha, the workman herein, is

still at liberty to agitate his cause in accordance with law. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : July 31, 2019

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk- vk- 1638-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

us'kuy cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 322@2005½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 29-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@97@2004&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6655

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1638.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 322/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No

2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.08.2019.

[No. L-12012/97/2004-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer

ID No. 322/2005

Registered on:-29.09.2004

Sh. Chhotta Ram, S/o Sh. Tuwarsu Ram, Village Tanyur,

Post Office Bahnna Jattan, Distt. Bilaspur (HP).

…Workman

Versus

Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Mandi.

The Zonal Manager Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Shimla.

Respondents/Management

AWARD

Passed on:-07.08.2019

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/97/2004-IR(B-II) Dated 03.09.2004, under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Mandi in imposing the penality of

compulsory retirement on Shri Chhota Ram S/o Shri Tuwarsu Ram w.e.f. 11.03.2003 is illegal and unjust?

If so, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

Both the parties were served with notices. The workman/claimant filed statement of claim with the averment

that he had joined the service of the bank on 19.12.1988 as Peon and had been working as Peon-cum-Daftri at Jaddu

Kuljiar under Regional Office, Mandi since 10.04.1992 prior to imposition of unjust and unfair punishment of

compulsory retirement imposed upon him on 11.03.2003 in spite of impeccable service record of more than 48 years.

Respondent no.1 was the disciplinary authority while respondent no.2 was appellate-authority regarding the concerned

matter in dispute. Branch Manager of the said branch Sh. S.P. Singh on the basis of the fabricated and false complaints

of some local residents lodged a complaint to the Regional Manager, Mandi, for taking disciplinary action against the

workman. By the order of Regional Manager, Mandi, preliminary investigation was got conducted by the Lead District

Manager, Bilaspur with report that complaints were baseless and were not factually correct. The Branch Manager S.P.

SIngh took personal initiative to approach various persons and ultimately obtain false written complaints against the

workman on the office-pad of the bank of Mrs. Mansa Devi, Puran, Jit Ram, Mahantu, Rattan Lal, who stated before the

authorities that no such complaints had been made by them. In spite of the preliminary investigations regarding the

complaints, a charge-sheet was issued to the workman on 23.08.2001 which replied by the workman on 12.06.2001,

containing all factual details but of no avail and learned Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 10.09.2011 initiated a

departmental enquiry against the workman. Namely S.K. Arora, Sr. Manager, Mandi, was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

The enquiry was conducted without compliance of principle of natural justice and without appreciating the evidence on

record, without summoning the complainants Mahantu, Jit Ram and the preliminary report of the Learned District

Manager Enquiry Officer, hastily holding the charge to be proved vide report dated 19.09.2002. The show cause notice is

issued by the learned Disciplinary Authority along with the proposed punishment to the workman and he submitted his

reply vide letter dated 30.09.2002 in response to the show cause notice. The learned Disciplinary Authority through non-

speaking order, reflective of personal bias, proposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation

benefits on the workman. The appeal filed before the Zonal Manager on 03.04.2003 was dismissed on 01.10.2003 by

him without assigning any cogent reasons on the facts submitted by the workman. The enquiry conducted against the

violation of principle of natural justice and fair play without considering the preliminary investigation conducted by the

6656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bank through an independent officer. Hence, the entire proceedings of enquiry are illegal and cannot sustain in the eye of

law. It is also mentioned that the learned Disciplinary Authority did not allow the workman a fair and reasonable

opportunity of personal hearing and act was formality just to obtain signature of workman in proof to attending the

personal hearing by the Appellate Authority. The entire proceeding in the matter or procedure are also contrary to the

facts and law as such, the impugned order dated 11.03.2003 is harsh and unjust in the eyes of law. The punishment

awarded by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority is not appropriate to the alleged charges and

punishment in the nature of compulsory retirement is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. It is

therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 11.03.2003 is liable to be set aside with the direction to the bank-

authorities to permit workman to resume his duties and other benefits which has been denied to the workman.

Respondents have filed written statement, alleging therein that workman while working at BO Jaddu Kuljiar

had allegedly misappropriated various amounts given to him by various customers of the Bank for which he was served

with a charge-sheet dated 23.08.2001 under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. Reply submitted by the workman

dated 05.09.2001 found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly Disciplinary Authority order the departmental enquiry to

find out the truthfulness of the charges. The Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry in accordance with the

provisions of Bipartite Settlement and also keeping in view the principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity to

the petitioner/workman to defend himself and present his case. The enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was

made available to the workman by the Disciplinary Authority for making submission on the findings of the enquiry. The

workman submitted his representation on 30.09.2002. Considering the same along with findings of the Enquiry Officer

and other materials on record placed during the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated

27.02.2003 to the workman proposing punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. He was

afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 01.09.2003 who presented his case before the Disciplinary Authority.

Considering the submission of the workman made during personal hearing the finding of enquiry report, the Disciplinary

Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 27.09.2003 which is under challenge. It is

further submitted that the preliminary report did not form part of departmental enquiry hence, it was not tendered in

evidence before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer gave his finding in the matter in accordance with law and no

extraneous record was brought on record by him while giving his findings. Management has not adopted selective

method of producing witnesses as alleged instead of witnesses of truth were only produced and cross-examined by the

workman. It was for the petitioner/workman to produce those witnesses which could speak in his defence but he has not

produced any witness so far in his defence. The workman has miserable failed to point out how he was denied reasonable

opportunity to defend himself. The order of punishment is not hard as management has already taken lenient view for

compulsory retirement instead of dismissal from service. The punishment so inflicted upon the workman is not based on

any opinion of the vigilance department as alleged by the workman without any substantive evidence hence, reference is

liable to be answered against the workman and petition has no force in the eye of law.

Workman has filed its replication, alleging therein that deposition of so called complaints were grossly

misread by the Enquiry Officer and such perverse finding of the learned Enquiry Officer were not interfered by the

Appellate-Authority. The remaining facts alleged in the replication is the same which are alleged in the claim petition as

such, it does not require to be repeated again.

Tribunal afforded opportunity to the parties for leading evidence. Workman Chhotta Ram has submitted his

affidavit Ex.A-1 while management has submitted affidavit of Jatinder Pal, Manager Regional Office, Mandi(HP), who

submitted his affidavit Ex.

It is a matter of record that claimant/workman was compulsory retired from service on 11.03.2003 in pursuance

of the enquiry conducted by the respondent-bank. Perusal of the file shows that this Tribunal vide order dated 19.03.2012

has held that the departmental enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner after giving proper opportunity to the

workman to defend himself as such, the enquiry was not conducted against the principle of natural justice. Perusal of the

order dated 19.03.2012, it transpires that workman has not assailed the procedure of fairness of enquiry instead of report

of Enquiry Officer as well as of the Disciplinary Authority. His objection to the Enquiry Officer was relates to the

process and appreciation of the evidence. My learned Predecessor vide order dated 19.03.2012 has held that the

argument of the workman-counsel regarding two domestic enquiry conducted in the case is misconceived with the

observation that the first enquiry was only a fact finding enquiry which is followed by domestic enquiry in accordance

with law. It is pertinent to mention that there is nothing on record to show that workman/claimant has challenged the

order dated 19.03.2012 before the Hon’ble High Court as such, it has become final and workman/petitioner is now

estopped to say anything regarding the fairness of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer.

I have heard the argument of the learned counsel of the workman Sh. B.B. Bagga, and counsel of the

management Sh. Saurav Verma, and given thoughtful consideration raised by the learned counsels during the course of

arguments.

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. Learned counsel

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6657

would contend that initial enquiry of fact finding was in favour which was neither placed on record nor made part of

departmental enquiry, causing prejudice to the workman. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that charges

are proved even then they relates to such charges which does not require punishment of termination. The impugned order

of compulsory retirement is very harsh and disproportionate against the charges leveled against him. Learned counsel

also submitted that workman has good service record throughout his career. The bank has terminated the workman from

the service in mala fide manner on the basis of enquiry report which is against the evidence on record. The workman-

counsel has also contended that the punishment of compulsory retirement 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

compulsory retirement 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.

Learned counsel for the management argued that action of the disciplinary authority in passing the dismissal

order is in commensurate to the gravity of misconduct proved against the workman. It is also submitted by the learned

counsel for the management-bank that role of the Court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the

Court cannot substitute its own views or finding arrived on the basis of the evidence available on record. In the matter of

imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the Court is very limited to exceptional cases. The punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be subjected to judicial review. In this connection, learned counsel of the

bank has drawn my attention towards the judgment of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of S.R. Tiwari Versus Union of

India (2013(7) Scale Page 417) and in the case of Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Raghudha Shiv Shankar Prasad

2007(1) RSJ Page 331 and in the case of M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and submitted that the workman is not

entitled to any leniency.

The main thrust of the claimant/petitioner-counsel relates to the fact finding enquiry report submitted. It is

argument by the learned counsel of the claimant that management has neither taken on record the above mentioned facts

finding report nor has made it a part of departmental proceedings. Learned counsel of the claimant/workman further

contended that this was in favour of the claimant that is why it is not made a part of departmental enquiry and also not

considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority causing great prejudice to the interest of the

workman/claimant. But, the learned counsel of the claimant could not cite any provision of case laws in support of his

argument that it was obligatory/mandatory for the respondent-management to go through the fact finding report.

Contrary to this, in my opinion, claimant/workman was at liberty to produce his witness during the course of

departmental enquiry for his defence. Similarly, he was also at liberty to produce other witnesses who were not examined

by the management and who had supported the version of the claimant/workman at the time of enquiry or before this

Tribunal in his defence. But, workman has not tried to prove his version by examining any witness before the Enquiry

Officer hence, argument of learned counsel of workman has no force.

10.

Perusal of enquiry report, it is crystal clear that claimant/workman was served with the charge-sheets dated

11.03.2003 imputing 6 charges regarding the receiving of amount from the complainants for deposition in the respective

accounts of the complainants which were not deposited by the workman/claimant on due date in spite the endorsement in

their passbooks resulting gross misconduct in view of the provision of the Bipartite Settlement. In fact, the enquiry

officer has submitted his enquiry report dated 19.03.2002 running into 58 pages holding that charge no.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 to

be proved.

11.

The Enquiring Authority has examined each and every charge leveled against the charged officer and the

documents produced by the presenting officer and came to the conclusion that most of the charges relating to minor

amount running from Rs.500/- up to Rs.3,000/- has been misappropriated. In a departmental enquiry, the disciplinary

authority is expected to prove the charges on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court reported in Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur;

(1972) 4 SCC 618 and R.S. Saini Vs. State of Punjab and Others; 1999(4) R.C.R (Civil) 253: (1999) 8 SCC 90. The

documents produced by the bank, which were not controverted by the charged officer, supports all the allegations and

charges leveled against the charged employee. In a case, where the charged employee had failed to inspect the

documents in respect of the allegations raised by the bank and not controverted it is always open to the Inquiring

Authority to accept the same.

12.

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. It

is fairly settled that 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.

6658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

It is settled law that punishment of the penalty to be imposed by the disciplinary authority against the charge-

sheeted official is to be commensurate with the gravity of alleged misconduct. Undoubtedly, an Industrial Tribunal in

terms of Section 11-A of the Act exercises discretionary jurisdiction. Indisputably, discretion must be exercised

judiciously and it cannot be based on whims and caprices and should be based to all relevant factors in mind in

exercising such jurisdiction. The nature of the misconduct alleged the conduct of the parties the manner in which the

enquiry proceedings had been conducted may be held to be relevant factor. A misconduct committed with an intention

deserves the maximum punishment. Each case must be decided on its own merits and in given case when the doctrine of

proportionality may be invoked.

14.

Question which arises for consideration before this Tribunal is whether punishment of compulsory retirement is

in proportionate to the charges proved against the charge-sheeted employee/workman. 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…..”

15.

Similarly, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Oths. Vs. Vidyabhushan

Mahapatra (1963) Supply 1 S.C.R. 648 opined that even if the charges which have been proved justified imposition of

punishment of dismissal from service this Court may not exercised its power of judicial review. Thus, it is made clear by

the Constitution Bench that power of judicial review is rare jurisdiction confirmed to the Tribunal as well as High Court

which could be exercised in rare manner going thorough the facts and the gravity of the charges proved during the course

of enquiry by the management. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management

of Usha Breco and Oths., Civil Appeal No.3551/2008 decided on 29.04.2008, has held that:-

“It may not be a correct approach for a superior court to proceed on the premise that an Act is a beneficent

legislation in favour of the management or the workmen. The provisions of the statute must be construed

having regard to the tenor of the terms used by the Parliament. The court must construe that statutory

provision with a view to uphold the object and purport of the Parliament. It is only in a case where there

exists a grey area and the court feels difficulty in interpreting or in construing and applying the statute, the

doctrine of beneficent construction can be taken recourse to. Even in cases where such a principle is resorted

to, the same would not mean that the statute should be interpreted in a manner which would take it beyond

the object and purport thereof.”

16.

There is no doubt that workman was employed as a Peon at the relevant time and he has misappropriated the

amount of several accounts-holders during the year 1999-2000 and was found guilty during the course of enquiry,

resulting the compulsory retirement with all retiral benefits by the competent authority of the management. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC vs. Hoti Lal, 2003(3) SCC, 605, has held in

paragraph 10 as under:-

If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of

functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt

with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transaction or acts in

a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trust worthiness is a must and unexceptionable.

Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper.

We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding order of dismissal.”

This view is further fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United

Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar, 2003(4) SCC 364, has held in paragraph 14 as under:-

“A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of

the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to

protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and

diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6659

inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in

Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 1996(9) SCC 69. It is no defence

available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without

authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its

officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by

itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature

and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.”

17.

Having gone through the above factual and legal position, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that

punishment of compulsory retirement with retiral benefits and further job is in commensurate with the gravity of

misconduct committed by the workman who misappropriated the amount paid to him for depositing by account holders

in their accounts. Thus, his misconduct has damaged the trust of the account holders towards the bank as well as trust of

bank itself. In such scenario, punishment of compulsory retirement with all the retiral benefits and further employment

against the workman Sh. Chhotta Ram is inconsonance with the misconduct committed by him as such, he is not entitled

for any relief and petition is liable to be dismissed.

18. The reference is answered accordingly. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication

as required under Section 17 of the Act.

A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk- vk- 1639-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkQ cMkSnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 154@2007½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@77@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1639.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.08.2019.

[No. L-12012/77/2007-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 23^RDAUGUST 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR No. 154/2007

I Party

II Party

Sh. R. Shyam Sunder,

R/o No.5, Sarvodaya Colony,

Hinwadi,

Belgaum – 590011.

The Regional Manager

Bank of Baroda,

Regional Office,

3^rd Floor, HJS Chambers,

No. 26, Richmond Road,

Bangalore – 560025.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. S.T.S Naik

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya

6660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/77/2007-IR(B-II) dated 28.11.2007 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for

brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Sh. Shyam

Sunder w.e.f. 25.03.2006 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The case of the 1^st Party workman is,

He joined the service as ‘Group D’ employee with the 2^nd Party Management on 15.02.2000 and served for

about 6 years, his service is dispensed w.e.f 25.03.2006. His educational qualification is 5^th Standard. Though, he has

served for more than 240 days in a calendar year, he was not granted permanent absorption. There were no adverse

communications to him by the 2^nd Party. His service with similarly placed workman is regularised and he is singled out.

The 2^nd Party resists the claim on the following ground; The referred dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as

defined in the Section 2 (k) of ‘the Act’. He has not undergone the procedure contemplated by the recruitment rules for

Sub-staff. The minimum eligibility for requirement of Sub Staff is 8th Standard pass but the 1^st Party is under qualified,

since, he claims that he is only 5^th Standard pass. No Appointment letter / Termination Order was issued to him, his

engagement if any can be only on purely temporary ad-hoc basis for passing contingencies. The Branch Manager has no

authority to appoint any Sub Staff. For appointment of any employee in the Bank, the Regional Manager is the authority,

after the vacancy is sanctioned by the General Manager. He is not entitled for any relief.

The Chief Manager HRM of the Regional Branch of the 2^nd Party corroborated the case of the 2^nd Party with his

affidavit evidence. The 1^st Party by way of his rebuttal evidence filed his affidavit evidence, he produced Ex W-1 / the

Photostat Copy of the muster roll dated 16.01.2003 maintained by the 2^nd Party showing his name. He has also submitted

his written argument.

The 2^nd Party being a Nationalised Bank has its own recruitment rules. It is not the case of the 1^st Party that, he

has passed through the recruitment procedure applicable to the 2^nd Party; it is also not his case that his name was

sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Furthermore, he lacks education qualification for appointment of a Sub Staff.

The veracity of Ex W-1 is disputed by the 2^nd Party. There is no acceptable documentary proof from his side that he had

worked for more than 240 days in a Calendar year. Even if he had rendered continuous service in a Calendar year as

contemplated by Section 25 (B) of the Act and terminated illegally, the benefit he may look for is monetary benefit

towards retrenchment compensation but not otherwise. His claim for absorption is founded on any right acquired by him

against the 2^nd Party.

The point for dispute is so framed with presupposition that, he is terminated w.e.f 25.03.2006 which

presupposition is denied by the 2^nd Party. As such there is no Termination Order also. In the given circumstance, the

question of recording justifiability or otherwise of the termination order of 25.03.2006 does not arise and the workman is

not entitled for any relief.

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s LDC, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 23^rd August, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk- vk- 1640-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 51@2001½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks

29-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@76@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6661

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1640.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.08.2019.

[No. L-12012/76/2001-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 16^TH AUGUST 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 51/2001

I Party

II Party

Sh. A. Chandrakanta,

S/o Sh. Bheemanna,

Since deceased by LRs

1a) Smt. Shanta Bai,

W/o Late Sh. A. Chandrakanta

1b) Sh. Sudhakar,

S/o Late Sh. A. Chandrakanta

Zonal Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Zonal Office, Gandhi Nagar,

Bangalore - 560 009.

Karnataka.

1c) Sh. Manjunath,

S/o Late Sh. A. Chandrakanta

All are residing at,

Plot No. 79,

Basavakalyan Post,

Bidar Dist.

Karnataka - 585 327.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. V.S. Naik

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/76/2001-IR(B-II) dated 13.08.2001 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity

‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Syndicate Bank is justified in imposing the punishment

of dismissal from service on Shri A. Chandrakanta? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Undisputed facts between the parties is, the 1^st Party workman namely Sh. A Chandrakanta who is no more, was

appointed as a Clerk in the 2^nd Party Bank on 09.07.1976. While working at Basavakalyan Branch he was kept on

suspension on certain allegation; charge sheet was issued, Domestic Enquiry was held by appointing Enquiry Officer.

After holding the Domestic Enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that charges levelled against the

workman are proved. The Disciplinary Authority after giving his audience to him in a personal hearing, dismissed him

from service. The appeal preferred by him thereon before the Appellate Authority also came to be rejected.

6662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In his claim statement the 1^st Party alleged that the Enquiry was held without providing him proper and

reasonable opportunity. However said allegation was disputed by the 2^nd Party in their counter statement. This Tribunal

on the rival pleadings framed a Preliminary Issue regarding fairness of the said Domestic Enquiry. After a full-fledged

trial, the enquiry is answered affirmatively in favour of the Management. Thereafter 1^st Party workman expired, and his

wife and 2 sons being his class-I Legal Heirs have come on record.

The 1^st Party workman in his claim statement had further alleged that finding of the Enquiry Officer is totally

perverse; there is total non-application of mind on the part of the Disciplinary Authority in not properly analysing the

case. The Report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted though the charges are not established. There is total miscarriage

of justice and he is wrongly dismissed from the service of the Bank.

The 2^nd Party justified their action as legal, in their counter statement.

Both learned counsels have advanced their arguments.

On a perusal of the records it eminates that, the charge sheet was issued in respect of the misconduct under

clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement. The imputation of the misconduct on two charges runs over 6 pages. To

epitomise the same the first charge pertains to the withdrawals from the SB A/c. No. 20116 of Smt. Shantha Bai Patil and

the second charge pertains to the withdrawal from the SB A/c No. 21185 of Sh. Sankar.

Regarding first charge it was alleged that he assisted the Account Holder to open the Account on 09.01.1992,

but cheque book was not issued to the Account Holder. Two withdrawals are made of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- on

30.12.1994 and 11.01.1995 respectively. The withdrawals are made through cheques bearing Nos. 634853 and 634863

respectively. The 1^st Party was working as Temporary Special Assistant in the Cash Department and was doing the work

of writing Manager’s scroll, supervising IBC, OBC, ISC and discounting departments at the Branch. He made entry in

the relative ledger folio that loose cheques were issued to the depositor, without any authentication by the Competent

Officer of the Branch. On 22.12.1994 he made entry in the Loose Cheques Issued Register that the cheques are issued to

SB A/c No. 20116 of Smt. Shantha Bai Patil; signature of the depositor appearing in the last column of the said register

does not tally with the specimen held on record of the Branch; this entry is subsequently struck off without recording any

reasons thereon. Subsequently on 26.12.1994 he made entry in the Loose Cheques Issued Register that a cheque No.

634853 was issued to her account. But the signature in the last column of the register differs; cheque No. 634853 though

was dated as 26.12.1994 same is utilised on 30.12.1994 to withdraw Rs. 4,000/-. On 03.01.1995 he made entry in the

Loose Cheques Issued Register that the cheque leaf bearing No. 634863 was issued to the Account Holder and he signed

on the last column of the folio for receipt of the said cheque leaf. He has entered the above referred two cheques in the

Manager’s scroll on the respective dates and the amount is paid; without a request letter from the depositor loose cheques

are issued and the signatures appearing on the relative cheques are forged. He further made credit entry in the SB ledger

folio for Rs. 11,420/- on 25.02.1995 to the SB Account, but there is no transaction / voucher supporting the entries in the

books of the Branch. There is no correspondence entry in the Sub-Day Book. The balance amount was raised to

Rs. 13,318/- and continued upto 30.06.1995 and thereafter struck off by putting the correcting balance as Rs. 1,898/-.

The Account Holder has not visited the branch during the above period. On 21.08.1995 an amount of Rs. 11,000/- was

credited to her SB Account in cash and the relative voucher bares Account Holders signature; the balance in the Account

was Rs. 13,636/- as on 21.08.1995.

Regarding second charge on 03.07.1993 he introduced and assisted Sh. Sankar S/o Sh. Mallapa Belle to open

SB Account 21185 with the initial deposit of Rs. 4,000/-. The Account Holder filled up the form in Hindi and singed as

Sankar only. On 24.12.1994 he debited a cheque No. 493787 for Rs. 2,500/- in the SB account ledger folio and the

balance stood to Rs. 100/-. The cheque leaf utilised to withdraw the said amount was in fact issued to the 1^st Party in

respect of his SB Account. He has put the folio number on the cheque after making relative debit entry in the ledger

folio. The signature of Sh. Sankar appearing on the said cheque is forged and does not tally with the specimen held on

record. Subsequently he made a credit entry dated 15.03.1995 in the relative ledger folio indicating that an amount of

Rs. 28,260/- was credited to the SB Account in cash but the credit entry is not supported by an bonafide transaction /

voucher as on that day. On that day, he has not worked in the SB department but was writing Manager’s Scroll. On

18.05.1995 he gave a withdrawal form bearing No. 032292 for the SB Account of Sh. Sankar and made debit entry of Rs.

28,000/- in the relative ledger folios by using withdrawal form which is filled up by him. The name of the depositor Sh.

Sankar is put below the purported signature of the account holder. The signature of the depositor appearing in the

withdrawal form issued register and also withdrawal form are forged and do not tally with the specimen signature. He

has made entry in the Manager’s Scroll and the amount is paid by the Cashier. Subsequently the credit entry of Rs.

28,260/- is struck off without touching the balance column. Though the credit entry of Rs. 28,360/- was of 15.03.1995

said entry is made on 03.04.1995 but before 18.05.1995. On 17.11.1995 a sum of Rs. 28,000/- was credited to the

account and the credit voucher is prepared by him but the identity of the remitter (who signed the voucher) could not be

ascertained. He prepared another credit voucher on 20.11.1995 for Rs. 3,800/- with the signature of one Jabbar as

depositor, but Sh. Sankar has left the village long back and became a Sanyasi residing at Mugalkot Mutt. The 1^st Party

has utilised his own cheque leaf and also got issued withdrawal form unauthorisedly without the knowledge of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6663

depositor and withdrew the amount with the forged signature of the depositor. He has made fictitious credit entry in the

said SB Account to conceal the fraudulent withdrawals.

During the Domestic Enquiry on behalf of the Management three witnesses were examined. The first witness is

the Investigating Officer; the second witness was the Present Manger at Basavakalyana Branch, he had stated to the

effect that Smt. S B Patel approached him with her Pass book MEX 97 informing that there are certain withdrawals in her

account and she had not withdrawn any amount from her account; after opening the account she never visited the Branch,

at his advice to give a letter she left the Branch and did not meet him thereafter. He further corroborated the charge sheet

allegations. The third witness was Sh. Gandhi, Handwriting Expert, working as Deputy Government Examiner; it

emerged from his evidence that there was no incriminating material from his examination against the 1^st Party workman.

The 1^st Party examined the Account Holder Smt. Shantha Bai Patil, she deposed that she has received

Rs. 4,000/- (MEX-2) and Rs. 7,000/- as in (MEX-7); she had taken the cheque 634853 personally from the Bank; she had

signed while taking the cheque book from the Bank, she has not made any complaint against the 1^st Party workman; due

to her old age and sickness there is no consistency in her signature on the cheques leaves. During her cross examination

by the Presenting Officer she concedes the suggestion that she received Rs. 11,000/- after preferring an oral complaint

with the Manager.

The Enquiry Officer based his findings on the evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 and returned his findings that the

charges levelled are proved beyond doubt; said report is acted upon both by Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate

Authority.

Sh. VSN for the appellant submits that neither of the Account Holders had made complaint against the 1^st Party

to the Branch; neither there was any loss / financial implication on the Bank consequent upon the alleged misconduct.

Assuming for a while that there were unauthorised withdrawals that would not have happened without the notice of the

Branch Manager and the Cashier at the Cash Counter. But those two Officials are spared and 1^st Party alone is, Charge

Sheeted, thus discriminated. DW-1 who ought to have been examined by the 2^nd Party to corroborate the charges has

appeared as Defence Witness and has deposed endorsing the withdrawal transactions as genuine. The Handwriting

Expert was clear in his report that the questioned writings were not written by the person (1^st Party) whose standard

writings are marked as C-1 to C-5 and they differ. Still on a hypothetical analysis of evidentiary material the Enquiry

Officer has recorded the finding of guilt.

10.

The 1^st Party workman had served the Bank for a long term of 22 years; he expired on 01.05.2018 without

getting the fruits of this adjudication. The Enquiry Report definitely is perverse for not analysing the evidence in a

proper perspective. It is a fit case to set aside the punishment order and grant consequential monetary benefit with

continuity of service upto the date of his superannuation to the legal heirs of the deceased workman.

11.

Sh. RU for the 2^nd Party while justifying the action taken against the 1^st Party workman submits that the 1^st Party

workman did not submit reply to the charge sheet at the earliest point of time; he has not examined himself as a Defence

Witness before the Enquiry Officer probably with the fear of being caught. Sh. RU took me through the Enquiry Report

wherein 1^st Party admits assisting Smt. S B Patil for opening the account in the Branch and also his acquaintance with the

account holder Sh. Sankar. He further admits filling up the account opening form, credit slips and entering the

particulars of the cheque Nos. 634853 and 634863 except the payees name of the cheques and signatures of the

depositors; he has admitted issuing the cheque leaves to her. In respect of the transaction relating to Sh. Sankar his

explanation is, the account holder later became a Sanyasi in order to facilitate the Sanyasi he was helping him in issuing

of cheque leaf, writing of particulars in the cheque leaf, entering the same in the SB Account ledger; Sh. Sankar had

come to a Mutt in Sasthapur village and asked him to help with Rs. 2,500/- and informed that the same to be drawn from

the his SB Account No. 21185 the next day. Since, the depositor did not have the cheque; his own cheque (1^st Party’s)

was issued for drawing the said amount by the Account Holder. The withdrawal slip No. 032292 dated 18.05.1995 was

issued by him and the entries in the SB ledger, withdrawal slip, issue register and also the particulars of the said cheque

leaf are made by him. Sh. RU further submits that the above admission is sufficient to hold that the 1^st Party personally

indulged in the withdrawals fraudulently. And also, it is brought during the enquiry that the amount withdrawn was

subsequently made good by deposits. Learned counsel further submits that the customer’s evidence was not required in

the present case having regard to the nature of the allegations.

12.

In the light of the above I notice that by the date the Investigating Officer took up Investigation on

28/29.12.1995, the amount withdrawn allegedly fraudulently was made good. The circumstance leading to the initiation

of Investigation was on the oral complaint made by the Account Holder Smt. S B Patil to the Branch Manager / MW-2.

While scrutinising the account pertaining to Smt. S B Patil he came across the withdrawals pertaining to SB Account No.

21185 of Sh. Sankar Mallapa Belle (Sankar).

6664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

Probably, the Account Holder DW-1 was before the Enquiry Officer to bail out the 1^st Party workman. Her

statement that she deposited Rs. 4,000/- on the first occasion and withdrew the amount on the same day is against her

own document i.e. Pass Book, she had deposited Rs. 5,000/- initially on 09.01.1992 and withdraw Rs. 4,000/- for the first

time only on 30.12.1994 (as per MEX-97 marked during Domestic Enquiry). She did not dispute about her visit to the

Branch and informing about the withdrawals to the Manager, her only answer was I do not remember. When questioned

that she received Rs. 11,000/- after her oral complaint to the Manager her answer was ‘Yes. In the next breath she stated

that she did not go to the Manager’. The Handwriting Experts evidence does not conclusively either bail out the 1^st Party

workman or tightens the nook around his neck. If really Sh. Sankar who had become a Sanyasi had authorised the

1^st Party to withdraw the amount from his account in consideration to the amount of Rs. 2,500/- lent by the 1^st Party then

it is not in the natural course for the said Sanyasi to credit Rs. 28,260/- to the said account on 15.03.1995. Something is

amiss between what meets the eye and what could have been the actuality. The involvement of the 1^st Party in

withdrawing the amounts in the name of the Account Holders is established by the documentary evidence.

14.

It is further noticed from his, appeal memo that he fairly admits his responsibility for the entries in the scroll,

sub-day etc., in respect of the SB Accounts. But what about the Supervising Officials who verified the signatures of the

depositors on the cheque leaves? Not only the cashier who disbursed the amount was not examined as a witness, but also

the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement. Not taking any action against all the concerned i.e. the

Supervising Official, Scroll Officer and the cashier for the fraudulent withdrawal would lead to only one conclusion that

1^st Party workman alone was discriminated. Viewing the matter from that angle I am of the considered opinion that the

punishment of dismissal was harsh and severe for a workman who had rendered 22 years of service with the 2^nd Party.

Had if they had a history sheet of misconducts to the credit of the 1^st Party workman definitely that would have been

brought on record during the Domestic Enquiry. Probably the 1^st Party had rendered unblemished service from his initial

appointment until 1994 where after he involved in the alleged incidents. Dismissal of the workman not only puts an end

to his career of an employee but also his dependent family will be left high and dry without monetary support. That apart

the emotional relationship between the family members gets disturbed.

15.

Though I do not find any perversity in the finding of the Enquiry Officer, still cannot endorse the justifiability of

the punishment order imposed on the workman for the observations supra. This is a fit case which warrants extension of

jurisdiction of this Tribunal under the beneficial legislature of sec 11-A of the I.D Act. If the punishment of dismissal

order is modified as on order of compulsory retirement that would fetch terminal benefits for which the 1^st Party

workman was legally entitled to. The children of the deceased are now major and cannot be his dependents to look for

the monetary benefits arising out of the terminal benefits of the Award and the said amount shall come in aid of Smt.

Shantha Bai the wife of the deceased 1^st Party workman.

AWARD

The reference is accepted

The 2^ndParty Management of M/s. Syndicate Bank is not justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from

service on LateSh. A. Chandrakantha vide order dated 15.01.1998. The punishment order of 15.01.1998 is

modified instead as the order of ‘compulsory retirement’. The 2^nd Party is directed to release all the consequential

terminal benefits to the wife of the deceased 1^st Party workman namely Smt. Shantha Bai, within 60 days from the

date of publication of the award in the official gazette, failing which the amount shall carry simple interest of

6% per annum.

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 16^th August, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk- vk- 1641-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

flafMdsV cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 05@2006½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 29-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@34@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6665

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.08.2019.

[No. L-12011/34/2003-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 23^RD AUGUST, 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 05/2006

I Party

II Party

1. The General Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Employees

Union (Regd.),

No. 91, Halwasiya Market,

(3^rd Floor), Hazrathganj,

Mahatma Gandhi Marg,

Lucknow - 226 001,

Uttara Pradesh.

The General Manager (P),

Syndicate Bank,

Head Office,

Manipal - 576 104.

Karnataka.

2. The General Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Staff Association (Regd.),

Ananda Plaza, II Floor,

Near Ananda Rao Circle,

Bangalore – 560 009.

3. The General Secretary,

Syndicate Bank Staff Union (Regd.),

Having its office at Manish Towers,

84, J.C. Road,

Bangalore - 560 002.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. R. Nagendra Naik

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Pradeep S Sawkar

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/34/2003-IR(B-II) dated 05.01.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred

by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’

hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, Karnataka is justified

in terminating the bilateral settlement dated 06.04.2002, reducing posts carrying special allowance, thus

affecting future employment of workmen in the bank? Whether the action of the bank management is

correct in reducing and/or not filling up of posts carrying special allowances identified at the Apex Level

by the Indian Bank Association and All India Bank Employees’ Association under a Settlement? If not to

what relief and benefit the workmen are entitled?”

The Industrial Dispute is raised unitedly by three Trade Unions of the 2^nd Party. While 1^st Party No. 1 and 3

have filed common claim statement, 1^st Party No. 2 filed separate claim statement.

6666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As per 1^st Party No. 1 and 3 Union, the service conditions of the workman in the Banking Industry including the 2^nd Party

Bank are determined by the Bipartite Settlements; the last settlement at the Industrial level is signed on 02.06.2005 and

the same is called by 8^th Bipartite Settlement. A dispute between certain Banking Companies and their workmen was

refereed by the Central Government for adjudication to a Tribunal consisting of Justice Sri. S. Panchapagesha Sastry as

Chariman and one Sri. M.L. Tannan and another Sri V.L. D’Souza, Professor of Economics, University of Mysore and

Members. The award passed by the Tribunal is popularly known as Sastry Award and the award is notified by the

Central Government. One of the demands placed by the workman in the said dispute was that reasonable career

opportunity should be provided to the workmen and within the workmen cadre a higher scale of pay should be provided

to compensate the workmen for discharging work carrying with it greater responsibility than routine work so that they get

higher emoluments. As per the Sastry Award the compensation in this regard is by way of lump sum allowance / special

allowance; Supervisors, Superintends, Sub-Accountants, Departmental in-charge, Employees in-charge of Treasury pay

offices are the categories entitled for special allowance as per Sastry Award. In course of time these posts came to be

designated as Special Assistants uniformly as per the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 / 1^st Bipartite Settlement.

Vide notification dated 13.06.1962 Government of India brought into effect an award rendered by National Industrial

Tribunal headed by Justice Kanthilal T. Desai and this award commonly known as Desai Award did not make any

changes in the designations enhanced the special allowances payable to the categories of the workmen referred above.

It is further stated that, in the 1^st Bipartite Settlement the service conditions were settled; by this settlement the

post of Supervisors, Superintendents, Departmental in-charge etc., came to be uniformly designated as Special

Assistants; uniform duties and responsibilities were also settled for this category of Special Assistants. As per clause

5.2(xix) of the settlement rate of special allowance was fixed at Rs.75/- for ‘A’ Class Banks, Rs. 70/- in respect of ‘B’

Class Banks and Rs. 62/- in respect of ‘C’ Class Bank. However, as per para 5.14 (i) & (ii) the Banks are free to entrust

with the duties agreed, to the Special Assistants if they are not already performing them and their duties shall not be

recreated as Supervisory duties and shall be regarded as ‘Workmen’ for all purposes irrespective of their emoluments,

designations or nomenclatures in different Banks. Prior to 1960 the lowest category of officers / ‘C’ rank officers were

drawing wages less than Rs. 500/- per month. SBEU raised an Industrial Dispute to treat the ‘C’ rank officer as

workmen, since their monthly salary was less than Rs. 500/- and they used to perform the duties which is not managerial.

The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal and was answered in favour of the workmen.

Consequent to the said award a new category of post known as ‘Workmen Supervisors’ came to be created and they were

re-designated as Special Assistants under the 1^st Bipartite Settlement.

It is further stated vide Bipartite Settlement of 17.09.1994 for filling up the post of Special Assistants suitability

may be assessed on the basis of interview; prior to that settlement posting of Special Assistants used to be strictly based

on seniority in the clerical cadre. By successive settlements and awards the matter of determination of vacancies in the

category of Special Assistants is to be settled at the individual Bank’s level. Deployment of surplus staff is also agreed

where there is surplus / deficit in the areas of operations at different centres in different Banks. As per 7^th Bipartite

Settlement deployment policy to remove the imbalances of the staff shall be negotiated and settled at the Bank level.

It is further stated by the 1^st Party No. 1 and 3, that the negotiations for the Bipartite Settlement commenced at

the Industry Level on 24.10.2002. One of the demands raised by the Management was abolition of all special pay

carrying post in clerical and subordinate staff cadre which includes Special Assistants also. The Union also placed their

charter of demands under the 8^th Bipartite Settlement of 02.06.2005. The Management gave up their above demand.

Certain enhanced responsibilities and job content is entrusted to Special Assistants; the special pay payable to Special

Assistants is increased to Rs. 1,400/- per month for the period 01.11.2002 to 02.06.2005 and thereafter Rs. 1,600/- per

month. Settlement between the recognised Workmen Trade Union and the Management dated 25.01.1999 is entered in

the matter of selection of Data Entry Operators / ALPM / AEAM / Computer Terminal Operators and in respect of

entrustment of operator’s duties.

It is further stated as per the above settlement a person once posted for the post of Special Assistant will occupy

the post permanently till his retirement or promotion or cessation of service on any ground. Withdrawal of special

allowance duties cannot be done except as a matter of punishment for a proved act or misconduct under the provisions

stipulated for disciplinary actions. Whenever a Special Assistant is on leave his duty will be temporarily entrusted to a

clerk according to seniority in the Branch and would be paid pro-rata special allowance; vide settlement dated

27.09.1990 detailed norms are settled in the matter of posting of clerks of regular Special Assistants and temporary

entrustment of Special Assistant duties; the settlement was modified by further settlements which were in force till

05.04.2002. Vide notice dated 12.05.2001 the Bank sought to terminate the settlement of 30.01.1996. The matter was

negotiated and the fresh memorandum of settlement 06.04.2002 is signed between SBEU and 2^nd Party and the said

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6667

settlement holds the field. Under the said settlement management will declare the number of vacancies of Special

Assistants once a year so as to have one Special Assistants for every 15 clerks as on 31^st March of every year. As on date

Bank is required to have 1376 Special Assistants but there are only 43 Special Assistants as of now.

It is further alleged that the Bank issued a notice of change dated 16.11.2002 to terminate the settlement of

06.04.2002. The Bank notified not to entrust Special Assistant duties to clerical employees but no notice was issued as

contemplated under sec 19 of the Act terminating the settlement. While the negotiation was in progress at the Industry

level the Bank issued notice dated 16.11.2002 by abolishing all special pay carrying posts in clerical and sub staff cadres.

The 1^st Party No. 1 Union raised the Industrial Dispute before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Bangalore,

until a settlement is replaced by another settlement or award earlier settlement continues to bind the parties, while the

conciliation was pending the Bank came with a circular dated 13.03.2003 proposing to promote the Special Assistants as

Officers in Junior Management Grade Scale-I. Special Assistants who were unwilling to opt for promotion were

threatened, cajoled and assured of bright future. Promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre is governed by settlement

dated 09.09.1998 signed between SBEU and the Bank. By the said circular automatically such of the Special Assistants

not willing to become officers will seek reversion voluntarily; all this is done in total contravention of the earlier

settlements regarding promotion policy. On the workman union giving a notice of strike the Management gave another

circular of 19.03.2003, by the said circular Special Assistants who are not selected as officer could continue as special

assistants. The 1^st Party Trade Unions along with SBSA filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court seeking a

direction to the Bank to continue to operate the memorandum of settlement of 06.04.2002 and 09.09.1998 until

conclusion of proceedings initiated by the unions (W.P Nos. 16272-16274 / 2003). Without filing the objection

statement for a long time, they have issued another notice dated 23.03.2004 to the Special Assistants giving them last

opportunity to opt for promotion on or before 24.04.2004 otherwise duties entrusted to them would be withdrawn

automatically. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 29.04.2004

direction was given to maintain status quo. Still, the Bank has withdrawn the special pay payable to the Special

Assistants and withdrew the Special Assistant duties and reduced the Special Assistants as clerks.

It is further stated that 1^st Party unions issued notice dated 07.05.2004 to the Bank pointing out that the action of

the of withdrawal of Special Assistant duties etc., amounts to contempt of the Hon'ble High Court’s order of 29.04.2004.

The Bank has given untenable reply that the orders of the Hon'ble High Court did not operate beyond state of Karnataka

etc. The post of Special Assistants is the only opportunity for the career progression to the workmen who cannot become

officers and also who cannot secure higher rank in the All India process of Selection. The action of the management is

grossly contrary to law and is illegal.

The 1^st Party No. 2 i.e. Syndicate Bank Staff Association has filed its claim statement in tune with the claim of 1^st Party

No.1 and No.3.

The 2^nd Party resists the claim on following lines:-

Whenever the word ‘Special Assistants’ is used it indicate Clerks entrusted with Special Assistant Duties; the Bank

subsequently took decision for promotion of Special Assistants to Officer Cadre as one time measure. Accordingly,

promotion process was initiated, options were given to the Special Assistants either to opt for promotion or to continue as

Clerk or to seek reversion from special pay duties; promotion is not a matter to be consulted with the union but a matter

of discretion of the union. The union mixed up the issue of promotion of clerical staff as per the policy of 09.09.1998

with that of the promotion of Special Assistants as one-time measure. The policy framed for prompting the Special

Assistants was discussed with the union but the union did not agree with the policy. Writ Petitions filed by individual

workmen before various High Courts challenging the circular / promotion policy came to be dismissed. The 1^st Party

union filed a W.P No. 16272-16274/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka subsequently the W.P is

withdrawn, as per the agreement reached between the parties during the conciliation held before RLC(C), Bangalore.

It is further stated by the 2^nd Party that in the back ground of the decision taken by the Board of Directors, not to

entrust Special Assistant duties, proper notice was served on the recognised union terminating the settlement and also

notice of change under sec 9-A of ‘the Act’ was issued; measures were taken to give options to the Special Assistants

numbering 883 as a one-time measure to be promoted as Officers in JMGS I vide circular No. 37/2003/BC/ HRD dated

13.03.2003; subsequently two more options were given; Special Assistants who opted to be officers were promoted, still

1^st Party No. 1 and others approached the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 16272-16274/2003 and I.A in W.P 17093-

17095/2004 (L) and obtained interim direction to maintain status quo in so far as the withdrawal of duties and

re-designation of Special Assistants who had not opted for promotion. The Bank decided to maintain status quo in

6668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

respect of 20 Special Assistants in Karnataka who were occupying the position as on the date of the interim order i.e.,

26.05.2004; 4 of them who opted to become officers are promoted pending interim stay, there are 27 other Special

Assistants in other states who have not opted to become officers; their special duties are withdrawn w.e.f. 01.05.2004 and

the special allowance was allowed to be retained as personal pay until further orders. During the conciliation meeting

held in the Office of RLC(C) all the parties agreed during the conciliation that the Bank would retain the designation of

Special Assistants for only 43 clerks who had not opted for promotion of officers till Industry Level Bipartite Settlement

is reached subject to condition that the union shall withdraw all court cases filed against the Management in various

Courts / Forums in the issue of Special Assistants. The Unions accepted and the strike was withdrawn. The Bank is at

liberty to utilise the service of 43 Special Assistants with appropriate placement till a review is undertaken on the issue.

Part I of Schedule II Bipartite Settlement 23.07.2000 contemplates 25 categories, with rates of amount of special pay to

each category.

10.

It is further contended by the 2^nd Party that Special Assistant duties is not a separate cadre, no separate pay

structure is laid in the Bipartite Settlement to Special Assistants; they are only entrusted with special pay duties and they

are entitled for the allowance as laid down in the Bipartite Settlements. Such entrustment of duties was in vogue in the

Bank much earlier to Bipartite Settlement of 19.10.1996; it is only at the discretion of the Management and depending on

need for such duties. The Bipartite Settlement does not create any post as such in clerical cadre and does not direct the

member Banks to have all such functions performed. Depending upon the need and necessity, the modalities of

selection, appointment and termination etc., vary and to be finalised by individual settlement between the Member Banks

and their recognised Unions concerned. The 2^nd Party finalised the modality for entrustment of duties with the recognised

union and settlements were entertained under the provisions of ‘the Act’. These settlements were reviewed and suitable

changes were made over a period of time. One such settlement is of 06.04.2002.

11.

It is further pleaded that now more competitive private and foreign Banks have entered the field; various types

of convenience Banking is in demand; in the present situation fast and quick efficient service are required to be adopted;

the Bank introduced Centralised Banking Solution in January 2002 with frontline Banking service; many Branches are

brought to the fold of CBS network; these operation in CBS system requires duties beyond the provisions of Bipartite

Settlement; clerical staff cannot perform all those duties such duties are required to be redefined in Industry level

settlement. Therefore the counters are manned by Officers. In the changed scenario role of clerk entrusted with Special

Assistant duties is very much obscure and hence the Bank decided to terminate the settlement over entrusted of Special

Assistant duties to the clerical staff and issued notice under sec 9-A of the Industrial Dispute Act dated 16.11.2002. The

settlement terminated was with the management of the Bank and not pertaining to Industry level. In view of the

termination of the settlement the Bank is not bound to entrust Special Assistant duties in future. Nowhere in the Awards

/ provisions, it is stated that the special pay duties are compulsorily to be created in the Bank. The discretion vests with

the individual Banks either to entrust or not.

12.

Further it is stated that there were as many as 25 special pay duties including Special Assistant duties in the 7^th

Bipartite Settlement, it is reduced to 11 in the 8^th Bipartite Settlement. As per schedule III of 8^th Bipartite Settlement

“The special pay duty do not include the routine duties of the cadre (clerical / subordinate) which a workman

has to normally perform; but merely refer to special allowance duties which if performed in addition to routine

duties will entitle a workman to special pay on the terms and condition provided in chapter V of Bipartite

Settlement as modified”.

It is also noted in the said settlement

“(ii) Henceforth, selection of staff being entrusted with special pay carrying posts shall be on the basis of their

suitability for their specialised function, norms for which shall be decided at the Bank level”.

The 2^nd Party has set a target of introducing CBS System in 1500 branches from 31.03.2006; as per 8^th Bipartite

Settlement the clerical staff entrusted with computer operator ‘B’ duties as specified in addition of their duties of the

computer operator ‘A’. The amount of special pay fixed for computer operator ‘A’ is Rs. 910/- per month and computer

operator ‘B’ is Rs. 1,100/- per month. Much of the day to day cash transaction since is below Rs. 20,000/- per instrument

which a computer operator ‘B’ can perform. For this purpose entrustment of Special Assistant duties is not necessary.

As many as 1501 clerical employees / computer operators are working in about 800 CBS Branches; by extending the

CBS branches the number of clerical employees performing computer operator ‘B’ duties will be doubled. In the light of

the provisions of Bipartite Settlement the action of the management is well within the provisions of Bipartite Settlement.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6669

13.

The 2^nd Party placed their evidence through their Senior Manager, Industrial Relations; he produced copies of

the 28 documents, they are all the minutes of joint meeting / conciliation, notice of change of service under sec 9-A

‘the Act’, promotion orders pertaining to Special Assistants, the copies of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Courts

and the copy of the 7^th Bipartite Settlement. As such they are all undisputed documents. Though the 1^st Party objected

marking of Photostat copies of the documents, the objection was overruled and the documents are taken on record.

However, the 1^st Party has not disputed the veracity of these documents. MW-1 reiterated the stand of the management

in his affidavit evidence. During his cross examination he admits the suggestion that the post of Special Assistants is

continued in the 9^th Bipartite Settlement as a post carrying special pay.

Rebuttal evidence is adduced by the 1^st Party No. 1 through its Honorary President. In his affidavit evidence he

contends that when the demand of the Bank for abolition of special pay carrying post was rejected at Industrial level

negotiation, on overreaching the Bipartite Settlement the Bank has issued notice dated 16.11.2002 that amounts to refusal

on the part of the 2^nd Party to bargain collectively in good faith with the recognised Trade Union. It is a prohibited unfair

labour practice under the 5^th Schedule of the Act. The Bank resorted to section 9(A) as a device to circumvent the law

and frustrate the collective bargaining; while the conciliation proceedings was in progress the circular dated 13.03.2003

was issued proposing to promote Special Assistants to officers post in junior management grade scale-I; they threatened

the Special Assistants that if they do not participate in the promotion process, they will be reverted as clerk and posted to

punishment centres.

14.

The adjudication does not warrant reiteration of the history as narrated in the pleadings and the examination in

chief evidence of the witnesses. It is already on record that subsequent to the reference there was another settlement / 9^th

Bipartite Settlement between the Union and the Management thereby the post of Special Assistants carrying special

payments is continued. Even at this stage the parties differ as to whether it is a special pay or a special allowance, be that

as it may be. Within the spectrum of the present dispute, this Tribunal is only concerned about the justifiability of the

action of the Management in not filling up the post carrying special allowances as identified by the Industry level

Settlement between the Association of the Banks and Association of the Various Bank Employees. The Tribunal cannot

be unmindful of the present scenario wherein Private Banks and Multi National Banks have entered the field of Banking

in the Country. Though the Industrial Dispute is always between the Management on the one side and the workmen on

the other side it shall always be borne in mind the existence or exit of an Industrial concern is dependent on the 3^rd Stake

Holder i.e. the Customer. While the Management and the work force are on the issues concerning their Welfare,

convenience, benefits, very rarely they bring in the issue of the customer care. By this day the Indian Banking has gone

sea of change in its Administration, Business and Customer Service. While the 2^nd Party maintains that entrusting

Special Assistant duties to its clerical employees is the domain of the Individual Bank, the 1^st Party would insist that post

of Special Assistant is the only opportunity for career progression of the workmen who are unable to become officer

either because of their not being able to compete and secure higher rank in the All India Process of selection by

competition or unable to go far off places due to personal or family reasons. It was pointed out by the 2^nd Party that there

are introducing CBS system over 1500 Branches, vide 8^th Bipartite Settlement, clerical staff are entrusted with additional

computer operator duties (B) category and the staff carrying on those duties are given enhanced amount of special pay

than that of the regular computer operator ‘A’ category. The evidence brought in by the 1^st Party does not address the

above contention of the 2^nd Party, as to which are those special pay posts which are essential to run the Banking Business.

As per the 8^th Bipartite Settlement Schedule V they are said to have agreed between themselves “The special pay duties

do not include the routine duties of the cadre (Clerical / subordinate) which a workman has to normally perform; but

merely refer to special allowance duties which if performed in addition to routine duties will entitle a workman to special

pay in terms and conditions provided in Chapter V of the Bipartite settlement as modified”. It is also agreed that

“(ii) Henceforth, selection of staff being entrusted with special pay carrying posts shall be on the basis of their

suitability for their specialised function, norms for which shall be decided at the Bank level”.

15.

Thus 1^st Party having accucised the stewardship of the 2^nd Party about selection of special pay carrying post,

there is no logic on their part in questioning the reduction of post carrying special allowance. Much is said on the

legality of the termination of the Bilateral Settlement of 06.04.2002 by issuing a notice under sec 9-A of ‘the Act’. But

when it is a fact between the parties that subsequently they have gone for 9^th Bipartite Settlement retaining the post of

Special Assistants, the logical conclusion is, there is no existing Industrial Dispute between the parties on the subject. It

is up to the parties by deliberate the subject across the table to identify the post carrying special allowances, keeping in

view the requirement of the competitive Banking Service in the Country. There is no logic in insisting the Bank to

maintain the posts identified by the 1^st Bipartite Settlement of 19.10.1966. The Bipartite Settlement of 06.04.2002 is

terminated within a short span by issuing a notice of 16.11.2002. Since, no period was contemplated in the said

6670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

settlement no fault can be found on the part of the 2^nd Party in issuing the said notice. In the light of the provision 2 to

section 19 of the Industrial Dispute Act which contemplates, “(2) such settlement shall be binding for such period

as is agreed upon by the parties, and if no such period is agreed upon for a period of 6 months from the date on which

the memorandum of settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute and shall continue to be binding on the parties after

the expiry of the period aforesaid until the expiry of 2 months from the date on which a notice in writing of an intention

to terminate the settlement is given by one of the parties to the other party or parties to the settlement”.

However, said notice was not acted upon in its entirety and several staff members who did not opt for promotion

continued as Special Assistants, thereby diffusing the tense created by the termination notice. Various Hon'ble High

Courts have already rejected to intervene in respect of abolition of special pay allowance posts.

16.

For the discussions supra, I hold that the referred Industrial Issue pales by itself consequent upon the subsequent

9^th Bipartite Settlement wherein the post of Special Assistant was also one of the subjects and there is no apprehension of

Industrial unrest in the matter. The 1^st Party members are not entitled for any relief in this reference.

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 23^rd August, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2019

dk- vk- 1642-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad

vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 44@1998½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29-08-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@78@1997&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 29^th August, 2019

S.O. 1642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/1998) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 29.08.2019.

[No. L-12012/78/1997-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 23^RD AUGUST 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 44/1998

I Party

II Party

Sh. Shantakumar,

Vetal Building-CCB-123,

III Cross, Nehru Nagar,

Belgaum - 590 010.

The Chief Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

Regional Office,

49, St. Marks Road,

Bangalore - 560 001.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6671

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Anat P Savadi

Advocate for II Party : Mr. Pradeep S Sawkar

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/78/97-IR(B-II) dated 23.04.1998 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for

brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of management of Bank of India in dismissing the services of Sh. Santakumar

Basappa Bevinakatti, Ex-Clerk w.e.f 08.10.1994 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said

workman is entitled?”

The 1^st Party workman herein joined the service of the 2^nd Party as a Cashier cum Accounts Clerk on

02.03.1982; on certain allegations Charge Sheet dated 08.09.1993 was issued, he submitted his reply refuting the

allegations levelled in the Charge Sheet. The 2^nd Party held Domestic Enquiry on appointing the Enquiry Officer.

Enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer after holding a Full-fledged enquiry, holding the workman guilty of

the charges. The Disciplinary Authority acting on the enquiry report dismissed him from service w.e.f. 08.10.1994.

In his claim statement the workman contends that the amount of misappropriation as shown in the Charge Sheet

does not tally with the figures of the inward and outward cash book, without ascertaining the actual figures Enquiry

Officer have recorded perverse findings. He has placed reliance on the confession letter obtained from the Police

Authority but the Police Authorities obtained the confession letter from him under threat. The Bank has not lost the

amount as alleged; he is unemployed and has no source of livelihood.

The 2^nd Party in their counter statement would contend that while working in the Bijapur Branch of the Bank he

misappropriated the Bank amount between 22.10.1992 to 07.01.1993. He enacted a drama of robbery resulting in cash

loss of Rs. 12,70,000/- to the Bank, amounting to misconduct under Clause 19.5 (d) & (j) of the Bipartite Settlement.

During the Domestic Enquiry, full opportunity was given to him to defend against the charges; copy of the enquiry

finding was furnished to him; on a careful consideration of his representation he is dismissed from service vide order

dated 18.10.1994. He is guilty of misappropriation, breach of trust resulting in cash loss of Rs. 12,70,000/- to the Bank.

The punishment imposed is not excessive.

Regarding the grievance of the workman pertaining to fairness of Domestic Enquiry, a preliminary issue was

raised, tried and answered vide order dated 23.07.2002, upholding the Domestic Enquiry as FAIR AND PROPER.

The 1^st Party has given evidence by way of affidavit alleging that he is victimized by the Management and he is

unemployed. Written argument is submitted by the 2^nd Party. Though notice was issued and was served, 1^st Party did

not turn up to submit his argument.

The charge sheet was issued to the 1^st Party in respect of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him

while working as clerk cum cashier in the Bijapur Branch of the 2^nd Party Bank; vide articles of charge dated 08.09.1993.

The gist of the charge was,

Firstly, on 22.10.1992 he had taken Rs. 1,33,865.85 from the cash safe for the transaction of the day; he received

Rs. 2,10,681/- during the day and had made payments of Rs. 1,71,641/-; he was required to deposit Rs. 1,72,905.85 at

the end of the day, but he deposited Rs. 1,33,865.85 only and misappropriated Rs. 39,040/-; on the following day of

23.10.1992 he took out Rs. 2,28,865.85 from the cash safe for the day’s transaction during the day he received

Rs. 3,03,944/- and made payments of Rs. 63,050.85 at the end of the day’s cash transaction he should have lodged

Rs. 4,69,759/- in the cash safe, but he lodged Rs. 5,08,799/- i.e. an excess of Rs. 39,000/- to suppress the

misappropriation of Rs. 39,040/- committed by him on the previous day still leaving behind Rs.40/- which was

misappropriated by him.

Secondly, on 13.11.1992 he took out Rs. 6,35,279.50 from the cash safe; during the day he received Rs.

64,382.75 and made payments of Rs. 21,558/- at the end of the day he was required to lodge Rs. 6,78,104.25 in the cash

safe instead he lodged Rs. 6,68,104.25 thereby misappropriating Rs. 10,000. Likewise, he misappropriated Rs. 15,000/-

on 20.11.1992, Rs. 20,000/- on 28.11.1992, Rs. 14,000/- on 05.12.1992 and Rs. 60,000/- on 07.01.1993. Besides

misappropriating Bank’s fund, he made fictitious entry in the cash in and out pass book maintained at the Bank without

the initials of the Manager and the Assistant Manager; he has made entries on 04.01.1993 in respect of

Rs. 3,10,000/- on and 06.01.1993 and 07.01.1993 of Rs. 4,20,000/- without actually lodging the said amounts. On

coming to know that excess cash in the Branch will be lodged in Solapur Currency Chest of the Bank on 12.01.1993, on

08.01.1993 under the pretext of taking out a Gift Cheque from the cash safe, he obtained the dual control cash safe keys

6672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from the Manager. By using the said keys along with his own key, he opened the cash safe took out a gift cheque,

returned the manager’s key without locking the cash safe with Manager’s key. At around 2.30 p.m. while the staff

members, were away without knowing that Sh. Bannur is in the Bank he sent Sh. Sunil Dahihande / a Budlee Sepoy to

fetch medicine/tablets for him, he opened the cash safe in the strong room, threw the cash bundles/packets in and around

the cash safe and created a drama that robbery had been taken place in the Branch resulting in cash loss of

Rs. 12,70,000/-.

During the Domestic Enquiry the Management examined eight witnesses; the workman examined two defence

witnesses.

The first witness / MW-1 was the Manager of the Bank, he identified the Attendance Register maintained in the

Bank for the month of October 1992 to January 1993 during which period the alleged misconduct is committed; he also

identified the extracts of the cash receipts book, scroll book, daily cash balance book, cash payment book, payment scroll

for the relevant dates, cash in and out pass book for the relevant dates, the complaint lodged to the police, the

communication received by the Branch from the Police that during their investigation it is revealed that the Cashier of

the Bank has misappropriated the entire amount over a period of month and used the money to buy lottery tickets; no

robbery has taken place as alleged by him. The evidence brought in by MW-1 corroborated the charge sheet allegation.

The evidence of this witness was on the basis of the records since he was not the Manager during the period when the

alleged misconduct had occasioned.

The second witness was the Official who had worked at Bijapur Branch from June 1990 to 16.06.1993; he

narrated the incidence of 08.01.1993 to the effect that, at about 3.10 p.m. after returning from lunch he resumed to his

seat, at the request of the customer for DBD receipt for which remittance was made in the morning; Mr. Ashrit the

concerned clerk in-charge of the deposit went to the strong room to bring the DBD receipt book, immediately he came

out and told that somebody is lying on the floor of the strong room; it was dark inside, the witness could not recognise

the person lying in the strong room, there was no electric bulb in the strong room, after making arrangement for the bulb

in the strong room and he switched on the light, he found that the person laying was Mr. B. Shanthakumar, it looked like

he is already dead however he was alive, they shifted him to the hospital, the cash safe was wide open, some cash

bundles were on the top of the safe and other bundles were scattered on the floor, the cash safe key was inserted in the

safe itself; Cashier’s cash cabin key was lying on the ground; the Manager came to the Branch along with one Mr.

M.R.C. Murthy who was on the official visit to the Branch; the Manager visited the 1^st Party in the Hospital and returned

to the Branch, on verification of the cash safe the Manager noticed that lot of cash is missing and called the Police, the

Police arrived with the dog squad; but the dog squad did not go beyond the Bank premises. The Police recorded the

statements of the staff members upto 11.30 p.m; at 1.30 a.m. the Superintendent of Police who returned from the hospital

told the staff members that the cashier has admitted his guilt and he alone is responsible for the cash loss and none else

was responsible; he has taken out the cash over a period of time and was utilising the money for purchase of lottery

tickets, he admitted of misusing the goodness of the Manager. The matter was published in the Newspaper.

10.

The witness further stated that he was holding the cash key in the absence of the Manager; in the evening while

keeping the money in the safe, the cashier would place before him cash in and out pass book along with DCB; the

witness would check the final figures of the DCB with the final figures of cash in and out pass book, he would hand over

the key to the cashier to lock the cash safe after applying both the keys the cashier would return the key; the witness

confirmed the signature on the DCB on 28.11.1992 and further stated that he has not checked the arithmetical accuracy

of the cash drawings / lodgement as entered in the cash in and out pass book.

11.

MW-3 is the Security Officer who investigated the matter; during the course of his investigation he has

recorded the statement of the 1^st Party in the City Jail wherein he unequivocally admitted his guilt.

MW-4 was the then Manager of the Branch, he deposed about handing over his keys to the 1^st Party at

2.15 p.m. while he was in middle of discussion with one Mr. M.R.C. Murthy who was on his official visit. The 1^st Party

within 5 or 6 minutes returned the key saying that he has locked the cash safe; around 2.30 p.m. during the lunch break

he went outside with Mr. Murthy and returned to the Branch at 3.55 p.m. and was informed of the incident by MW-2.

He has deposed about the confession of the 1^st Party to the Police in the Hospital on the same night. Further he has met

the 1^st Party in the Jail along with Investigating Officer and Sh. M.R.C. Murthy wherein 1^st Party unequivocally

admitted the onus of the whole incident and had admitted that he was taking out money of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-

every day from end of November 1992 and using the same for playing lottery.

MW-5 / Sh. M.R.C Murthy was with the Manager on the date of the incident and he corroborated the statement

of MW-4.

MW-6 was an official of the same Bank, as per his deposition on that day he along with one Mr. S.S. Patil had

gone out for lunch and the 1^st Party workman had stayed back in the Branch; he has further deposed that after return they

resumed to their regular work; at around 3.15 p.m. Mr. Ashrit went inside the strong room to take the term deposit

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6673

receipt book and found somebody lying on the safe room; remaining portion of his evidence is in corroboration to the

statements given by the earlier witnesses.

12.

MW-7 was the then Superintendent of Police in Bijapur, he has deposed about visiting the hospital after getting

the information about the case and about the confession given in his presence by the 1^st Party about the incident

sitting on a small katta in front of the hospital ward; 1^st Party had narrated about getting entangled in playing lottery by

investing Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 30,000 every alternate day; when the Manager told him to remit the money to Solapur

Currency Chest he played the drama; the 1^st Party had stated that the strangers had put chilli powder to his eye but he

confirmed from the Doctor that no pungent object was found in his eyes; after examining the 1^st Party and the lottery

agent, he came to the conclusion that it was not an actual dacoity but a drama played by the 1^stParty to cover up his

misdeed.

MW-8 was the then Circle Police Inspector, Bijapur City Circle, who on receiving the information proceeded to

the Bank enquired about the incident from the Bank officials directed the Sub inspector to receive the complaint after

getting medical opinion from the concerned doctor that the 1^st Party is in a fit condition to give the statement, recorded

the statement of the 1^st Party in the presence of Superintendent of Police.

13.

The first defence witness who was working then as Cash cum Accounts Clerk, deposed that whenever the 1^st

Party used to go on leave, the witness used to take charge of the cash, while taking charge he used to count thoroughly

the entire cash with DCB and it used to be correct and there is no dual control of the cash key; he has further stated that

no surprise check of cash was done by Manager.

DW-2 was Ashrit, he had seen the 1^st Party laying in the strong room with injury at 3.15 p.m.

14.

The Enquiry Officer during the course of analysis of evidence of the management witnesses accepted the theory

of the prosecution that around 2.p.m. 1^st Party collected the keys of the cash from the Manager and returned the same

without applying to the safe, but falsely informed the Manger that gift cheque was to be issued to a customer; when the

staff member went out for lunch he enacted a drama of robbery by entering the cash room, opening the cash safe

throwing the cash bundles around the safe and fell unconscious by inflicting injuries himself; in his unconscious state the

staff members shifted him to the hospital at 3.15 p.m.; on gaining conscious he told that somebody hit him and took

away the cash; the matter was reported to the Police by the branch; Police could not find any clue of robbery; they found

the cash loss Rs. 12,70,000/- and lodged the Police compliant at 11.30 a.m.; during his interrogation 1^st Party confessed

about taking entire money over a period of one and a half month and using the money on single digit lottery. Fearing

that he will be exposed he enacted the robbery drama.

15.

The Enquiry Officer observed that the defence only tried to point out lapses on the part of MW-2 and MW-4 in

maintaining dual control of cash at the Branch. The evidence of the Defence witness was also focused on the lapses in

maintaining dual control of the cash and routine cash checking at the Branch. The 1^st Party had stated before the Enquiry

Officer that his confession statement was taken by the Police under threat, but the Enquiry Officer in this regard could

not be persuaded, since while MW-7 and MW-8 were examined there was no question to them about the threat and

coercion exhorted by the Police. Twice 1^st Party has confided his involvement in the misconduct. First time when his

statement was recorded by the Police in the Hospital. It cannot be presumed that the Police could exhort any undue

pressure or coercion on him in the hospital. He was not under the custody of Police at that time. He was arrested on the

following day on 09.01.1993 on the basis of his voluntary statement; said statement was marked during the enquiry as Ex

ME-12. Next time when he revealed his involvement before the Branch Manager, he was an inmate of the Jail and

already Criminal Proceedings was initiated against him. The statements of the Police Officers MW-6 and MW-7, also

the Branch Manager and MW-5 the independent circumstantial witness, are all of same texture about his admission of

guilt. That led the Enquiry Officer to conclude that two charges are conclusively proved.

16.

Ongoing through the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer viz a viz the Enquiry Report the finding is

wholly based on the evidentiary material borne out from the record. The 1^st Party did not submit his reply to the charge

sheet. Of course, any confession given by an accused to the Police in a Criminal Trial is hit by the provision of the

section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act and not admissible. As per section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that portion of

the statement of the accused which leads to discovery is admissible. The evidence brought in, before the Enquiry Officer

establishes that twice the 1^st Party admitted his involvement in the theft of the Bank’s money. Not only that, strict

application of evidence act is not applicable in a Domestic Enquiry but also for the reason that all the witnesses were

official witnesses and the tone of their deposition are natural. I do not find any flaw on the part of the Enquiry Officer in

coming to the conclusion that the charges are proved.

17.

Glaringly there is omission on the part of the Manager and the Assistant Manager in not overseeing the

authenticity of the records like scroll and pass books viz a viz the cash amount in the cash safe. But such lapses cannot

be benefited by the 1^st Party workman for his active indulgement of theft of the Bank’s money. It is also a fact that the

stolen money is not traced and the Bank has suffered monetary loss of Rs. 12,70,000/-. When it is evident that the

1^st Party had invested the entire amount on single digit lottery and lost everything, where is the question of recovery of

6674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the stolen property. The gravity of misconduct alleged and proved amounts to gross misconduct within the meaning of

para 19.5 (d) & (j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 which attracts the punishment not less than dismissal

from service. It is not a fit case to intervene under the jurisdiction of section 11-A of ‘the Act’.

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 23^rd August, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 3 िसतW बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1643

1643

1643.—औ˜ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म3 के+,ीय सरकार

मेसस भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम के !बंधतंN के संबƒ िनयोजक% और उनके कमकार% के बीच अनुबंध म3 िनyद@ औ˜ोिगक

िववाद म3 के+,ीय सरकार औ˜ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Vम +यायालय, ब3गलूर के पंचाट (संदभ संgया 17/2012) को !कािशत

करती है जो के+,ीय सरकार को 26.08.2019 को !ा; )आ था।

[सं. एल-17012/11/2012-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2019

S.O. 1643.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 26.08.2019.

[No. L-17012/11/2012-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 13^TH AUGUST 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

CR 17/2012

I Party

II Party

Sh. S. Sashidhar,

S/o Late Sh. Sattaiah,

No. 1682,

CH-12/1A, 10^th Cross,

Ashokpuram,

Mysore – 570008.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Mysore-Bangalore Road,

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. V.S. Naik

Advocate for II Party : Mr. B.V. Krishna

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6675

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-17012/11/2012-IR(M) dated 26.06.2012 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for

brevity ‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the workmen of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office,

Mysore represented by its Senior Divisional Manager in terminating the services of Shri S. Sashidhar

S/o Late Sattaiah w.e.f 01/10/2007 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

The above dispute is initially sponsored by the 1^st Party Trade Union. The case of the 1^stParty workman is, he

joined the 2^nd Party as a Sub-Staff w.e.f 15.07.1997. After selection as Attendant-cum-Caretaker / Sepoy, he was paid

meagre wage of Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees Thousand Two Hundred Only) per month, without issuing any memo or notice he is

refused employment from 01.10.2007. The 2^nd Party called for application for the eligible temporary / daily wager

employee vide letter dated 20.05.2011. He was entitled for employment in lieu of order declared by Judgement of

Hon'ble High Court, but they did not receive his application. His Writ Petition seeking for a direction in WP No. 19040-

41/2011 came to be disposed off; In Writ Appeal the Hon’ble Division Bench permitted him and similarly placed co-

workman to withdraw the appeal so as to enable them to raise the Industrial Dispute. The work which he was carrying

out exists even today; overlooking his seniority others are employed. Refusal of employment to him amounts to

retrenchment but in violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 25 F of the Act.

The 2^nd Party Countered the claim statement allegation on the following line: -

He is not a workman as claimed by him but a contractor under a Contract Agreement. There is no Employer-

Employee relationship. He entered into Contract Agreement for maintenance of Guest House from 19.05.2000, which

was renewed once in 11 months upto 30.09.2007. He is paid remuneration in terms of different agreements entered from

time to time. He locked the Guest House and left the place without informing the 2^nd Party and caused inconvenience to

the Guest. Finally, 2^nd Party broke open the lock and took possession of the Guest House. Fresh Tender for maintenance

of the Guest House was called for and the best bidder is selected. He is not a temporary Sub-Staff and not appointed for

selection as claimed. He had submitted representation for consideration as Guest House Keeper but same is not

considered.

It is further contended that the Judgement of the Apex Court is not applicable to him as he has not fulfilled the eligible

condition. The Zonal Office issued a notification on 20.05.2011 calling for Temporary Staff who have worked for more

than 5 years and who were on roles as on 18.01.2011. Since, the 1^st Party had not fulfilled both the eligibility conditions

2^nd Party did not entertain his representation for writing the examination. They have regularised 14 Sub-Staff who have

fulfilled eligibility conditions and who wrote the limited written examination. Successful candidates are absorbed as Sub

Staffs.

Both parties have adduced evidence corroborating their respective statements.

The 2^nd Party among others have produced the Photostat Copies of the agreement dated 19.05.2000, 6 Contract

Agreements commencing from 21.12.2001 to 01.11.2006 entered into between two Parties and they are marked as Ex M-

3 to Ex M-9 respectively.

During his cross examination MW-1 identified the representations made by the 1^st Party workman to the

Chairman as Ex W-1 to W-3 and clarifies that no reply was given to the representations since, by that time new

Contractor was engaged by calling Tender and there was no vacancy.

During his cross-examination, 1^st Party workman admits that he had not submitted any application for the post

and no appointment order was issued to him. He admits his signature on the agreements Ex M-3 to M-9.

The referred issue is so framed as to impress that the 1^st Party is a workman under the 2^nd Party and he is

terminated from service. On the admission of the 1^st Party workman it surfaces that no application were called for the

post of Sub-Staff and no appointment order is issued to him, even there is no Termination Order also.

The 1^st Party himself has brought on record that his grievance against the 2^nd Party was, that he has not filed his

application when they notified for the post of Sub-Staff from Temporary Sub-Staffs who worked for more than 5 years

and who were on role as on 18.11.2000. Though, he contends that he withdrew the Writ Appeal and he is given liberty

to raise the Industrial Dispute by the Hon’ble Division Bench, no such order is produced before this Tribunal. He has not

disputed the genuineness of the Agreements / Contracts between him and the 2^nd Party. Oral evidence contrary to the

documentary evidence is inadmissible and hit by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though, strict application of

the Evidence Act is not adopted in Industrial adjudications, one cannot ignore the basic Principles of Evidence Act.

When it is proved that the relationship between the parties was under the Agreement / Contract, same is acted upon also,

fresh claim by him that he is a workman under the 2^nd Party does not stand to reason. The evidence is crystal clear that

there is no relationship of Employer and Employee between the Parties.

6676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

While the referred issue calls for an answer about the legality of the Termination Order, the claim placed by him

before this Tribunal is otherwise. He is looking for regularisation of service without working at least as a temporary

employee under the 2^nd Party. The Judgement relied by him does not come to his aid, since, he has not established

his identity as a workman as per the definition of Clause of Section 2(s) of the I D Act, the claim lacks merits.

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to o/s LDC, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 13^th August, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 3 िसतW बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1644

1644

1644.—औ˜ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म3 के+,ीय सरकार

मेसस आईएनजी लाइफ इं? योर3स कंपनी िलिमटेड के !बंधतंN के संबƒ िनयोजक% और उनके कमकार% के बीच अनुबंध म3

िनyद@ औ˜ोिगक िववाद म3 के+,ीय सरकार औ˜ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Vम +यायालय, ब3गलूर के पंचाट (संदभ संgया

11/2012 एवं 11/2011) को !कािशत करती है जो के+,ीय सरकार को 26.08.2019 को !ा; )आ था।

[सं. एल-17012/38/2011-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2019

S.O. 1644.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2012 & 11/2011) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in

relation to the management of M/s. ING Life Insurance Co. Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 26.08.2019.

[No. L-17012/38/2011-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 13^TH AUGUST 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Ratnakala, Presiding Officer

COMMON AWARD

CR 11/2012 & ID No. 11/2011

I Party

II Party

Sh. G. Vijaya Kumar,

S/o Sh. Gopalappa,

BO 158/4, 60 Feet Road,

MEI Layout,

Bangalagunte Main Road,

Bangalore – 560073.

The Vice President (HR),

ING Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

5^th Floor, “ING Vysya House”,

No. 22, MG Road,

Bangalore – 560001.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6677

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. S.B. Mukkannappa

Advocate for II Party : Mr. B.C. Prabhakar

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No. L-17012/38/2011(IR(M)) dated 13.03.2012 in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity

‘the Act’ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s ING Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore, in imposing

the punishment of discharge from the service w.e.f. 04.05.2011 on Shri. G. Vijaya Kumar, is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

In the mean time, the 1^st Party filed A petition under Section 2A (2) of the I.D Act on the very same cause of

action.

The claim of the 1^st Party workman is, he was appointed as Sales Manager w.e.f 12.05.2009 and posted to M.G. Road

Branch of the 2^nd Party on annual Salary of Rs. 2,85,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Only) and other

allowances. He was put on probation for 6 months; on satisfactory completion of probation period his service is

confirmed. He was not allowed to report to duty on 29.01.2011, when he returned after availing leave for two days. The

Branch Manager by using whitener in the attendance register marked his absence till 31.01.2011 and also mentioned as

‘Resigned’, his name is removed from Muster Roll w.e.f 01.02.2011. The 2^nd Party issued a notice dated 31.01.2011

alleging that he had remained unauthorisedly absent from 22.01.2011 and called upon him to report on or before

11.02.2011 etc. The 1^st Party on receipt of the notice approached the Manager and sought permission to report on duty

but the Branch Manager did not allow him to report to duty. The 1^st Party sent his reply on 10.02.2011, the 2^nd Party by

way of order dated 24.02.2011 discharged from service. His work was purely clerical in nature; his duty was to process

the applications for selection of advisor / financial consultant; he used to apprise the customers for the business of 2^nd

Party; he had no supervisory control or Administrative power to take independent decision; he is a workman under Sec 2

(s) of the I.D Act. The action of the 2^nd Party is illegal and arbitrary.

The 2^nd Party attacked the claim basically on the ground that, he is not a workman as defined under

Section 2 (s) of ‘the Act’. It is contended that his starting pay was more than Rs. 2,85,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty

Five Thousand Only) per annum as annual fixed compensation, he was receiving total remuneration of Rs. 26,773/-

(Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Three Only) per month as per the salary slip of January

2011; his responsibility was to identify, recruit, appoint and train insurance advisors and support them in securing

licences from Insurance Development Authority and supervise insurance advisors through whom sale of insurance

policies were managed. He was discharging Managerial function. It is further contended that his performance was poor

since, August 2010; he recruited only one advisor since the said period; he was highly irregular to the Office; he was

issued unauthorised absence letter on 31.01.2011 informing him to report to duty before 11.02.2011, failing which

appropriate action will be taken against him including termination of employment. He came to the Office and forcibly

tampered with the attendance register for the days 24^th and 25^th of January 2011; by way of a legal notice dated

03.02.2011 he made false allegations against the 2^nd Party and the Branch Manager. He also sent similar letter by way of

Fax on 10.02.2011, due to above high-handed activities and attitude of the 1^st Party the contract of employment was

severed and he is discharge from service w.e.f 24.02.2011. Due to his non co-operation, they could not issue cheque to

his full and final settlement. He has refused to accept the cheque at Rs. 22,046/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Forty

Six Only) dated 29.04.2011. No further amount is due to him from the 2^nd Party.

On behalf of the 2^nd Party, two witnesses are examined. The first witness / MW-1 is the General Manager of the

2^nd Party and the 2^nd witness / MW-2 is the Senior Branch Manager of the 2^ndParty.

During the cross-examination of MW-1, it was elicited that a Sale Manager has no authority to initiate

Disciplinary Action or to terminate the Company Officials. During the cross-examination of MW-2, he expressed his

ignorance as to who was responsible for entering the word ‘Resigned’ in the attendance register. In the next breath, he

came out with the proposition that Mr. Joseph who maintains the attendance register may be responsible.

The 1^st Party workman did not turn up after the 2^nd Party closed their evidence. In an Industrial adjudication

whenever an employer disputes the identity of the employee as a ‘Workman’ it is for that employee to establish that he is

a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the I.D Act. The 1^st Party herein, after approaching the Conciliation

Authorities, while conciliation was still in progress without waiting for result of conciliation had hurriedly filed the

petition under section 2A(2) of the I.D Act. It is true that, he was successful in extracting the answer that a Sales Man is

not a Disciplinary Authority or an Administrative head. But said admission itself is insufficient to uphold his contention

6678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that, he was in fact performing the work of a workman. Had if, he had entered the witness box then, there was scope for

this Tribunal to assess the nature of the work performed by him. In the absence of any evidence contrary to that of the

Management Witnesses, I have no other go except to hold that the 1^st Party workman is not a workman as contemplated

under section 2(s) of the I.D Act. The undisputed fact between the parties is, he was drawing Rs. 2,85,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Only) per annum from the 2^nd Party in the nature of annual fixed compensation along

with other allowances. His service with the 2^nd Party is in accordance with the terms of his appointment letter Ex R-2,

which contemplates that he is bound by Organisation’s Performance Management System (as per Clause 4 of Ex R-2)

and his termination may be at the instance of both Parties with one month notice or one month basic salary in lieu of

notice (as per Clause 9 of Ex R-2). That keeps him away from the umbrella of Section 2 (s) of the I.D Act and thus, this

Tribunal as no jurisdiction to adjudicate the referred issue. Hence the following,

AWARD

I. D. No. 11/2011 is dismissed. The reference in C.R No.11/2012 is rejected. The original of this order is kept in

CR No.11/2012 and the copy in I.D No.11/2011.

(Dictated to o/s LDC, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 13^th August, 2019)

Justice Smt. RATNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 3 िसतW बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1645

1645

1645.—औ˜ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म3 के+,ीय सरकार

मेसस एयरपोट अथॉरटी ऑफ इिwडया के !बंधतंN के संबƒ िनयोजक% और उनके कमकार% के बीच अनुबंध म3 िनyद@

औ˜ोिगक िववाद म3 के+,ीय सरकार औ˜ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Vम +यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ संgया

52/2011) को !कािशत करती है जो के+,ीय सरकार को 28.08.2019 को !ा; )आ था।

[सं. एल-11011/13/2011-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2019

S.O. 1645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 52/2011) 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

28.08.2019.

[No. L-11011/13/2011-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT No. 1, NEW DELHI

ID No. 52/2011

Shri Shanmugam, Anil Kujmar, Vijay Veer,

Mahinder Kumar and P.L., Mahadesh

As represented by

International Airport Authority Employees Union (Regd.)

Through its General Secretary Shri M.K. Ghoshal,

Having its office at

T-3/2, 3,4, INA Colony, New Delhi 110023

…Workmen/Claimants

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6679

Versus

The Management of Airport Authority of India,

IGI Airport, New Delhi

Through its Director Incharge.

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide its letter

No.L-11011/13/2011/IR(M) dated 15.04.2002 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 management of Airport Authority of India in not regularizing the services of

S/Shri Shanmugham, P.L. Madesh, Anil Kumar, Vijay Veer and Mahender Kumar, erstwhile contract labour

and now daily wagers/casual worker, is just, fair and legal ? If not, what relief these workmen are entitled to and

from what dates ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the five workmen Shanmugham and others filed their joint statement of

claim which was subsequently amended. As per averments made in the statement of claim that they have been working

as sweepers with the Management at Terminal II of IGI Airport. Earlier they worked with the Management through

contractors since after their joining during the period from 1981 to 1996 and the contractors continued to keep changing

from time to time, but with effect from 1^st February, 1997 they have been working under the direct service and

control of the Management as daily wager. It is stated that immediately after the workman joined their duties inside

the Airport Terminal, they were issued Photo Identity cards upto 31/12/2009 and thereafter they were posted at Regional

Headquarter, Northern Region Operational Offices, Gurgaon Road, New Delhi where Photo Identity Cards are not

required. It is pleaded that soon after abolition of contract labour by the Government of India as well as by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India w.e.f. 6/12/1996, workmen undergone the medical examination by the Doctors of the

Management and only thereafter they were directly taken on duty by the Management on its roll w.e.f. 1/2/1997. It is

pleaded that though the workman/claimants were illegally refused to join duty w.e.f. 15 /12/1998 for which they filed

civil suit but now they are in the employment of the Management. Though the workman/claimants are working

regularly and uninterruptedly and performing the job of permanent nature, but their services have not been regularized by

the Management. Despite the fact that the workmen fulfilled the eligibility criteria, the Management did not regularize

them rather a large number of persons junior to the workman such as Balraj, Deepak, Kuppuswamy, Sunder Lal, Ayye,

V. Selkuvam, Susheela, Salma, Vidya Devi and Giri Ram and this action of the Management is discriminatory and

illegal. Thereafter the claimants/workmen approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. Prayer has been made

that Management be directed to regularize the services of the claimants.

The claim of the Workman has been resisted by the Management who filed its reply/written statement and took

preliminary objections that there is no relationship of employer-employee between the parties. While denying the

allegations of the claimants/ workman it has been alleged that the Management had been awarding contracts and the

contractors had been getting the execution of awarded jobs on employing workers under their employment. It is denied

that claimants had fulfilled the conditions of eligibility or that a large number of persons junior to them had been allowed

to work/regularize by the Management. It is also alleged that the workmen had not been found eligible for regularization

after detailed scrutiny by the Committee of the Management and hence their services were discontinued. It is reiterated

that at no point of time there has been relationship of employer-employee between the workmen and the Management.

Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

The claimants/workmen filed rejoinder, denying the allegations of the Management and they reiterated the

averments as made in the claim petition.

The Claimants/workmen in support of their case examined themselves as WW1 to WW 5 who tendered their

respective affidavits Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW5/A. They also examined WW6 Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma, Regional

Secretary and WW7 Shri Lalit Shankar Gaur, Vice President of Airport Employees Union regarding espousal of the

cause of the workmen/claimants vide resolution Ex.WW6/M-1 passed in the meeting of the Union held on 25/3/2000,

proceedings of which are Ex.WW6/M-2. Though WW 6 and WW7 were cross examined at length but nothing came out

of their cross examination to show that there is no espousal to the cause/dispute of the workmen by a

registered/recognized Union.

On the other hand, the Management examined only one witness - MW1 Shri Puneet Verma, Junior Executive

(HR) who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A.

I have heard Shri H.S. Sasan, A./R for the workmen and Shri Sunil Dutt, A/R for the Management.

6680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

During the course of arguments, learned A/R appearing for the Management strenuously argued that since the

workmen/claimants were employed by the contractors whom contract was awarded by the Management, there exists no

relationship of employer-employee between the parties and hence, the workmen/claimants are not entitled to any relief.

Per contra, learned A/.R for the workmen submitted that no doubt earlier the claimants were working with the

Management through contractors but w.e.f. 1/2/1997 they have been working as daily wager on the roll of the

Management and for this purpose, they had also completed the formality of medical examination and as such, they exists

relationship of employer-employee between the parties.

10.

This Tribunal has to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record so as to decide the

question of relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the claimants herein. In this respect, it

is appropriate to refer to the evidence adduced on record by the parties. Deposition of the claimants vide their Affidavits

Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW5/A as well as additional affidavits Ex.WW1/AA to Ex .WW5/AA is in line with the averments

made in the claim petition. In cross examination they admitted having worked in the office of Management through the

contractor/s concerned from the date of their initial engagement upto 31/1/1997. Detailed cross examination was done on

behalf of the Management to shake the testimony of the workmen/claimants on the point/s that there has been no

relationship of employer-employee between the parties and that the workmen at no point of time worked under the

control and supervision of the Management, but to no avail. The workmen have testified that they initially worked with

the Management through contractor/s upto 31/1/1997 but with effect from 1/2/1997 they have been working as

sweeper (doing cleaning and dusting work) directly under the control and supervision of the Management of

Airport Authority of India. This version of the claimants/workmen finds support from the document Ex.WW5/M-1

(which is a fax message dated 29/1/1997) whereby General Manager (Law) of the Management communicated to the

Airport Director, AAI, IGI Airport, New Delhi that consequent upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated

6/11/1996 concerning the employees in the field of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watch and ward, following actions be

taken as an interim measure :-

No fresh NIT/NIQ be issued for engaging any labour in the field of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watch &

ward.

The number of such force which is being utilized at the moment for the purpose of above said services shall

not be extended/increased by any means. There shall be no addition or reduction in persons deployed as on

6^th November, 1996.

For all practical purposes since contract system in this filed has been abolished, the contractors those who

were managing these functions be dispensed with after settlement of their dues for rendering such services

forthwith.

The work force those who are engaged in this field will continue to work directly under the AAI to be

supervised by the concerned Caretakers, Supervisors or Superintendents, Incharge of the area.

All the sweeping and cleaning materials, uniforms and other allied equipments will be henceforth

supplied by the AAI for the purpose.

Statutory contributions towards EsI, PF etc. will be paid by the AAI directly to the concerned

authorities following the due process of law.

For the time being any payment to these employees will be made on ad hoc basis stated as lumpsum in

the pendency of final settlement of their wages etc. (existing rates_. The payment shall be disbursed

directly by the Authority).

All passes to these employees shall be given declaring their status under the care of AAI and the

concerned operating department will keep record.

Letter dated 4/2/1997 (Ex. WW2/8) issued under the signatures of Mrs. Smita Sahdev, EHK-11 of the Management to

the RDCOS(CA), BDDS Officer Complex, Mahipalpur, New Delhi also give supports to the version of the

claimants/workmen that though they were working as sweepers initially in the office of the Management through the

Contractor/s but taken on the roll of Management w.e.f. 1/2/1997 on daily wage basis, inasmuch as the communication

Ex.WW2/8 recites that as per judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, contracts have been terminated w.e.f.

31/1/1997 and all the contract staff has been taken under the care of AAI(IAD) on purely temporary basis.

11.

Workman Shanmugam has filed on record copies of the Photo Identity Cards issued by Bureau of Civil Aviation

Authority as Ex,WW2/15 to WW2/18 valid upto December, 1998, 31/12/2001, 31/12/2007 and 31/12/2009 wherein his

designation has been shown as Sweeper. Similarly, the workman Anil Kumar, Sweeper has filed copies of PIC Ex.

WW3/9 and Ex.WW3/10. Document Ex.WW4/M-3 which is medical examination report dated 5/11/1997 given by

Medical Officer of the Management in respect of the workman Shri P.L. Mahadesh substantiate the version of the

claimants that their medical examination was also conducted after they were taken on the roll of the Management w.e.f.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6681

1/2/1997. Copy of the circular dated 17^th/23^rd April, 1998 bearing No. AAD/Personnel/38(1)/92/49 issued by the

Management has been filed on record by the claimants/workmen as Ex. WW1/10, Ex., WW2/4, WW5/10, which was

personally sent to the claimants Mohinder Kumar s/o,. Brahm Dutgt, Shanmugam s/o. Kandan and Shri Vijay Veer s/o.

Ram Avtar, through Executive Housekeeping arrangement, Terminal-2.. All these documents clearly show that the

workman have been working as daily wage workers under the Management w.e.f. 1/2/1997, though prior thereto they

were providing their services to the Management through different contractor/s which fact has also been admitted to by

the workmen/claimants in their cross examination. Further, testimony of the claimants WW1 to WW5 in their additional

affidavits Ex.WW1/AA to Ex.WW5/AA (as deposed in para 6) that soon after abolition of contract labour by the Govt. of

India as well as orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court, w.e.f. 6/12/1996, they had undergone medical examination by the

doctors of the Management and they were taken on r\duty by the Management w.e.f. 1/2/1997, has gone unassailed. It

has clearly come on record that the claimants started working with the Management as daily wager/s w.e.f. 1/2/1997 but

they were refused to join duty w.e.f. 15/12/1998 and then the workmen/claimants preferred a civil suit and got injunction

and the claimants are still working with the Management on the basis of stay granted by the Civil Court.

12-

Since the claimants/workmen herein have been continuously working on the roll/strength of the Management

w.e.f. 1/2/1997 – may be on daily wage/casual basis and they have been discharging their duties of sweeping, cleaning

and dusting as assigned to them, to my mind this clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the

Management and claimants and they fall within the definition of “workman” as provided under Section 2(S) of the Act.

In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR

2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act

which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as under :-

“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman.”

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract

basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person

would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

13.

As discussed above, in the case in hand the claimants are working as sweeper/s on daily wage basis with the

Management w.e.f. 1/2/1997. Now, important question arises for consideration is whether the claimants/workmen

herein are entitled to be regularized in service under the Management.

14.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the Management argued that there is no fundamental right of

those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a

right to be absorbed in service. Such workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitled to claim

regularization if he/she is not working against a sanctioned post.

15.

There is no dispute about preposition of law on the point. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan

Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

“… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the

Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage

worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for

regularization would be impressible. In the above-said circumstances, giving of direction to regularize a

person, only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor

entry into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not

be given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the

Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the

employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached

Industrial/Labour Court are at part with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally

justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the

Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this

constitutional provision.”

6682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.

Our own High Court in the case of Project Director, Department of Rural Development Versus its

Workmen through D.P.V.V.I.E.Union (W.P. –Civil No. 17555/2005 – decided on 29/3/2019) after referring to

number of judgments including the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and

other Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and of Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Lamba and others Vs. GNCTD WP

(Civil) No.958/2018, has observed in para 27 as under :-

“In my view, the rigors applicable for grant of regularization in cases of public employment cannot be read in

such a manner so as to take away the wide powers of an Industrial Tribunal under the ID Act. It needs no

reiteration that the basic tenets of service law are very different from those of labour law and therefore, the

safeguards put in place to protect the interests of workmen cannot be conflated with the service rules and

regulations applicable to government employees in the public sector. Both of them stand on different footing

and can neither be tested on the same touchstone nor enforced on the same manner. Therefore, I am of the

opinion that neither the decision in Uma Devi (supra) and Anil Lamba (supra) has any application to the facts of

the present case. Even otherwise, a perusal of the decision in Uma Devi (supra) shows that with respect to

the regularization of temporary employees, the Supreme Court itself had specifically carved out an

exception for those contractual employees who, though appointed regularly, had completed at least 10

years of service. In the facts of the present case, the respondents/workmen have as on date completed

more than twenty-two years of service, and therefore, even as per the decision in Uma Devi (supra), they

would be entitled to the regularization of their services.”

From the above rulings, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for

regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless

there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & unless similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the

employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the

other. However, the Industrial Tribunal is vested with powers to curb unfair labour practices being adopted by

the employers.

12.

Except for the bald statement of the claimants/workmen that a large number of persons junior to them have been

regularized by the Management, no documentary evidence has been adduced by them to elucidate the names of such

junior employees and from which date they were regularized. On the other hand, MW1 Shri Puneet Verma while

denying the claim of the workmen that a large number of persons junior to them have been regularized, has categorically

deposed that the claimants never fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for regularization after detailed scrutiny by the

Management. No doubt this version of MW1 has gone unassailed and unchallenged inasmuch as neither any suggestion

contrary thereto has been given to him in his cross examination nor he has been confronted with any document showing

that the officials junior to the workmen/claimants have been regularized by the Management in arbitrary manner, but it

emerges from testimony himself that the Management is having a policy/scheme on the basis of which the workmen are

considered eligible for regularization and the claimants did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. It would not be out of place

to mention here that the Management has also not filed on record copy of the so called policy/scheme which contained

eligibility criteria for regularization of its employees. It is evident that the claimants/workmen have been working with

the Management continuously and uninterruptedly w.e.f. 1/2/1997 on daily wage/casual basis and they have as on date

completed more than twenty-two years service. The workmen are doing the job of sweeping, cleaning and dusting

which job is considered to be perennial in nature. The Management has not yet regularized the services of the

claimants/workmen and has deprived them the status & privilege of permanent/regular employee. Employing workmen

as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years together with the object of depriving them of

the status & privileges of permanent workman amounts to unfair labour practice in terms of Section 2(ra) read with Fifth

Schedule of the Act. It emerges that the Management has adopted unfair labour practice in depriving the

workmen/claimants herein of the status & benefit of permanent workman and such a practice is required to be curbed.

13.

Having regard to the aforesaid rulings and circumstances of the case in hand, this Tribunal is of the considered

opinion that action of the Management in not regularizing the workmen/ claimants who have already rendered

continuous service of more than 22 years is unjustified and unwarranted. The workmen /claimant are entitled to be

regularized to the post of Sweeper/Helper.

14.

Now the residual question arises for consideration is as to from which date the workmen/claimants are entitled

to be given benefit of regularization. Neither in the statement of claim, the workmen/claimants have pleaded that they

had made any written representation or demand/legal letter to the Management for regularization of their services, nor

they have filed on record any such document. It is pertinent to mention here that on the controversy between the parties,

the reference to this Tribunal was made by the Appropriate Government vide its letter dated 15/4/2002 and by that time,

the claimants/workmen had just completed about five years’ service. The workmen/claimants had completed their 20

years’ long, regular and uninterrupted service with the Management on 31/1/2017. In these circumstances, this Tribunal

is of the considered view that the workmen/claimants are entitled to get benefit of regularization to the post of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6683

Sweeper/Helper in the regular pay-scale existing to the said post w.e.f. 1/2/2017, with all consequential benefits viz.

annual increment and other prevalent benefits/facilities like HRA, transport, medical facility etc.

Relief :-

As a sequel to the above discussion, the Management is hereby directed to regularize the workman/claimant on

the post of Sweeper w.e.f. 01/02/2017 in the regular pay-scale of Sweeper/Helper, with all consequential benefits and

arrears of the same be also paid to them. Award is passed accordingly.

Let a copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication as required under Section 17 of

the Act.

Date : 05.08.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 3 िसतW बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1646

1646

1646.—औ˜ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म3 के+,ीय सरकार

मेसस इंिडयन ऑयल कॉप{रेशन िलिमटेड एवं अ+ य के !बंधतंN के संबƒ िनयोजक% और उनके कमकार% के बीच अनुबंध म3

िनyद@ औ˜ोिगक िववाद म3 के+,ीय सरकार औ˜ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Vम +यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट

(संदभ संgया 124/2013) को !कािशत करती है जो के+,ीय सरकार को 03.09.2019 को !ा; )आ था।

[सं. एल-30011/44/2010-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2019

S.O. 1646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124/2013) 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. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 03.09.2019.

[No. L-30011/44/2010-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, NEW DELHI

ID No. 124/2013

Shri Narayan Singh and 10 other workers,

All Represented by

Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union,

C/o. Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi.

…Workmen

Versus

The Chairman,

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Scope Complex, 427 Institutional Area,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.

6684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri R.B. Ranjit,

Proprietor

M/s. Telecom Corporation,

Contractor,

Through Indian Oil Corporation,

C-66 Ramesh Nagar,

New Delhi.

…Management

AWARD

This Award shall dispose of a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the

Act) filed by the claimants/ workmen Narayan Singh and others, with the averments that during pendency of the

proceedings in relation to reference made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide its letter No.L-

30011/44/2010-IR(M) dated 12.08.2000 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) regarding regularization

of services of 11 workers engaged as sweepers through M/s Telecom Corporation, contractors, in the establishment of

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (registered as ID No.88/2000), services of the workmen connected with the dispute were

terminated w.e.f. 1/6/2003 by the Management of Indian Oil Corporation with connivance of contractor who is

performing his duty as an agent of Indian Oil Corporation. The particulars/details of the 11 Nos. of workmen whose

services have been terminated are as under :-

Sl.

No.

Name of the Workers

Designation

Date of Joining

Narayan Singh

Sweeper

23/2/1988

Balbir Singh

Sweeper

1/1/1988

Kunwar Pal Singh

Sweeper

1/1/1988

Bangali

Sweeper

1/1/1988

Trushan Pal

Sweeper

2/2/1993

Biru

Sweeper

1/1/1991

Suresh Chand

Sweeper

2/8/91

Om Prakash

Sweeper

25/1/92

Inder Pal

Sweeper

1/2/92

10.

Chander Pal

Sweeper

1/2/93

11.

S. Dass

Sweeper

1/10/90

It is pleaded that the workmen have been continuously performing the duties as Sweeper, without any single

break,. for sweeping the premises of Indian Oil Corporation of India but services of the workmen have been terminated

w.e.f. 1/6/2003 without taking prior permission from the Tribunal and as such this action of the Management is in

contravention of Section 33 of the Act. The workmen filed a complaint to the Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation on

22/5/2003 but to no avail. The workmen/claimant have prayed for their reinstatement in service w.e.f. 1/6/2003 as the

said termination is illegal, unfair and unjust and the workmen be deemed to be in service with full back wages.

The complaint has been resisted by the Management No. 1/IOC who filed its written statement and took

preliminary objections that the complainants/workmen had never been in employment of Indian Oil Corporation, as

employer in relation to the workmen concerned is M/s Teleclean Corporation who appointed and employed the

workmen and exercised regular control & supervision over the manner of working of the concerned workmen. The

Management of Indian Oil Corporation had no locus standi to terminate the services of the claimants and in fact never

terminated the alleged services of the claimants. The pre-requisites of Section 33-A of the Act are not fulfilled and

hence, the application is not maintainable against the Management of Indian Oil Corporation. Prayer has been made for

dismissal of the application.

Reply on behalf of the Management –M/s. Telecom Corporation has been filed , stating that the terms of

reference made by the Appropriate Government vide letter dated 12/8/2000 in no way makes liable the

Management/contractor and the workman are not seeking relief as workmen of Management No.2 but are in fact they

seek conferring the status of workmen of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Management No.2 has no liability as all the

claimants in fact signed No Dues Certificates dated 4/6/2003 in favour of Management No.2 wherein it has been written

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6685

that all dues of the claimants have been cleared and Management No.2 is not liable for future action of the claimants.

Since the real contest in the present complaint is between the Management No.1 and the claimants, the Management

No.2 has unnecessarily been dragged. Management No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of the present

complaint/application.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide order dated

6/12/2013 :-

Whether the claimants are workmen concerned in dispute referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government vide order dated 12/8/2000

(2) Whether M/s. Telecom Corporation has violated provisions of Section 33 of the ID Act ? If yes, its effect?

(3) Relief.

The Claimants in support of their case examined themselves as WW1 to WW10 who filed their affidavits

Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW10/A. On the other hand, Management No.1/Indian Oil Corporation examined Shri Vivek Narain,

Senior Manager as MW2. However, Management No.2 did not examine any witness.

In view of the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act, the instant complaint was/is treated to be a dispute as

referred to this Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As such, this Tribunal is required to submit the

Award to the appropriate Government.

I have heard Shri B.K.Prasad, A/R for the claimants and Shri Vinay Sabharwal, A/R for the Management No.1

and have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 and 2 :-

Both these issues being inter-connected are taken up together and can be disposed of by common discussion.

10.

At the outset I may mention that provisions of Section 33 and 33-A of the Act clearly provide that during

pendency of the proceedings either before the Conciliation Officer or Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, no employer

shall alter or change the conditions of service of the workman without written permission/approval from the authority

before which such proceedings are pending. In case of contravention of the provisions of Section 33 by any employer,

aggrieved employee has been given a right to make a complaint in writing under Section 33-A of the Act before the

Authority before whom such proceedings were pending at the time of retrenchment/discharge etc. of the workman.

11.

Section 33-A of the Act enjoins upon the Industrial Adjudicator a twin duty – the first is to find out as to

whether the employer has contravened the provisions of Section 33 and to answer the question as to whether the

dismissal or such other punishment as may have been imposed upon the workman is justified in law. In a celebrated

case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others, (2002)_ 2 SCC 244,

Hon’ble the Supreme Court while dealing with a matter regarding contravention of provisions of Section 33 of the Act,

had observed in para 12 as under :-

“(i) Section 33 in both its limbs undoubtedly uses mandatory language and Section 31(1) makes it penal for the

employer to commit a breach of the provisions of Section 33 and therefore, if Section 33 stood alone, it might

lend itself to the construction that any action by way of discharge or dismissal taken against the workman would

be void if it is in contravention of Section 33. But Section 33 can not be read in isolation, for the intention

of the legislature has to be gathered not from one provision but from the whole of the statute. If Section

33 and 33-A are read together, it is clear that legislative intent shall not invalidate an order of discharge

or dismissal passed in contravention of Section 33 despite the mandatory language implied in the Section

and the penal provision enacted in Section 31(1).

(ii) The mere contravention of Section 33 by the employer will not entitle the workman to an order of

reinstatement because inquiry under Section 33-A is not confined only to the determination as to the

contravention of Section 33, but even if such contravention is proved, the Tribunal has to go further and

deal also with the merits of the order of discharge or dismissal.

(iii) If the contravention of Section 33 were construed as having invalidating effect on the order of discharge or

dismissal, Section 33-A would be rendered meaningless and futile, because in that event the workman would

invariably prefer to make an application straight away under Section 33-C(2) even before adjudication whether

the order of discharge or dismissal is void and inoperative……”

6686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the light of aforesaid, the Court/Tribunal is firstly required to ascertain as to whether order of dismissal made by the

employer is in contravention of Section 33 of the Act and if the contravention of Section 33 is established, the next

question would be whether the order of discharge or dismissal passed by the employer is justified on merits. The

Tribunal would have to go into the question and decide whether on the merits, the order of discharge or dismissal passed

by the employer is justified.

12.

It is not in dispute that consequent upon receipt of reference from the Appropriate Government vide letter dated

12/8/2000, proceedings between the parties under Section 10 of the Act bearing ID No.221/2011 (old No.88/2000)

relating to the dispute of regularization of their services by Management of Indian Oil Corporation, were pending

adjudication before this Tribunal as on 1/6/2003 when the services of the workmen/claimants herein were allegedly

terminated by their employer/s. As such, it is held that the claimants are the workmen concerned in dispute

referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government vide order dated 12/8/2000.

13.

There is nothing on record to suggest that either the Management of Indian Oil Corporation (viz. principal

employer) or the Management of M/s Telecom/Teleclean Corporation had sought approval from this Tribunal prior to

discharge or dismissal of the claimants. As such, it prima facie stands established that discharge or dismissal of services

of the claimants/workmen herein by their employer was in contravention of Section 33 of the Act.

14.

Now important question arises for consideration is as to who was the employer of the workmen/claimants herein

at the time when their services were discharged/terminated and whether on the merits, the order of discharge or dismissal

passed by the employer is justified. For the purpose, this Tribunal has to consider oral as well as documentary evidence

adduced on record. It would not be out of place to mention here that since most of the witnesses examined in this case as

well as in the reference case (ID No.221/2011 – old No.88/2000) were the same, it was agreed to by the A/Rs of both the

parties that evidence recorded on both files be read in each case respectively and this is so mentioned in the order-sheet

dated 1/2/2019. As per the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the claimants were engaged by Shri

R.B. Ranjeet, Properietor/owner of Management No.2 M/s Teleclean Corporation, whereas they worked as Sweeper in

the office of the Management No.1 Indian Oil Corporation. The claimants have not filed on record any document to

show that they were directly employed by Management No.1. It is manifest from the testimony of the claimants that they

were employed & engaged by the contractor namely Shri R.B. Ranjeet, Prop./owner of M/s Teleclean Corporation –

Management No.2 and the said contractor used to pay wages to them as per attendance and further that, the said

contractor through its supervisor Mr. Arun was having supervision over the work of the workers/claimants, though they

were doing the work of sweeping in the premises of Management No. 1 Indian Oil Corporation. Documents

Ex.WW1/M-1 to WW10/M-1 which are the copies of the receipt/s also show that certain payment/s were made to the

claimants by M/s Teleclean Corporation towards gratuity, pursuant to the notice issued by the said firm/Management. It

has been clearly mentioned in the said receipts that no claim/dispute remains against the Management of Teleclean

Corporation and that the claimants/workmen will not make any demand of employment. These receipts are dated

4/6/2003. It emerges from the perusal of the receipts Ex.WW1/M-1 to Ex.WW10/M-1 that it was M/s Teleclean

Corporation who had discharged/terminated the claimants, after making full & final payments to them. Once the

claimants were engaged by M/s Teleclean Corporation, the said firm was having control & supervision over their work,

wages used to be paid to the workmen herein by the said firm/contractor and the said firm/contractor had

discharged/terminated the services of the claimant after making payments vide receipts Ex.WW1/M-1 to Ex.WW10/M-1,

this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there existed relationship of employee & employer between the

claimants/workmen and M/s Teleclean Corporation as on 1/6/2003 when their services were allegedly terminated.

However, the contention of the claimants/workmen that Management of Indian Oil Corporation was bent upon &

responsible for termination of their services without prior permission from the Court/Tribunal or that there existed

relationship of employer-employee/s between them and Management of Indian Oil Corporation, is not tenable.

15.

It would not be out of place to mention here that in the reference case (bearing ID No. 221/2011 -- old No.

88/2000), the demand of the workmen/claimants was for regularization of their services with the Management of Indian

Oil Corporation and this is so evident from the terms of reference which is reproduced hereinbelow :-

‘Whether the demand of the Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union in respect of 11 workers engaged (as per

details shown in Annexure-A) through M/s Telecom Corporation, contractors, in the establishment of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., for contract work of sweeping from the period as shown against their names for employment

and regularization in service with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Scope Complex, 127 Institutional Area, Lodi

Road, New Delhi, being the principal employer, is justified and valid and legal ? If yes, then to what benefit and

relief, they are entitled to ?’

In that reference case, the claimants/workmen had not sought any relief whatsoever against M/s Teleclean Corporation,

despite the fact that the said firm was their employer. However, the claimants/workmen through its Union had sent a

letter dated 22/5/2003 (Ex.WW1/5) addressed to the Management of Indian Oil Corporation, with the request that as

contract for sweeping executed through Shri R.P.Ranjit, Prop. of M/s Teleclean Corporation is going to be changed

from 1/6/2003, the workmen/claimants be retained and attached to new contractor and copy was endorsed to the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6687

contractor M/s Teleclean Corpn., with the request not to change the service conditions of the claimants/.workmen.

As mentioned above, M/s Teleclean Corporation had made payments to the claimants vide receipts Ex.WW1/M1 to

Ex.WW10/M-10, perusal of which shows that payments ranging from Rs.15462 to Rs.23192/- was paid to the

claimants/workmen herein and their signatures appear on the receipt, duly witnessed by co-employee/co-workman.

Although the workmen/claimants had never represented/protested when their signatures were obtained on the above

receipts and when full & final settlement was made to them on 4/6/2003 as admitted by them in their cross examination,

yet Management No.2 viz. M/s Teleclean Corporation being employer of the claimants was under moral and legal

obligation to pay wages for one month to each of the employees and to seek approval of the Court/Tribunal prior to

taking action of discharge/dismissal against the workmen, as provided under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, Moreso, the

claimants through its Union had given representation dated 22/5/2003 (Ex.WW1/3) to M/s Indian Oil Corporation as well

M/s Teleclean Corporation with the request not to change the service conditions of the workmen. It is evident from the

receipts Ex.WW1/M-1 to Ex.WW10/M-1 that M/s Teleclean Corporation had discharged the claimants from services

w.e.f. 1/6/2003. There is nothing on record to show that the Management No.2 had paid wages for one month to the

workmen and had sought approval of the Court/Tribunal for their discharge. Therefore, it emerges that Management

No.2 M/s Teleclean Corporation contravened the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Even if it is presumed for

the sake of arguments that no effective proceedings were pending against M/s Teleclean Corporation because in the

proceedings under Section 10 of the Act no relief was virtually sought by the claimants against M/s Teleclean

Corporation, in that eventuality also the said firm M/s Teleclean Corporation being employer of the claimants herein was

under legal obligation to give one month’s notice to the claimants or in lieu thereof to pay notice pay/compensation in

terms of Section 25-F of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here 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 their termination. As such, the

Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16.

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.

17.

Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management No.2 to the workmen

at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to her, as such action of the Management

No.2 in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 1/6/2003 is held to be illegal and void.

18.

Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back

wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is pertinent to mention here that neither in the instant

case nor in the reference case, the claimants/workmen have pleaded or proved that they are not gainfully employed. 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 :

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

6688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead

cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages

equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled

law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive

averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact.

Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically

plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially

similar emoluments.”

Since the claimants have neither pleaded nor proved on record that they are not gainfully employed since after their

discharge/termination of services, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the claimants are not entitled to reinstatement

into service. To my mind, ends of justice will meet if lumpsum compensation is awarded to the claimants for wrongful

termination by their employer M/s Teleclean Corporation. Although the workmen have not disclosed or proved as to

what was their last drawn wages, yet considering the fact that gratuity amount ranging from Rs.15462 to Rs.23192/- was

paid to the claimants/workmen vide receipts Ex.WW1/M-1 to Ex.WW10/M-1, this Tribunal considers it expedient in the

interest of justice to award lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the claimants which shall be paid by

M/s. Teleclean Corporation for wrongful termination of the workmen. These issues are decided accordingly.

Relief :-

19.

As a corollary to the discussion made hereinabove, the workmen/claimants herein are awarded lumpsum

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each to the workmen/claimants, which amount shall be paid by

M/s. Teleclean Corporation within one month from the date of publication of the award, failing which the workmen will

be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of publication of the award till realization.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated : 26.8.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 3 िसतW बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1647

1647

1647.—औ˜ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म3 के+,ीय सरकार

िनyद@ औ˜ोिगक िववाद म3 के+,ीय सरकार औ˜ोिगक अिधकरण एवं Vम +यायालय-1, नई द ली के पंचाट

(संदभ संgया 221/2011) को !कािशत करती है जो के+,ीय सरकार को 03.09.2019 को !ा; )आ था।

[सं. एल-30011/44/2010-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd September, 2019

S.O. 1647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 221/2011) 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. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 03.09.2019.

[No. L-30011/44/2010-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6689

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, NEW DELHI

ID No. 221/2011 (Old No. 88/2000)

Shri Narayan Singh and 10 other workers,

Represented by

The President, Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union,

E-26 (old Quarters), Raja Bazar,

Baba Kharak Singh Marg,

New Delhi 110001.

…Workmen

Versus

The Chairman,

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Scope Complex, 427 Institutional Area,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.

Shri R.B. Ranjit,

Proprietor

M/s. Teleclean Corporation,

Contractor, C-66 Ramesh Nagar,

New Delhi.

…Management

AWARD

This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide

its letter No.L-30011/44/2010-IR(Misc.) dated 12.08.2000 followed by corrigendum letter bearing even number & dated

13/10/2000, 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 demand of the Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union in respect of 11 workers engaged (as per

details shown in Annexure-A) through M/s Telecom Corporation, contractors, in the establishment of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., for contract work of sweeping from the period as shown against their names for employment

and regularization in service with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Scope Complex, 127 Institutional Area, Lodi

Road, New Delhi, being the principal employer, is justified and valid and legal ? If yes, then to what benefit and

relief, they are entitled to ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimants/workmen Narayan Singh and 10 others filed a joint statement

of claim, with the averments that Management No.1 M/s Indian Oil Corporation has engaged workmen herein through

the Management No.2 (contractor) for sweeping the building of Indian Oil Corporation. It is pleaded that in the

annexure-A sent alongwith the reference, date of joining of the workmen is as per list submitted by Management

No.2/contractor before the Conciliation Officer, whereas some of the workmen connected with the dispute have been

performing their duties since 1984 when the office of Management No.1 was located at Janpath and The

particulars/details of the workmen are given hereunder :-

Sl.No.

Name of the workmen

Designation

Date of Joining

(as per Annexure-

Date

Engagement

per claim of the

workmen

Narayan Singh

Sweeper

23/2/1988

1/2/1984

Balbir Singh

Sweeper

1/1/1988

29/12/86

Kunwar Pal Singh

Sweeper

1/1/1988

14/7/87

Bangali

Sweeper

1/1/1988

29/12/87

Trushan Pal

Sweeper

2/2/1993

1/1/89

Biru

Sweeper

1/1/1991

1/1/1990

6690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Suresh Chand

Sweeper

2/8/91

24/12/1990

Om Prakash

Sweeper

25/1/92

24/12/1990

Inder Pal

Sweeper

1/2/92

5/1/90

10.

Chander Pal

Sweeper

1/2/93

1/9/93

11.

S. Dass

Sweeper

1/10/90

26/11/90

It is pleaded that though the workmen have been continuously performing the duties of sweeping of IOC building

through Management No.2/contractor but have been getting only the wages fixed for unskilled workmen, whereas the

directly employed sweepers are getting higher wages/pay in regular pay-scale and thus, there was exploitation of the

workmen. It is also pleaded that the Ministry of Labour vide notification dated 9/12/1976 prohibited the employment of

contract labour w.e.f. 1/3/1977 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watch & ward of buildings owned or occupied by the

establishment of the Central Government. Management No.1 IOC is wholly financed by the Central Govt. and as such

the aforesaid notification was applicable to it. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India

Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour & others, LLJ (I) 1997 1113, all the workmen connected with the dispute

are the direct employees of IOC as the management No.2/contractor was performing his duty for supply of the workforce

to the Management No.1 for sweeping work of its establishment. The work of sweeping in the building of Management

No.1 is of perennial nature. Management No.1 being the principal employer willfully and deliberately engaged contract

labour to deny the fruits and benefits as that of regular workmen and thus indulged in unfair labour practice. As such the

workmen herein are entitled to be regularized in the time scale of group-D employees. Prayer has been made that

services of all the 11 workmen connected with the dispute be ordered to be regularized in the establishment of

Management No.1 and they be paid pay & allowances as being paid to regular Group-D employees of IOC.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management No.1/IOC who filed its written statement and took

preliminary objections that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties, as employer in

relation to the workmen concerned is M/s Teleclean Corporation who appointed and employed the workmen and

exercised regular control & supervision over the manner of working of the concerned workmen. While denying the

allegations of the claimants/workmen, it has been stated that notification dated 9/.12/1976 is not applicable to IOC which

was issued after a study of particular establishment but the said study was not conducted either prior to after notifcfation

dated 9/12/1976 for the establishment of IOC. It is also alleged that the work of cleaning in Scope Building of IOC is not

perennial and does not require full time workmen, as the maintenance job at Scope Bui8lding is performed largely with

the help of automatic equipment and machines requiring of special skil and experience. Since wages are paid by

M/s. Teleclean Corporation to its workman at per its own criteria, no parity of wages can be made between the regular

employees of Management No.1 and employees of Management No.2. Prayer has been made for rejection of the claim

petition.

Management No. 2 M/s. Teleclean Corporation also filed its written statement and took preliminary objections

that the Teleclean Corporation is duly registered and have obtained proper licence to carry out the activities of

housekeeping and cleaning services. It was engaged to provide cleaning and upkeep services in the office premises of

IOC and the workmen/claimants are the employees of Teleclean Corporation and they were engaged from time to time.

The Management No.2./contractor is meeting all legal requirements and paying the workmen all the dues/benefits and

there is no dispute about it. The workmen has now raised a demand for regularization with the Indian Oil Corporation,

though IOC had no legal obligation to regularize their serviceds. It has been stated that the workmen herein are the direct

employees of M/s Teleclean Corporation and they are paid all the dues including PF, ESI, Bonus, gratuity, weekly off

days and all holidays. Prayer has been made fo rejection of the claim petition outrightly.

Rejoinder/s were filed on behalf of the workmen, whereby averments made in the claim petition were reiterated

and the allegations made out in the written statements of the Managements were denied.

At the outset I may mention that during pendency of the proceedings two workmen/claimants namely Balbir

Singh and Kunwar Pal Singh expired and their legal heirs have been brought on record and amended memo of parties

dated 27/3/2017 has been filed on record.

The Claimants in support of their case examined some of the workmen as WW1 to WW5 who filed their

affidavits Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW5/A besides examining Shri B.K.Prasad, President of the Union as WW6 regarding

espousing the cause of the claimants vide espousal certificate Ex.WW6/2. On the other hand, Management No.1/Indian

Oil Corporation examined Shri Vivek Narain , Senior Manager as WW1 and Shri Rajesh B. Antapurkar, Deputy General

Manager (Projects) as WW2. However, Management No.2 did not examine any witness.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6691

I have heard Shri B.K.Prasad, A/R for the claimants and Shri Vinay Sabharwal, A/R for the Management No.1

and have gone through the records carefully.

Learned A/R appearing on behalf of the Claimants strenuously argued that since the workmen/claimants were

performing duties of sweeping of IOC Building through the contractor despite prohibition vide notification dated

9/12/1976 issued by the Govt. of India, the claimants became the employees of the principal employer viz. Indian Oil

Corporation and as such, the claimants are entitled to get benefit of regularization of their services under the principal

employer.

10.

Per contra, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Management No. 1 strongly contended that there is no

relationship of employer and employee between the Management inasmuch as the workmen/claimants were never

employed by Indian Oil Corporation, rather it was M/s Teleclean Corporation who was the employer of the claimants and

was having direct control & supervision over the work performed by the claimants. M/s. Teleclean Corporation used to

pay wages and other benefits to the claimants and as such, there does not exist any relationship of employer & employee

between the claimants and Indian Oil Corporation and consequently, the claim of the claimants regarding regularization

of their services in Indian Oil Corporation is misconceived and untenable. It was also contended that onus is also upon

the claimant to prove that they were in the employment of Management No.1.

11.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant/workman was in the employment

of Management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his

employment with the Management concerned. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days

or record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240

days or more in a Calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran

Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai

Meghajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.

12.

This Tribunal has to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record so as to decide the

question of relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the claimants herein. The affidavit

Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW6/A filed by the claimant are in line with the averments made in the claim petition. As per the

pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the claimants were engaged by Shri R.B. Ranjeet,

Properietor/owner of Management No. 2 M/s. Teleclean Corporation, whereas they worked as Sweeper in the office of

the Management No.1 Indian Oil Corporation. In cross-examination conducted on behalf of the Management No.1, the

claimant/workman WW1 to WW 6 admitted that Shri R.B. Ranjeet used to make payment of wages to the workers

WW3 Shri Bengali has admitted in his cross examination that there was only one supervisor of respondent No.2 and his

name was Arun who used to take work at the spot. WW4 Tursan Pal clarified that R.B.Ranjeet (contractor) used to

disburse wages personally. WW4 Shri Balbir Singh-workman also admitted that wages used to be paid/disbursed by

Ranjit (contractor) as per attendance of the workers i.e. according to the number of days for which each worker worked.

According to him, Mr. Arun who was son in law of Ranjit (contractor) used to look after the work occasionally and used

to mark attendance of the workers.

13.

The claimants have not filed on record any document to show that they were directly employed by Management

No.1. It is manifest from their testimony that they were employed & engaged by the contractor namely Shri R.B.

Ranjeet, Prop./owner of M/s Teleclean Corporation – Management No.2 and the said contractor used to pay wages to

them as per attendance and further that, the said contractor through its supervisor Mr. Arun was having supervision over

the work of the workers/claimants, though they were doing the work of sweeping in the premises of Management No.1

Indian Oil Corporation. MW2 Shri Rajesh B. Antapurkar has testified in his testimony that there has been prescribed

procedure for award of civil maintenance contracts for which tenders are invited from eligible parties in sealed covered

and thereafter the Tendering Committee would evaluate such tenders for award of contract/s. He testified that contract

was awarded to M/s Teleclean Corporation on 31/3/2000 for civil maintenance work and such work was supervised by

the supervisor of the contractor. In cross examination he showed his ignorance if the contractor was duly licenced but

denied the suggestion that contract awarded to the contractor was sham and camouflage.

14.

From the above evidence adduced on record it is evident that it was the Management No. 2 who used to pay

salary/wages to the claimants. Supervision over the work of the claimants/workmen was also that of Management No.2.

Once the salary/wages to the claimants were paid by Management No.2 and the said firm was having control/supervision

over the work of the claimants, there existed relationship of employee-employer between the claimants and Management

No.2.

15.

It would not be out of place to mention here that the claimants/workmen also filed an application under Section

33-A of the Act (registered as ID No.124/2013) claiming that during pendency of the aforesaid reference, their services

have been terminated w.e.f. 1/6/2003 by the Management of Indian Oil Corporation and they prayed for reinstatement in

service w.e.f. 1/6/2003. In that case also, evidence was adduced on behalf of the parties and the documents Ex.WW1/M-

1 to WW10/M-1 which are the copies of the receipt/s of payment from M/s Teleclean Corporation in full & final

6692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

settlement of their claims pursuant to the notice issued by the said firm/Management. It has been clearly mentioned in

the said receipts that no claim/dispute remains against the Management of Teleclean Corporation and that the

claimants/workmen will not make any demand of employment. These receipts are dated 4/6/2003. It emerges from the

perusal of the receipts Ex.WW1/M-1 to Ex.WW10/M-1 that services of the claimants/workmen were terminated by the

contractor M/s. Teleclean Corporation after making full & final payments to the workmen. Once the services of the

claimants were terminated by the contractor in whose favour contract/agreement regarding housekeeping and cleaning of

the building of Indian Oil Corporation was executed and the claimants have received full and final payments from the

said Contractor, now it does not lie in the mouth of the claimants/workmen to allege that Management of Indian Oil

Corporation was responsible for termination of their services or that there existed relationship of employer-employee/s

between the Management of Indian Oil Corporation and the claimants herein. It is, therefore, held that there does not

exist relationship of employer-employee between the Management of Indian Oil Corporation and the claimants/workmen

herein.

15 .

It is not the case of the claimants that the agreement/contract executed between the Management No.1 and 2 was

sham or bogus. However, A/R for the claimant strongly contended that since the contractor pursuant to the

contract/agreement, simply supplied manpower to the Management of Indian Oil Corporation for sweeping of its

building, prime control and supervision over the work of the claimants was that of the principal employer and hence, the

claimants/workmen became employees of the principal employer. I am not in agreement with the submission of learned

A/R for the claimants, inasmuch as it is fairly settled that if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily the labour

supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that

would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor. The control

test and organization test are not the only factors which can be said to be decisive. With a view to elicit the answer, the

Court/Tribunal is required to consider several factors vis-a-vis- who is the appointing authority, who is a paymaster, who

can dismiss; how long alternative service lasts, the extent & control of supervision; the nature of the job – professional or

skilled work etc. etc, which would have a bearing on the result. Reference in this respect may be made to a number of

judgements viz. Workman Vs. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547; Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union

Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd;(2005) SCC 51; Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd (2014) 9 SCC 407; Ram

Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2004) 1 SCC 126; Workman of Nilgiri Coop Marketing Society Vs. State

of Tamilnadu (2004) 3 SCC 4514; Union of India and another Vs. Aryulmozhi Iniarasu and others (2011)

9 SCR 1.

15.

Since M/s. Teleclean Corporation was the appointing authority of the claimants herein besides that the said

contractor was paymaster & having control of supervision and the said firm/contractor after termination of their services

had made payment to the claimants in full & final settlement of their claims as per documents Ex.WW1/M-1 to

Ex.WW10/M-1 (filed in the connected case ID No.124/2013) , this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that relationship of

employee-employer existed between the claimants and Management No.2 only and that the workmen were simply

working as Sweeper/s through Management No.2 in the premises of the Management No.1.

16.

It was contended on behalf of the claimants/workmen that since the Govt. of India vide notification dated

9/12/1976 had prohibited employment of contract labour w.e.f. 1/3/1977 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watch &

ward of buildings owned or occupied by the establishment of the Central Government, all the workmen engaged by

Management No.1 IOC ( a wholly financed by the Central Govt. ) became the direct employees of IOC, in view of the

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour & others, LLJ

(I) 1997 1113. In this respect, it is worthwhile to mention here that in a celebrated case titled as Steel Authority of

India Ltd. and others Versus National Union Water Front Workers and others (decided on 30/8/2001) AIR 2001

SC 3527, following important points/issues arose for determination:-

Whether the notification dated December 9, 1976 issued by the Central Government under Section 10(1) of

the CLRA Act is valid and applies to all Central Government companies; and

Whether automatic absorption of contract labour, working in the establishment of the principal employer as

regular employees, follows on issuance of a valid notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act,

prohibiting the contract labour in the concerned establishment.

After referring to the aforesaid notification dated 9/12/1976, Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in

relation to point/issue No.1 above, in para 52 as under :-

“A glance through the said notification, makes it manifest that with effect from March 1, 1977, it prohibits

employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by

establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government.

This clearly indicates that the Central Government had not adverted to any of the essentials, referred to above,

except the requirement of consultation with the Central Authority Board. Consideration of the factors

mentioned above has to be in respect of each establishment, whether individually or collectively, in respect of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6693

which notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10 is proposed to be issued. The impugned notification

apart from being an omnibus notification does not reveal compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 10.

This is ex-facie contrary to the postulates of Section 10 of the Act. Besides, it also exhibits non-application

of mind by the Central Government. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the said impugned notification

dated December 9, 1976 issued by the Central Government.

As regards aforesaid point/issue No.2 relating to automatic absorpotion of the contractual workers by the principal

employer, which was a very moot point/issue, their lordships of the Apex Court after marathon debate on the point and

quashing the notification dated 9/12/1976 prospectively, held in para 122 as under :-

“(1) to (3)………………..

(3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act, nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary

implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate

Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour; in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment, Consequently, the principal employer can not be required

to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment.

(4) We overrule the judgement of this Court in Air India’s case (supra) prospectively and declare that any

direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any Court including High Court, for absorption of contract

labour following the judgement in Air India’s case (supra), shall hold good and that the same shall not be set

aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgement in cases where such a direction has been given effect

to and it has become final.

(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in an Industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to the

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment

or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/

camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit

there-under. If the contract is found to be genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will

have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of

the contract labour in the concerned establishment, subject to conditions as may be specified by it for that

purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder :

(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act in

respect of concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment

of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process,

operation or other work of the establishment, the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he

shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and if necessary, by relaxing

the conditions as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time

of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications

other than technical qualifications.’’

As mentioned above, notification dated 9/12/1976 issued by the Appropriate Government, which has been much relied

upon by the claimants stands quashed vide judgedment dated 30/8/2001 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the

judgement in the case of Air India (supra) which was heavily relied upon by the claimants/workmen, stands over-ruled

prospectively. It is reiterated that the claimants/workmen have neither pleaded nor proved that the contract/agreement

between the Management of Indian Oil Corporation and the contractor M/s Teleclean Corporation was a sham or

camouflage.

I have already held that there existed no relationship of employer-employee between the Management of Indian Oil

Corporation and the claimants/workmen herein.

17.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that

the demand of the workmen/claimants for regularization in service with Management of Indian Oil Corporation is

neither justified nor valid.

6694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Relief :-

18.

As a corollary to the above discussion, it is held that the claimants are not entitled to any relief whatsoever and

accordingly the claim petition deserves dismissal. Award is passed accordingly.

Dated : 26.8.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1648-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSa-

pSUubZ dUVsuj VfeZuy izk- fy- ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-09-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&33011@04@2018&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2019

S.O. 1648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Chennai Container

Terminal Pvt. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.09.2019.

[No. L-33011/04/2018-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 20/2018____________

Thursday, the 30^th May, 2019

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

Chennai Container Employees Welfare Union,

Lakshmi Amman Nagar

Chennai-600118

…1^st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

The Chief Executive Officer

M/s. Chennai Container Terminal (P) Ltd.

Chennai-600001

…2^nd Party/Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union : Sri B. Suresh Kumar, General Secretary

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent : Mr. X. Jose Anand, Asstt. Manager-Industrial Relations, Authorized Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-33011/04/2018-IR(B.II)

dated 06.11.2018 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 7] 2019@Hkknz 16] 1941

6695

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the demand of the Chennai Port Container Terminal Employees’ Welfare Union on the management

of Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. for increase in wages over and above what has been offered by the

management is justified or not? If so, what relief are the workmen entitled to?”

On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the same is registered as ID No. 20/2018.

Notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance. The Petitioner/First Party, the General Secretary, Chennai

Container Terminal Employees Welfare Union (in short “Union”) and the Respondent/Second Party, M/s Chennai

Container Terminal (P) Ltd. entered appearance through its Authorized Representative on dtd. 18.12.2018..

The Authorised Representative of the Union – the First Party , the General Secretary and all the other

Representatives of the Union, the CEO and all other Management Representatives (8 in Nos.) file a joint memo on the

very date of their appearance, to the effect that the Industrial Dispute as per the reference made by the Appropriate

Government has been settled between them. It is further submitted both parties entered into a settlement of their dispute

by executing a Memorandum of Settlement on dated 27.08.2018 under Section 12(3) of the ID Act. The joint memo is

supported with the copy of the Memorandum of Settlement. Both the parties accordingly made prayer to this Tribunal to

pass an Award on the ground of the settlement of the dispute by out of the Court.

In view of the submission of the Authorised Representative of both parties, the documents on record are

perused. The Memorandum of Settlement being a part of record is taken into judicial note. It appears that prior to

06.11.2018 (the date of reference), both parties tried their level best and settled the dispute at their end before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Chennai on 27.08.2018 by entering into a Memorandum of Settlement. It reveals

from the Memorandum of Settlement, that the members of both parties being agreed to the terms and conditions of the

settlement, lend their respective signatures on the Memorandum before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on

27.08.2018. It further appears that the Memorandum of Settlement is an outcome of the voluntary agreement in between

the parties to the terms and conditions reflected therein.

As such it is found that the reference was received from the appropriate Government only after when the

Industrial Dispute was already resolved by way of settlement between the parties. Taking into consideration of the above

fact, the submission of both parties got sufficient force to dispose of the instant case as there exists no dispute for

adjudication. The memoradum of settlment form a part of the award.

The reference is answered accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 30^th May, 2019)

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

_______________Nil___________________________

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

_______________Nil___________________________

ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 1649-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSa-

pSUubZ dUVsuj VfeZuy izk- fy- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

6696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 7, 2019/BHADRA 16, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2018½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-09-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&33011@03@2018&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 4^th September, 2019

S.O. 1649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Chennai Container

Terminal Pvt. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.09.2019.

[No. L-33011/03/2018-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M., Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 19/2018____________

Thursday, the 30^th May, 2019

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

Chennai Container Employees Welfare Union,

Royapuram

Chennai-600013

1^st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

The Chief Executive Officer

M/s. Chennai Container Terminal (P) Ltd.

Chennai-600001

2^nd Party/Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union : Sri B. Suresh Kumar, General Secretary

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent : Mr. X. Jose Anand, Asstt. Manager-Industrial Relations, Authorized Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-33011/03/2018-IR(B.II)

dated 05.11.2018 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the demand of the Chennai Container Terminal Employees’ Union for increase in wages over and

above what has been offered by the management is justified or not? If not, what relief are the workmen entitled

to?”

On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the same is registered as ID No. 19/2018.

Notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance. The Petitioner/First Party, the General Secretary, Chennai

Container Employees Welfare Union (in short “Union”) and the Respondent/Second Party, M/s Chennai Container

Terminal (P) Ltd. entered appearance through its Authorized Representative on dtd. 18.12.2018.

The Authorized Representative of the Union – the First Party , the General Secretary and all the other

Representatives of the Union, the CEO and all other Management Representatives (8 in Nos.) file a joint memo to the

effect that the Industrial Dispute as per the reference made by the Appropriate Government has been settled between

them. It is further submitted both parties entered into a settlement of their dispute by executing a Memorandum of

Settlement on dated 27.08.2018 under Section 12(3) of the ID Act. The joint memo is supported with the copy of the